Tatiana Maria
Majesty
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2013
- Messages
- 7,178
- City
- St Petersburg
- Country
- United States
With respect, 1870 appears to be a deflection. There exists -no legal bar- to Delphine and her kids becoming Prince / Princess of Belgium (Royal Highness) as of 1 October 2020.
You and others said that the Royal Decrees of 1891, 1991, and 2015 concerning the title of Prince/Princess of Belgium granted royal titles and styles.
The point I was making in response was that - going along with that interpretation - no person should have been entitled to Belgian royal titles and styles in 1870, since that was before the issue of the first "Prince/Princess of Belgium" decree in 1891.
I wrote an expanded explanation of the actual intentions of the 1891 decree and moved it to the thread for royal titles and styles, here:
[...] the 1891 Royal Decree was not meant to allow a future Delphine, or any other future descendant (legitimate or illegitimate), to be born as HRH Princess. Every single person ("direct male-line descendants from His late Majesty Leopold I") who was potentially impacted by the 1891 decree at the time the decree was issued already was HRH Princess or Prince (or HM King) by custom.
Article 1. In the public and private acts relating to them, the princes and the princesses born in direct male descendance from His late Majesty Leopold I will be referred to as princes and princesses of Belgium, following their first names and preceding the mention of their original title of duke or duchess of Saxony.
There is little point in guesswork about the intentions of the 1891 Royal Decree, because the report about the Royal Decree presented by the Government in 1891 makes the government's intentions plain and explicit:
[...] on ne les désigne que par leur prénom, mais à l'étranger, on qualifie nos princes et princesses du nom de la Belgique et tel est bien leur nom qui leur revient.
Nous avons la conviction, Sire, de répondre au vœu de tous, en soumettant à la signature royale un arrêté qui leur confère ce nom, [...]
Translation:
([...] we designate them solely by their forename, but in foreign countries, they refer to our princes and princesses by the name of Belgium, and indeed such is their name that they merit.
We are determined, Sir, to answer the wishes of all, by subjecting to the royal signature a decree which confers this name on them, [...])
So it was enacted not to make any person a prince or princess, but to officially confer the name (surname) "of Belgium" on those male-line descendants of Leopold I who were already, by custom, princes and princesses. It was the surname, not the title, that was transferred from custom into law by the 1891 Royal Decree.
https://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/royalbelge.htm#Belgique
The former lawyer and expert in Nobility, jonkheer Adolph Robert Phoenix Boddaert LL.M. summarized on the website of Adel in Nederland:
On October 1st, 2020, the Brussels' Court of Appeal issued a final judgment in the long-term proceedings of Delphine de Saxe-Cobourg (formerly Boël) against her father King Albert II.
Delphine's first claim was that King Albert was her father. After a DNA test showed that there was no doubt about this, in this appeal King Albert no longer defended himself against this claim. This claim was therefore honoured, without question by the Court.
Delphine also claimed for herself and for her children that they should be allowed to use the paternal surname de Saxe-Cobourg. This name was already borne by the first King of the Belgians. This claim was also honoured.
Finally Delphine claimed for herself and for her children the right to bear the title Prince (Princess) of Belgium and the predicate Royal Highness. She relied on article 2 of the Royal Decree of 12 November 2015. This article stipulates that the direct descendants of King Albert II may use this title. A special feature is that this right also belongs to descendants in the female lineage.
The King argued against this claim that this article would only apply to his descendants, who already had this title when the Royal Decree of 2015 came into effect, and to the descendants who were born afterwards. It would therefore not apply to persons who were already alive at that time, but only obtained the status of descendant afterwards.
The Court rejected this defense, partly because such an interpretation of the Royal Decree would be contrary to the principle of equality, described in articles 10 and 11 of the Belgian Constitution (comparable to article 1 of the Netherlands' Constitution). The Court therefore ruled that Delphine de Saxe-Cobourg and her children may use the title Prince (Princess) of Belgium and the predicate Royal Highness.
Bergen, October 5, 2020
Jonkheer Dolph Boddaert LL.M.
https://www.adelinnederland.nl/delphine-de-nieuwe-prinses-van-belgie/
Did the website of the Brussels Court of Appeals ever publish its ruling?
Quotes from the ruling, which back up and expand on Mr. Boddaert's piece, can be found in this article. I will try to provide a translation when I have more time.
https://www.justice-en-ligne.be/Delphine-de-Saxe-Cobourg-membre-de
Delpnine is the Princess of Belgien in accordance with decree 1891, not 1991 and not 2015:
Tatiana Maria, The succession law of King Baudouin the early 1990's gives Albert's descendants in male and female line the title and styles HRH Prince/Princess of Belgium
It were 1891 and 1991 decrees which not excluded borned out of wedlock and their issue. The court just use these decrees.
The information published about the court ruling (read the above articles) proves that was not the case. Delphine Boël applied for royal titles under the 2015 decree, not Leopold II's 1891 decree (which was replaced in 1991), nor Baudouin's 1991 decree (which was replaced in 2015), nor Baudouin's 1991 succession law (which says nothing about titles and styles, and therefore is irrelevant). The court awarded her the titles under the 2015 decree. It was as simple as that.
I'm sorry but Delphine and her kids became Prince/ss since their birthdays.
There was nothing in the Civil Code to allow for a recognition to be retroactive to one's birth, and absolutely nothing in any of the reports that would suggest that Delphine attempted a claim for an ultra vires retroactive application.
As for your claim that members of the Belgian royal family were not legally princes prior to 1891, and your statement that "Belgian nobiliary law is not the same as Belgian dynastic law", see my responses in the thread for discussion of royal titles and styles:
https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...elgian-royal-family-38975-25.html#post2464496
https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...elgian-royal-family-38975-23.html#post2440319
https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...elgian-royal-family-38975-25.html#post2464833
Last edited by a moderator: