The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #441  
Old 10-08-2020, 05:52 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post


Thanks for elaborating. Now I understand what you mean.

Sorry, I think I am missing this difference between Articles 2 and 4. Can you elaborate?

But Article 2 does not say "every descendant in male or female line", or even "every child or grandchild in male or female line", so there is no difference there.
I've tried several times (see my previous references to subordinate phrases), not sure that I will succeed this time but will try again

You re right that it says 'children and grandchildren', however, the point was that article 2 DOES specify something, while article 4 does NOT specify anything.

Article 2 says 'children and grandchildren COMMA', there is no such specification in article 4 (it goes straight to descendants), so the specification that is included in article 2 which apparently is interpreted to clarify who they are talking about is missing in article 4. There is only one comma in article 4, while there are two in article 2 - which means the specification that is included in article 2 is NOT included in article 4. In my example I added a comparable specification to show how both articles could be similar in wording; however, because in reality there is no such specification in article 4 the only conclusion can be (imho) that the formulation is not exactly the same as article 2 but has a slightly but important different sentence structure.

However, I'm happy to reword:
Article 2. In the public and private acts relating to them, the Princes and the Princesses, children and grandchildren, born in direct descendance from His Majesty King Albert II carry the title of Prince or of Princess of Belgium following their forename, and, so far as they carry them, their family name and their dynastic title and ahead of the other titles to which their ancestry gives them the right. Their forename is preceded by the predicate His or Her Royal Highness.

would be comparable to

Article 4. The Princes and Princesses, children and grandchildren, born in direct descendance from His Majesty Leopold, George, Christian, Frederick of Saxe-Coburg, who are not covered by Articles 1 to 3, carry following their forename and, so far as they carry it, their family name, the titles to which their ancestry gives them the right.

but not to a phrase that does not include such additional phrase followed by a comma.

(However, the above wouldn't work because articles 1 to 3 cannot apply to any of them as none of his children or grandchildren are alive, that's why I used a different example that would be theoretically possible)

So, if we throw out all ballast from article 4 it reads:
The Princes and Princesses carry following their forename and their family name, the titles to which their ancestry gives them the right.

However, that would be a little hard to interpret, so they added to additional clauses to specify who they were talking about - and one more to recognize that not every prince or princess might have a family name.
The Princes and Princesses, born in direct descendance from His Majesty Leopold, George, Christian, Frederick of Saxe-Coburg, who are not covered by Articles 1 to 3, carry following their forename and, so far as they carry it, their family name, the titles to which their ancestry gives them the right.

It does specifically NOT read: the princes and princesses born in direct descendance... carry (as that comma after princes and princesses in this sentence structure indicates that that full phrase should be removed to simplify the sentence).

Hope this helps (and not further confuses )

Quote:
That was exactly my point: The Royal Decree was not (intended to be) about limiting the title of prince(ss) but about indicating who would and would not be prince(ss) of Belgium. (So, the Royal Decree did not affect Anna Astrid's entitlement to be a princess, only her entitlement to be a princess of Belgium.)
That's something we've agreed on from the start

The fact that this article is interpreted to indicate that Delphine and her children as children and grandchildren of Albert are princesses and prince of Belgium (which falls within the intention of the royal decree: to indicate who is a prince(ss) of Belgium) MAKES them prince and princess; not the other way around. This is not applicable to article 4 which doesn't confer the title of prince(ss) of Belgium (or any other title) on anyone.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #442  
Old 10-09-2020, 08:08 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: St Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
For the present, I have not read another interpretation which is capable of explaining why, for example, members of the royal family were styled Princes and Princesses before the decrees, or why the 1891 report stated what it did.
It can be even more intersesting to nete that before 1891 they were not only Princes and Princesses but alsa had style of HRH. And if one can say they were princes/ses of SCG, nobody can say they were SCG HRH because SCG were merely Highnesses.

I suppose it was just custom that children of king are princes/ses and HRH. I have read famous discussion in The Times in 1957 concerning princely title of the Duke of Edinburgh. He was named Prince Philip every time in media but was not prince. As result of discussion he was finally granted the title he really used for decade.

Look at page of Almanac de Gotha 1886. It was before 1891 decree but they all were princes/ses and Alt.Roy. Please note that this information was approved by the court. Thus in 1891 it was just transferred from custom into law.



And 1890:

__________________

Reply With Quote
  #443  
Old 10-09-2020, 09:07 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Durham, United States
Posts: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
By my understanding they bear the surname De Roumanie Medforth-Mills and prefer to be known as De Roumanie. . Nicholas is a Swiss-born son from British and Romanian parents, residing in Romania. No idea which passport he uses and how his surname is in it.
No, their legal surnames at birth did not include de Roumanie. How they may have used or represented the name since is a different matter. Nicholas's sister in particular is little interested and very low-key about her royal background. Her friends know her as Karina Medforth-Mills. Sorry, this is quite tangential to the topic here, but I was responding to a questionable comparison made above concerning double royal surnames.
Reply With Quote
  #444  
Old 07-06-2021, 07:54 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 7,797
If Princess Elisabeth marries a foreign Prince, does he automatically become HRH Prince of Belgium?

If Princess Elisabeth marries a foreign Prince, will he still not be considered a Prince because he was born a Prince?
Reply With Quote
  #445  
Old 07-07-2021, 09:33 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I've tried several times (see my previous references to subordinate phrases), not sure that I will succeed this time but will try again
Thank you for your detailed explanation. I still am not sure I have understood your arguments, but your patience is much appreciated.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
The fact that this article is interpreted to indicate that Delphine and her children as children and grandchildren of Albert are princesses and prince of Belgium [...]
Indeed, the court interpreted it in that manner. But I was not questioning the court's interpretation. I was questioning the interpretation of "royal experts" on social media who claimed that it was Delphine's right to become a princess of Belgium but also claimed that Delphine and Astrid had no right to pass titles on to their children/grandchildren.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Article 2 says 'children and grandchildren COMMA', there is no such specification in article 4 (it goes straight to descendants) [...] the formulation is not exactly the same as article 2 but has a slightly but important different sentence structure.
Yes, because Article 4 (no matter which interpretation one accepts) is not restricted by degree of kinship to children and grandchildren. Thus, there is no need for a clause in commas to specify the degree limitation.

I'm afraid I still do not see how the lack of a degree of kinship clause relates to the interpretation of whether or not Article 2/Article 4 applies the designation of "Prince or Princess" to every member of the class of descendants that is mentioned in that article (children and grandchildren of Albert II in Article 2; descendants of Leopold I in Article 4).

Hopefully, my point will be clearer if I adopt your excellent idea of color-coding to indicate the comparable parts of Article 2 and Article 4.

Article 2. In the public and private acts relating to them, the Princes and the Princesses, children and grandchildren, born in direct descendance from His Majesty King Albert II carry the title of Prince or of Princess of Belgium following their forename, and, so far as they carry them, their family name and their dynastic title and ahead of the other titles to which their ancestry gives them the right. Their forename is preceded by the predicate His or Her Royal Highness.

Article 4. The Princes and Princesses, born in direct descendance from His Majesty Leopold, George, Christian, Frederick of Saxe-Coburg, who are not covered by Articles 1 to 3, carry following their forename and, so far as they carry it, their family name, the titles to which their ancestry gives them the right.


The formulations in red are identical in Article 2 and Article 4.

The formulation in blue specifies a class of descendants.
Article 2: children and grandchildren of Albert II
Article 4: descendants of Leopold I who are not already covered by the preceding articles

The formulation in purple specifies what is to be "carried".
Article 2: ancestral titles, Prince/ss of Belgium, HRH, (optionally) family name, (optionally) dynastic title
Article 4: ancestral titles, (optionally) family name

If I understand your earlier explanations: The social media "experts" interpreted Article 2 by applying the formulation in purple to every member of the class in blue. According to this interpretation, Article 2 would confer HRH Prince/ss of Belgium and ancestral titles (the purple) on every child or grandchild of Albert II (the blue).

Then, if we are to interpret Article 4 consistently with that interpretation of Article 2, meaning by applying the formulation in purple to every member of the class in blue: Article 4 would be interpreted as conferring ancestral titles (the purple) on every descendant of Leopold I not already covered by other rules (the blue).

That is why the "experts"' interpretation of Articles 2 and 4 (specifically, that Delphine is entitled to be a princess but Delphine's children and Astrid's (grand)children are not) strikes me as inconsistent.
Reply With Quote
  #446  
Old 07-07-2021, 09:36 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
If Princess Elisabeth marries a foreign Prince, does he automatically become HRH Prince of Belgium?

No, he has to be created a Prince of Belgium in his own right by a separate royal decree. Since 1991, that requirement also applies to wives of Princes of Belgium.


Mathilde, Claire and Lorenz are all Princesses/Prince of Belgium in their own right.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
The fact that this article is interpreted to indicate that Delphine and her children as children and grandchildren of Albert are princesses and prince of Belgium (which falls within the intention of the royal decree: to indicate who is a prince(ss) of Belgium) MAKES them prince and princess; not the other way around. This is not applicable to article 4 which doesn't confer the title of prince(ss) of Belgium (or any other title) on anyone.

I think the intention of Arts. 1 and 2 in King Philippe's royal decree was pretty clear and the court interpreted it correctly: all children and grandchildren of King Albert II are to be Princes/Princesses of Belgium with the style of HRH. Delphine's or Astrid's grandchildren on the other hand are/will not be either HRHs or Princes/Princesses of Belgium as they are/will not be born as children or grandchildren of a king, or children or grandchildren of a Crown Prince.



The confusing part to me is whether Art.4 implies that all descendants of Leopold I are entitled to the prefix Prince/Princess even though they are neither HRHs nor Princes/Princesses of Belgium.



As of today, there are descendants of Leopold I who are not in the line of succession to the throne and do not use the prefix Prince/Princess, e.g. the descendants of Princess Marie-Esméralda. King Baudouin's 1991 decree included an article with similar wording to Art.4 in the new decree, but with an important difference that it explicitly applied only to descendants of Leopold I in male line. Has the titulaire of Princess Esméralda's children, or of her children's descendants born after the new decree came into force changed and can they now call themselves Prince/Princess? Maybe they should ask the courts to clarify that.
Reply With Quote
  #447  
Old 07-07-2021, 09:48 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
No, he has to be created a Prince of Belgium in his own right by a separate royal decree. Since 1991, that requirement also applies to wives of Princes of Belgium.

Mathilde, Claire and Lorenz are all Princesses/Prince of Belgium in their own right.
However, even in cases where a wife of a Prince of Belgium has not legally been created a Princess of Belgium, the Palace refers to her as a princess. At times the Palace uses the formulation "Princess Alexandre/Amedeo of Belgium" for such wives, and at other times "Princess Léa/Elisabetta" without the territorial designation.

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ml#post2340994

There is no comparable tradition of courtesy titles for husbands. Prior to his legal creation as Prince of Belgium, Princess Astrid's husband was referred to by the Palace as "Archduke Lorenz of Austria-Este".

I hope - but do not expect - that will change when the next generation of princesses marries.
Reply With Quote
  #448  
Old 07-07-2021, 10:10 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I think the intention of Arts. 1 and 2 in King Philippe's royal decree was pretty clear and the court interpreted it correctly: all children and grandchildren of King Albert II are to be Princes/Princesses of Belgium with the style of HRH. [...]

The confusing part to me is whether Art.4 implies that all descendants of Leopold I are entitled to the prefix Prince/Princess even though they are neither HRHs nor Princes/Princesses of Belgium.
As I discussed in detail in the post preceding yours, and in this earlier post, I believe that is the only interpretation of Article 4 which is consistent with the interpretation of Article 2 to mean "all children and grandchildren of King Albert II are to be Princes/Princesses of Belgium with the style of HRH".

Do you see another possible (consistent) interpretation?

I am fairly sure that this interpretation of Articles 2 and 4 was not the intention of King Philippe, but that is a different issue.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
King Baudouin's 1991 decree included an article with similar wording to Art.4 in the new decree, but with an important difference that it explicitly applied only to descendants of Leopold I in male line.
Could you cite the article? I do not see it.
Reply With Quote
  #449  
Old 07-07-2021, 10:47 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post

Could you cite the article? I do not see it.

Sorry, it was actually the decree of 14/3/1891, where it says:


Quote:

"Art. 1er. Dans les actes publics et privés qui les concernent, les princes et les princesses issus de la descendance masculine et directe de feu Sa Majesté Léopold Ier, seront qualifiés de princes et princesses de Belgique, à la suite de leurs prénoms et avant la mention de leur titre originaire de duc ou duchesse de Saxe.
Les princesses unies par mariage aux princes de notre maison royale seront qualifiées de la même manière à la suite des noms et titres qui leur sont propres.
That is to be read in conjunction with Art.3 of the 2015 decree, which kept the titles of Prince/Princess of Belgium and, presumably, of Duke/Duchess of Saxe for that same class of people (assuming they are still deemed entitled to the latter by virtue of their family origin).



Quote:
Art. 3. Les Princes et les Princesses qui portent le titre de Prince ou de Princesse de Belgique en vertu de l'arrêté royal du 14 mars 1891 qualifiant Princes et Princesses de Belgiqueles Princes et Princesses issus de la descendance masculine et directe de feu Sa Majesté Léopold Ier gardent ce titre à la suite de leur prénom et, pour autant qu'ils le portent, de leur nom de famille et avant les autres titres qui leur reviennent de droit par leur ascendance. Leur prénom est précédé par le prédicat Son Altesse Royale.
Art.1 of the 1991 decree was the first reference to descendants in female line as Prince/Princess, but it applied only to Prince Albert's descendants. Art.4 of the 2015 decree referred in turn to all descendants of Leopold I, including descendants in female line who do not descend from Albert II, as Prince/Princess, which is the confusing part.

Note that the royal decree of 1891, in conjuction with Art.3 of the royal decree of 2015, also guarantees that Queen Paola for example retains the title of Princess of Belgium, but the same doesn't apply to any woman married to a Prince of Belgium after 1991.
Reply With Quote
  #450  
Old 07-08-2021, 08:58 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
If Princess Elisabeth marries a foreign Prince, will he still not be considered a Prince because he was born a Prince?
I expect him to be titled as prince but probably not with the style (at least that is what happened to Lorenz if I am not mistaken; his HIIH wasn't recognized but him being an Archduke was); but he won't automatically be a prince of Belgium - but will most likely be made a prince of Belgium in his own right.
Reply With Quote
  #451  
Old 07-08-2021, 09:07 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,679
Might he not have to renounce a foreign title if he's the future consort?
Reply With Quote
  #452  
Old 07-08-2021, 10:33 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I expect him to be titled as prince but probably not with the style (at least that is what happened to Lorenz if I am not mistaken; his HIIH wasn't recognized but him being an Archduke was)
Lorenz's son, born before the abolition of Salic law in 1991, was styled as HIRH Prince Amedeo in his (Belgian) birth registration. I suppose his father's HIRH would likewise have been recognized in any Belgian documents where his name appeared.

After their creations as Princes and Princesses of Belgium, Lorenz and his children were recognized as HRH in Belgium and were styled as HRH Prince/Princess. Examples can be found in the court circular.


Note: I replied belatedly in post #445 to your thoughtful response to me regarding the royal experts on social media, although I admittedly still find it impossible to understand their logic.

If anyone should have further information on that issue, I remain very interested in hearing it. Making inconsistent statements on social media would be nothing abnormal in and of itself, but these comments were made by self-proclaimed experts.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
de belgique, prince of belgium, princess of belgium, surname, van belgië


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Titles of the Royal Family curious Royal Family of Spain 250 09-08-2021 07:29 PM
Royal Dukes, Royal Duchies and Royal Ducal Titles btsnyder British Royals 797 08-14-2021 01:19 PM
Titles, Surname and Protocols for the Royal Family Australian The Royal Family of Greece 446 12-28-2020 06:51 AM
Belgian Abdication & Installation: Changes in Titles, Dotation and the Court leidi Royal Family of Belgium 30 07-23-2013 06:07 PM
Historical/Substantive titles within the Belgian Royal Family LadyLeana Belgian Royal History 14 02-21-2009 06:25 AM




Popular Tags
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asia birth britain british british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker bowles china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation customs doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics gradenigo harry and meghan hello! henry viii history house of windsor japan japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos liechtenstein line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy nara period plantinum jubilee politics portugal prince harry prince of wales queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family state visit st edward sussex suthida thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:33 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×