Titles of the Belgian Royal Family 1: Ending Aug.2023

[Prinsara]

But Lorenz is a Royal, a Habsburg, whereas William is a commoner.

I don't think that matters as much as Astrid was the King's niece at the time, but unlike Maria Laura, likely to become the King's daughter and rise in succession. Besides, Lorenz had his own title already.

 

[Biri]

I don't think that matters as much as Astrid was the King's niece at the time, but unlike Maria Laura, likely to become the King's daughter and rise in succession. Besides, Lorenz had his own title already.

Only commoner male spouse of the Princess who was raised to the rank of the Prince is Daniel Westling - just because Victoria was a Crown Princess.

And Daniel is not a Crown Prince of Sweden, he is just Prince Daniel, Duke of Vastergotland (Victoria's collateral title).

The same will be with potential husbands of the Duchess of Brabant and other female heirs.

 

[Prinsara]

Only commoner male spouse of the Princess who was raised to the rank of the Prince is Daniel Westling - just because Victoria was a Crown Princess.

And Daniel is not a Crown Prince of Sweden, he is just Prince Daniel, Duke of Vastergotland (Victoria's collateral title).

The same will be with potential husbands of the Duchess of Brabant and other female heirs.

At the time, both her brothers were unmarried and remained so for years after her wedding, so the only one with potential for continuing the succession was Astrid. It's really not an equivalent situation to her daughter.

I know Tatiana Maria is not pleased Laura is being treated differently than her brother, but it's worth remembering why their mother was treated unusually to begin with.

I would say like it's highly likely at least one of the male consorts will end up being "Prince Consort", not just Prince. Maybe even Elisabeth's.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

What title will Princess Elizabeth's future husband have?

Will Princess Eléonore's future husband have the title of prince or another title?

I doubt that Eleonore’s husband will have a title.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

As I predicted, King Philippe did not accord a courtesy title to William Isvy, in contrast to the courtesy Princess title he allowed to Elisabetta Rosboch von Wolkenstein. The messages posted on the official social media of the Palace, congratulating the newlyweds on their marriage, referred to the groom as Mr. William Isvy.

Proficiat aan Prinses Maria Laura en dhr. William Isvy! Heel veel geluk toegewenst!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1568693191163138049

Félicitations à la Princesse Maria Laura et M. William Isvy ! Tous nos voeux de bonheur!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1568692938229829632

Although not a surprise, it is a shame that the King has rolled back the progress made in the previous generation, when the spouse of the King's daughter was, from 1995, treated the same as the spouse of the King's son in regard to titles.

What progress? What would be the reason for giving William a title? He doesn’t live in Belgium but in London where foreign titles aren’t recognized and he’s not going to be a working royal.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

As I predicted, King Philippe did not accord a courtesy title to William Isvy, in contrast to the courtesy Princess title he allowed to Elisabetta Rosboch von Wolkenstein. The messages posted on the official social media of the Palace, congratulating the newlyweds on their marriage, referred to the groom as Mr. William Isvy.

Proficiat aan Prinses Maria Laura en dhr. William Isvy! Heel veel geluk toegewenst!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1568693191163138049

Félicitations à la Princesse Maria Laura et M. William Isvy ! Tous nos voeux de bonheur!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1568692938229829632

Although not a surprise, it is a shame that the King has rolled back the progress made in the previous generation, when the spouse of the King's daughter was, from 1995, treated the same as the spouse of the King's son in regard to titles.

Plus Elisabetta’s are purely out of courtesy. She wasn’t called a Princess of Belgium.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I am fairly certain that there has been no official confirmation as to what future husbands of Princess Elisabeth (before she succeeds as Queen) or Princess Eléonore would be called.

What progress?

I believe my meaning was clear. Prinsara understood my post exactly.

Plus Elisabetta’s are purely out of courtesy. She wasn’t called a Princess of Belgium.

Which is precisely what I wrote in the posts to which you responded, and in a number of previous posts in this thread.

What would be the reason for giving William a title? He doesn’t live in Belgium but in London where foreign titles aren’t recognized and he’s not going to be a working royal.

Rhetorical question: What was the reason for giving Elisabetta a (courtesy) title? She doesn't live in Belgium but in Switzerland where noble titles aren't recognized and she wasn't and isn't a working royal.

I don't think that matters as much as Astrid was the King's niece at the time, but unlike Maria Laura, likely to become the King's daughter and rise in succession. Besides, Lorenz had his own title already.

Astrid had become the daughter of a king by the time her father Albert II created her husband Prince of Belgium in 1995. For some reason King Baudouin bestowed the title on her descendants, but not her husband.

Only commoner male spouse of the Princess who was raised to the rank of the Prince is Daniel Westling - just because Victoria was a Crown Princess.

Chris O'Neill, also a commoner, implied he had been offered the title of Prince when engaged to Princess Madeleine. https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...-and-changes-2019-a-20051-13.html#post2305095

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I am fairly certain that there has been no official confirmation as to what future husbands of Princess Elisabeth (before she succeeds as Queen) or Princess Eléonore would be called.




I believe my meaning was clear. Prinsara understood my post exactly.

No. I don’t understand. For one thing, Princess Astrid was the exception, not the rule and it was down to personal circumstances on whether Philippe would have children. Did previous generations of Belgian princesses share their titles with their spouses?

Which is precisely what I wrote in the post you read, and in a number of previous posts in this thread.




Rhetorical question: What was the reason for giving Elisabetta a (courtesy) title? She doesn't live in Belgium but in Switzerland where noble titles aren't recognized and she wasn't and isn't a working royal.

Astrid had become the daughter of a king by the time her father Albert II created her husband Prince of Belgium in 1995. For some reason King Baudouin bestowed the title on her descendants, but not her husband.




Chris O'Neill, also a commoner, implied he had been offered the title of Prince when engaged to Princess Madeleine.

But he declined it because it would affect his business dealings among other things. But that’s a different situation because Chris would be a working royal, but William won’t be. Plus he would have to take Swedish citizenship.


No. I don’t understand. For one thing, Princess Astrid was the exception, not the rule and it was down to personal circumstances on whether Philippe would have children. Did previous generations of Belgian princesses share their titles with their spouses?

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I think YOU know that answer. For one thing, Elisabetta isn’t a Princess of Belgium, but the courtesy title of her husband’s paternal family. A Habsburg courtesy title vs a Princess of Belgium title ( which is legally recognized). The situations aren’t comparable and you know it.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Please edit your post #578 so that your comments are not misrepresented as being mine.

(For those reading this discussion, SirGyamfi1 has typed some of his own comments into the quote of my post.)

The correct tags to use around each of my comments are [ Quote=Tatiana Maria;2507068 ] [my comments] [ /Quote ] (remove the spaces).

I have made the edit so no problem.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I have made the edit so no problem.

Thank you, but you missed your comment "No. I don’t understand. For one thing, Princess Astrid was the exception, not the rule and it was down to personal circumstances on whether Philippe would have children. Did previous generations of Belgian princesses share their titles with their spouses?" which is still included as if I had written it. Please edit that as well.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Thank you, but you missed your comment "No. I don’t understand. For one thing, Princess Astrid was the exception, not the rule and it was down to personal circumstances on whether Philippe would have children. Did previous generations of Belgian princesses share their titles with their spouses?" which is still included as if I had written it. Please edit that as well.

I have made the changes. Hope it’s fine.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

You've reposted your comment outside of the quote, but I am afraid it is still there within the quote. Please delete that as well.

If for some reason you are having difficulty doing that, try opening the post editor, replacing your entire post with the contents of the following text box, and removing the spaces in the quote tags.

[ QUOTE=Tatiana Maria;2507068]
I believe my meaning was clear. Prinsara understood my post exactly. [/QUOTE ]

No. I don’t understand. For one thing, Princess Astrid was the exception, not the rule and it was down to personal circumstances on whether Philippe would have children. Did previous generations of Belgian princesses share their titles with their spouses?

[ QUOTE=Tatiana Maria;2507068]
Rhetorical question: What was the reason for giving Elisabetta a (courtesy) title? She doesn't live in Belgium but in Switzerland where noble titles aren't recognized and she wasn't and isn't a working royal.[/QUOTE ]

I think YOU know that answer. For one thing, Elisabetta isn’t a Princess of Belgium, but the courtesy title of her husband’s paternal family. A Habsburg courtesy title vs a Princess of Belgium title ( which is legally recognized). The situations aren’t comparable and you know it.

[ QUOTE=Tatiana Maria;2507068]
Chris O'Neill, also a commoner, implied he had been offered the title of Prince when engaged to Princess Madeleine. https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...-and-changes-2019-a-20051-13.html#post2305095[/QUOTE ]

But he declined it because it would affect his business dealings among other things. But that’s a different situation because Chris would be a working royal, but William won’t be. Plus he would have to take Swedish citizenship.

 

[Prinsara]

But as Astrid's children and husband were given Belgian titles not from gender-equity purposes but more or less necessity, is it fair to call it progress when it happened by default? True progress requires something with an intent to continue.

 

[kimebear]

Given that Belgium has that unusual recent issue with titles, as we see with Princess Delphine and her children, it's a different game now. Granted, those titles were awarded by a court and not the monarch, but there is still an odd precedent set about who can carry them.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I am fairly certain that there has been no official confirmation as to what future husbands of Princess Elisabeth (before she succeeds as Queen) or Princess Eléonore would be called.




I believe my meaning was clear. Prinsara understood my post exactly.




Which is precisely what I wrote in the posts to which you responded, and in a number of previous posts in this thread.




Rhetorical question: What was the reason for giving Elisabetta a (courtesy) title? She doesn't live in Belgium but in Switzerland where noble titles aren't recognized and she wasn't and isn't a working royal.




Astrid had become the daughter of a king by the time her father Albert II created her husband Prince of Belgium in 1995. For some reason King Baudouin bestowed the title on her descendants, but not her husband.




Chris O'Neill, also a commoner, implied he had been offered the title of Prince when engaged to Princess Madeleine. https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...-and-changes-2019-a-20051-13.html#post2305095

To your first point, no I don’t understand. For one thing, Princess Astrid’s case was the exception, not the rule and it was down to personal circumstances on whether Philippe would have children. Did previous generations of Belgian princesses share their titles with their spouses? No. So there’s no real precedent for that.

Regarding Amedeo and Elisabetta, the Belgian court didn’t decree her a Princess of Belgium and Amedeo has no succession rights now. I think YOU know that answer. For one thing, Elisabetta isn’t a Princess of Belgium, but the courtesy title of her husband’s paternal family. A Habsburg courtesy title vs a Princess of Belgium title ( which is legally recognized). The situations aren’t comparable and you know it.

Sweden does what Sweden will do so it’s a different situation. Chris could have been a working with “real titles”, but he declined it because it would affect his business dealings among other things. But that’s a different situation because Chris would have been a working royal (which he isn’t), but William won’t be. Plus Chris would have to take Swedish citizenship. Astrid’s children were only given Prince/Princess of Belgium titles in case Philippe didn’t have children not because of equality, if Philippe had married much earlier, I doubt Archduke Lorenz would have been a Prince of Belgium, maybe he would have HSH Prince of Habsburg like some of his relatives who are part of the Belgian nobility.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Tatiana Maria I have made the changes.

 

[maria-olivia]

SirGyamfi1 , May I kindly suggest You the read the whole threads since the beginning.
Years ago the Board was more interesting . We were friends posting New Year, Easter Wishes . Our excellent Iceflower send Pictures .
At that time less twitter and facebook where the Royals with their own Glory
I must say indeed that in the past Royals were more conventionnel.
Who could imagine King Juan Carlos of Spain behaviour ??

 

[SirGyamfi1]

SirGyamfi1 , May I kindly suggest You the read the whole threads since the beginning.
Years ago the Board was more interesting . We were friends posting New Year, Easter Wishes . Our excellent Iceflower send Pictures .
At that time less twitter and facebook where the Royals with their own Glory
I must say indeed that in the past Royals were more conventionnel.
Who could imagine King Juan Carlos of Spain behaviour ??

I have done that. I wasn’t aware of the forums until 2022

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...]

I would say like it's highly likely at least one of the male consorts will end up being "Prince Consort", not just Prince. Maybe even Elisabeth's.

There are quite different views on the title of "Prince Consort":

At the eve of the Investiture of her daughter Queen Juliana, her mother Princess Wilhelmina of the Netherlands (the abdicated Queen) wrote a letter to her son-in-law Prince Bernhard.

In that letter Wilhelmina made clear how very pleased and proud she was that Bernhard became ZKH de Prins der Nederlanden indeed and not ZKH de Prins-gemaal (HRH The Prince Consort) because in her optic the last title only confirms "a dependant position".

Interestingly enough the late Prince Henrik of Denmark was exactly known as HKH Prinsen (HRH The Prince) and -after complaining about his position- ended as HKH Prinsgemalen (HRH The Prince Consort).... the total opposite view.

So there are different views on the phenomenon of the "Prince Consort" style. We will see how that works out with the future spouse of Princess Elisabeth. My guess is that he will be known as ZKH prins [.....] van België / SAR le prince [.....] de Belgique.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Tatiana Maria I have made the changes.

Thanks! I appreciate it.



To answer some of your earlier comments and questions about my comments specifically:

If you read through my previous post, you will see I quoted the specific comments which I was addressing, and I suggest bearing them in mind.

For example, when I mentioned Chris O'Neill, it had nothing to do with William Isvy or Belgian titles, as I was addressing the argument that King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden would not have elevated a male commoner (Daniel) to Prince rank if he (Daniel) had not married the Crown Princess. The fact that King Carl XVI Gustaf offered a princely title to Chris O'Neill, a male commoner who was not marrying the Crown Princess, weighs against that argument. (The offer being conditional on Chris O'Neill becoming a working royal and Swedish citizen did not matter for this particular point.)

I must also admit I am unclear on why you felt it was necessary to repeat that Elisabetta's title is a courtesy title. It seems you believe I or others are unaware of that fact, but as I mentioned, it is a point I have raised many times over (long-term readers of this forum are probably tired of the number of times I have repeated it ), and I also included it in my very latest post, so that new readers would also be made aware of it.

You say you do not understand what I meant by "the progress made in the previous [Astrid's] generation". As you yourself said: "Did previous generations of Belgian princesses share their titles with their spouses? No." But Astrid (since 1995) did, so naturally, that is the progress I was referring to, as that was the topic of my post. (Obviously, those who prefer discriminating between princes and princesses would not view it as progress, but equally obviously, I do not speak for them.)

If any of my points remain unclear, please do not hesitate to ask me for clarification.

I will respond later to comments on Belgian royal titles.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Thanks! I appreciate it.



To answer some of your earlier comments and questions about my comments specifically:

If you read through my previous post, you will see I quoted the specific comments which I was addressing, and I suggest bearing them in mind.

For example, when I mentioned Chris O'Neill, it had nothing to do with William Isvy or Belgian titles, as I was addressing the argument that King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden would not have elevated a male commoner (Daniel) to Prince rank if he (Daniel) had not married the Crown Princess. The fact that King Carl XVI Gustaf offered a princely title to Chris O'Neill, a male commoner who was not marrying the Crown Princess, weighs against that argument. (The offer being conditional on Chris O'Neill becoming a working royal and Swedish citizen did not matter for this particular point.)

I must also admit I am unclear on why you felt it was necessary to repeat that Elisabetta's title is a courtesy title. It seems you believe I or others are unaware of that fact, but as I mentioned, it is a point I have raised many times over (long-term readers of this forum are probably tired of the number of times I have repeated it ), and I also included it in my very latest post, so that new readers would also be made aware of it.

You say you do not understand what I meant by "the progress made in the previous [Astrid's] generation". As you yourself said: "Did previous generations of Belgian princesses share their titles with their spouses? No." But Astrid (since 1995) did, so naturally, that is the progress I was referring to, as that was the topic of my post. (Obviously, those who prefer discriminating between princes and princesses would not view it as progress, but equally obviously, I do not speak for them.)

If any of my points remain unclear, please do not hesitate to ask me for clarification.

I will respond later to comments on Belgian royal titles.

I get your argument about Chris O’Neill, but here’s the thing, Chris has American (along with British) citizenship and him taking on Swedish titles would affect his business dealings which is why he declined it. Some people have argued why should Madeleine have titles since she doesn’t live in Sweden full time and neither does Chris due to his career in his business.

I mention Elisabetta’s titles being courtesy because you try to put her and William Isvy in the same situation which they are not because the Habsburg titles are not transmitted to Princesses spouses. Secondly, I think the court only mentioned Elisabetta’s courtesy titles because of the old custom of women going by their husband’s titles. The husband of a Princess doesn’t take on her titles in most cases (bar Prince Lorenz because many years ago, the then heir, Prince Philippe didn’t have children and didn’t marry early and King Baudoin was afraid of Prince Laurent becoming King). If King Philippe married early like his sister, then Astrid’s children would not have the title Prince/Princess of Belgium or if the ever dutiful late King Baudoin and Queen Fabiola (may their souls Rest In Peace) had descendants (a son or two) (which was not their faults) then he wouldn’t have intervened for Princess Astrid.

Onto the “progress” part, I was being facetious. It’s not “real progress” if the title was given to Princess Astrid’s spouse out of dire necessity to prevent the leadership of the family and throne to end up in the hands of someone like Laurent. Again, if Philippe had married early and had children then this would have never happened. The exception was made for Princess Astrid out of necessity not because of so-called progress or equality. It can’t be used an excuse for a precedent for giving titles for untitled/non-noble spouses of Princesses when those Princesses aren’t the future of the monarchy (Princess Elisabeth, the future Queen will be in a different situation as she will be Head of state). As Maria-Olivia has said in some posts about Princess Astrid’s children, barely anyone in the Belgian public knows their children because they are mostly abroad and don’t do duties ,so what would be the point in giving titles to them? Since the King of the Belgians has heirs I don’t think the issue should continue.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Onto the “progress” part, I was being facetious. It’s not “real progress” [...]

However facetious you were being towards my post, I think it was clear what progress I was referring to, so I stand by it.

I must also admit I am unclear on why you felt it was necessary to repeat that Elisabetta's title is a courtesy title. It seems you believe I or others are unaware of that fact, but as I mentioned, it is a point I have raised many times over (long-term readers of this forum are probably tired of the number of times I have repeated it ), and I also included it in my very latest post, so that new readers would also be made aware of it.

I mention Elisabetta’s titles being courtesy because you try to put her and William Isvy in the same situation which they are not because the Habsburg titles are not transmitted to Princesses spouses.

I'm afraid I don't see how "you try to put her and William Isvy in the same situation" makes it necessary to repeat a point which I mentioned in the prior post, but never mind.

I am also not sure how you concluded that I was referring to Elisabetta's Habsburg courtesy titles. To be clear, none of my remarks in this conversation have mentioned or been intended to refer to Habsburg titles.

I get your argument about Chris O’Neill, but here’s the thing, Chris has American (along with British) citizenship and him taking on Swedish titles would affect his business dealings which is why he declined it. Some people have argued why should Madeleine have titles since she doesn’t live in Sweden full time and neither does Chris due to his career in his business.

Again, the only "argument" I made about Chris O'Neill was to point out that unlike Daniel Westling, he was not marrying a Swedish crown princess. If you are interested in discussing other Swedish title issues, such as his reasons for rejecting a title or whether the Swedish king was right to offer him a title, it would be better to move that discussion to the Swedish forum.

I hope this will serve to clarify my posts and allow us to return to the discussion of Belgian royal titles.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

However facetious you were being towards my post, I think it was clear what progress I was referring to, so I stand by it.






I'm afraid I don't see how "you try to put her and William Isvy in the same situation" makes it necessary to repeat a point which I mentioned in the prior post, but never mind.

I am also not sure how you concluded that I was referring to Elisabetta's Habsburg courtesy titles. To be clear, none of my remarks in this conversation have mentioned or been intended to refer to Habsburg titles.




Again, the only "argument" I made about Chris O'Neill was to point out that unlike Daniel Westling, he was not marrying a Swedish crown princess. If you are interested in discussing other Swedish title issues, such as his reasons for rejecting a title or whether the Swedish king was right to offer him a title, it would be better to move that discussion to the Swedish forum.

I hope this will serve to clarify my posts and allow us to return to the discussion of Belgian royal titles.

You can stand by your first point as much as you like but everyone knows that’s not progress but I digress. Plus Astrid’s situation was highlighted to justify for my explanations.

I am aware that it wasn’t the Habsburg titles you weren’t talking about, in the post as I also addressed the Belgian title. I’m simply saying there are no titles to share with spouses of junior princesses who won’t be head of state in Belgium overall. Untitled men don’t share their wives titles (bar Lorenz who has courtesy titles and shares his wife’s for special reasons). Plus the point was Elisabetta as a woman takes on the titles of her husband whereas William as man won’t take on his wife’s or be granted a courtesy title so their situations are different.

I already agree with you on O’Neill but he didn’t accept the titles for the reasons I mentioned. He would need Swedish citizenship to have those titles and he still doesn’t have it. But I understand what your argument to another poster.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Although not a surprise, it is a shame that the King has rolled back the progress made in the previous generation, when the spouse of the King's daughter was, from 1995, treated the same as the spouse of the King's son in regard to titles.

What progress?

Onto the “progress” part, I was being facetious.

However facetious you were being towards my post, I think it was clear what progress I was referring to, so I stand by it.

You can stand by your first point as much as you like but everyone knows that’s not progress

Further "facetiousness" will not change the facts of what happened in 1995 and is unlikely to change "everyone's" opinion on those facts (including mine and yours), so I suggest ceasing that particular line of attack (also in consideration of the forum rules).

I think YOU know that answer.

Of course, asking a rhetorical question (which I explicitly stated was a rhetorical question) implies I (think I) know the answer.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I have had some difficulty following your arguments because you seem to have changed your views about the King's reasoning for giving a courtesy title to Elisabetta but not to William, so I will address the proposed reasons one by one:

He doesn’t live in Belgium but in London where foreign titles aren’t recognized and he’s not going to be a working royal.

As Maria-Olivia has said in some posts about Princess Astrid’s children, barely anyone in the Belgian public knows their children because they are mostly abroad and don’t do duties ,so what would be the point in giving titles to them? Since the King of the Belgians has heirs I don’t think the issue should continue.

We can take for granted that William being a resident of a foreign country (where Belgian titles are not legally recognized), not being a working royal, or being unknown to the Belgian public are not King Philippe's reasons.

If King Philippe were opposed to using courtesy titles for foreign residents, for non-working royals, or for people unknown to the Belgian public, he would not have used one for Elisabetta, who lives in a foreign country (where Belgian titles are not legally recognized), is not a working royal, and is unknown to the Belgian public.

For one thing, Elisabetta isn’t a Princess of Belgium, but the courtesy title of her husband’s paternal family.

I mention Elisabetta’s titles being courtesy because you try to put her and William Isvy in the same situation which they are not because the Habsburg titles are not transmitted to Princesses spouses.

The King's usage of the courtesy title of Princess (not Princess of Belgium) to address Elisabetta is not related to her Habsburg courtesy titles. He uses exactly the same courtesy title for Léa, the widow of Prince Alexandre of Belgium.

https://www.monarchie.be/fr/agenda/...me-anniversaire-du-deces-de-sa-majeste-le-roi

I’m simply saying there are no titles to share with spouses of junior princesses who won’t be head of state in Belgium overall. Untitled men don’t share their wives titles

If I am correctly interpreting this comment, the suggestion is that King Philippe does not have the legal authority to confer a courtesy title on a husband when it would go against custom. But I think we can safely say that is not true.

The King already has the undisputed constitutional authority to confer a legal title on a man, even when it goes against custom (e.g. Lorenz), so his authority over legally meaningless courtesy titles at court is even more certain.

Secondly, I think the court only mentioned Elisabetta’s courtesy titles because of the old custom of women going by their husband’s titles. The husband of a Princess doesn’t take on her titles in most cases [...] Elisabetta as a woman takes on the titles of her husband whereas William as man won’t take on his wife’s or be granted a courtesy title so their situations are different.

In my opinion, this - the fact that Amedeo is a man married to a woman, while Maria Laura is a woman – is the only reason why King Philippe has chosen to treat their spouses unequally in terms of courtesy titles. Apart from their gender, I see no other differences between Amedeo and Maria Laura's situations, or Elisabetta Maria and William's situations, which would make a meaningful difference to the King.

Amedeo has no succession rights now.

According to the King, Amedeo has succession rights as he granted retroactive approval of Amedeo's marriage. (Of course the legal validity of that decree is questionable, but that is the official position.)

https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/c...te=2015-11-24&numac=2015021074&caller=summary

 

[Prinsara]

In my opinion, this - the fact that Amedeo is a man married to a woman, while Maria Laura is a woman – is the only reason why King Philippe has chosen to treat their spouses unequally in terms of courtesy titles. Apart from their gender, I see no other differences between Amedeo and Maria Laura's situations, or Elisabetta Maria and William's situations, which would make a meaningful difference to the King.

But the appropriate analogy is not Laura and her brother, but Laura and her mother — both Begian royal women with vast differences in their situations, which would make a meaningful difference to the King.

In arguing with SirGyamfi you've also overlooked the point raised by myself and others that Astrid's family's Belgian titles were not given for gender equity purposes, and that without those specific abberances, there would be no reason to conclude Philippe would or should give a title to the spouse of a woman.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

But the appropriate analogy is not Laura and her brother, but Laura and her mother — both Begian royal women with vast differences in their situations, which would make a meaningful difference to the King.

I don't view the situations of Laura and her mother as analogous (and don't think the King would): Astrid is the child of a monarch, a working royal, and lives in Belgium, and likewise with her spouse (albeit the working royal status of Lorenz is mostly nominal nowadays); none of that applies to Laura or her spouse.

So for Laura's spouse being given a lower title (no title) than Astrid's spouse, there are perfectly rational justifications. If Laura herself had a lower title than her mother, it would still be consistent with the differences between their situations (see for instance the Netherlands, where Constantijn is a Prince of the Netherlands but his children are merely Countesses and Count of Orange-Nassau).

In contrast, the situations of Laura and her brother (and their spouses) are analogous (private citizens, children of a younger child of a monarch, etc.), so the only plausible explanation for the inequality in their spouses' courtesy titles is their gender.

In arguing with SirGyamfi you've also overlooked the point raised by myself and others that Astrid's family's Belgian titles were not given for gender equity purposes,

I haven't overlooked the point (or the points made by kimebear and Duc_et_Pair for that matter), but as it wasn't directly relevant to the points I was arguing I chose not to address it in the same posts. (It is not that clear-cut, and it would require more time and effort to address.)

and that without those specific abberances, there would be no reason to conclude Philippe would or should give a title to the spouse of a woman.

I'm not sure I'm understanding this last "should" point correctly (I don't think anyone has raised it previously). Is the argument that if there was no history of gender equity, then there would be no reason it should ever exist? If so, then no (traditional) form of inequity should ever be remedied.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

But the appropriate analogy is not Laura and her brother, but Laura and her mother — both Begian royal women with vast differences in their situations, which would make a meaningful difference to the King.

In arguing with SirGyamfi you've also overlooked the point raised by myself and others that Astrid's family's Belgian titles were not given for gender equity purposes, and that without those specific abberances, there would be no reason to conclude Philippe would or should give a title to the spouse of a woman.

Thank you for raising the point. I have mentioned this in some of my posts that it wasn’t about equality purposes but that seems to not matter to her.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thank you for raising the point. I have mentioned this in some of my posts that it wasn’t about equality purposes but that seems to not matter to her.

It seems you overlooked my response to Prinsara:

I haven't overlooked the point (or the points made by kimebear and Duc_et_Pair for that matter), but as it wasn't directly relevant to the points I was arguing I chose not to address it in the same posts. (It is not that clear-cut, and it would require more time and effort to address.)

I can assure you that I've made effort to read, endeavor to understand and where necessary address your points.