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

[Mbruno]

1. It is unclear to me if the title of "Prince Amedeo"/"Princess Maria Laura" given in their birth certificates and birth announcements was inherited from their father or not. On all Belgian official documents I have seen from prior to 1995 (examples given on request), Lorenz was given only the title of Archduke, not Prince.

2. I don't believe their title of Archduke/Archduchess is non-Belgian. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it is illegal for Belgian citizens to use a foreign title of nobility unless the title has been legally recognized or incorporated in Belgium (see FAQ 11).
http://diplomatie.belgium.be/fr/Services/Protocole/Noblesse/faq/

The link you provided says the following:

Une personne de nationalité étrangère qui appartient officiellement à la noblesse de son pays, peut tranquillement porter son titre nobiliaire en Belgique à condition que son titre figure dans les documents officiels établissant son identité, délivrés par les autorités compétentes de son pays.

Prince Lorenz, I assume, did not "officially belong to the nobility of his country" as Austria doesn't have a legally recognized nobility. Nor do I believe that his official ID documents, issued by the competent authorities of his country of original citizenship, mention his "Archduke" title.

Quand il devient Belge par naturalisation, il perd son statut nobiliaire de son pays d’origine et il n’a donc plus le droit de porter son titre étranger. La génération qui est né belge peut entamer une procédure en reconnaissance (voir sous 9).

At some point, I don't know exactly when, I assume Lorenz acquired Belgian citizenship. Even if he had a foreign title recognized at that time in some other country, he could no longer use it in Belgium upon naturalization according to the text above. Moreover, his Belgian-born children could initiate a procedure to recognize their father's title in Belgium, but the father himself could not. As explained in (9), one has to be Belgian by birth to seek such recognition.



Finally, on Amedeo possibly inheriting the dignity of a prince from her mother when he was born, I can't see any legal basis for that. The Royal Decree of 1891 was very clear in terms of mentioning the "princes and princesses" issued in direct male line descent from King Léopold I. Amedeo is not a direct descendant in male line of Léopold I and it would be odd to assume that he could be a prince in Belgium when he wasn't even in the line of succession to the Belgian throne (i.e. was not a Belgian dynast) at that time.



Anna Astrid's situation, on the other hand, might be different. It is clear from the Royal Decree of 2015 that she is not a "Princess of Belgium" and an HRH, but she is in the line of succession (after his father was reinstated) and she may be a "princess" in the sense of the Royal Decree of 2015 when it mentions:



"Les Princes et Princesses, issus de la descendance directe de Sa Majesté Léopold, Georges, Chrétien, Frédéric de Saxe-Cobourg qui ne sont pas visés par les articles 1er à 3"

deleting previous references to "male line". I also believe that, when the Royal Decree says that the "princes and princesses" in the previous paragraph


"portent à la suite de leur prénom et, pour autant qu'ils le portent, de leur nom de famille, les titres qui leur reviennent de droit par leur ascendance",


it lays down a legal basis for Anna Astrid to be called "Arhduchess of Austria-Este" in Belgium.



What I don't think any of the royal decrees do (either in 1891, 1991, or 2015) is to provide a legal basis for Lorenz's family to use the style " HI&RH " in Belgium. My interpretation why that style appears on the birth certificates of Amedeo or Anna Astrid is, quite frankly, that Princess Astrid and Prince Lorenz pushed it , and the registrar, or whoever was in charge at the time, didn't want to say 'no' to the King's daughter/sister and son-in-law/brother-in-law. I may be wrong of course in my conjecture, but, to me, it reflects very badly on Astrid and Lorenz.

PS: Of course, both Amedeo and Lorenz are "Princes of Belgium" and HRHs (albeit not "HI&RHs") under the Royal Decrees of 1995 and 2015, which are still in force .

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I agree insofar as "les titres qui leur reviennent de droit par leur ascendance" in the 2015 royal decree provides a legal basis for the title of Archduchess, and the 1891 decree was not the legal basis for Amedeo's given style of Prince in 1986. In other respects, I have a different interpretation, but I will put off my opinions until another post.

In any event, the reality is that Amedeo was registered as "Prince Amedeo" and "Archduke of Austria-Este" on his birth certificate, in Belgium (quoted in message 287). What is your hypothesis in regard to the basis for registering those titles?

The link you provided says the following:

Une personne de nationalité étrangère qui appartient officiellement à la noblesse de son pays, peut tranquillement porter son titre nobiliaire en Belgique à condition que son titre figure dans les documents officiels établissant son identité, délivrés par les autorités compétentes de son pays.​

Prince Lorenz, I assume, did not "officially belong to the nobility of his country" as Austria doesn't have a legally recognized nobility. Nor do I believe that his official ID documents, issued by the competent authorities of his country of original citizenship, mention his "Archduke" title.

Quand il devient Belge par naturalisation, il perd son statut nobiliaire de son pays d’origine et il n’a donc plus le droit de porter son titre étranger. La génération qui est né belge peut entamer une procédure en reconnaissance (voir sous 9).​

At some point, I don't know exactly when, I assume Lorenz acquired Belgian citizenship. Even if he had a foreign title recognized at that time in some other country, he could no longer use it in Belgium upon naturalization according to the text above. Moreover, his Belgian-born children could initiate a procedure to recognize their father's title in Belgium, but the father himself could not. As explained in (9), one has to be Belgian by birth to seek such recognition.

Thank you for bringing that up. It is confusing and my assumption was that an exception was granted, as Lorenz was cited as "Le Prince Lorenz, Otto, Carl, Amedeus, Prince de Belgique, Archiduc d'Autriche-Este" in a royal decree in 2002, when I assume he was a Belgian citizen. What do you think?

That's interesting to know so it can be conferred again?

Yes, any of the dynastic titles used previously in the royal family could be conferred again, or a new one could be created. Article 113 of the Constitution provides for the king to confer titles of nobility. That said, the royal princes had already ceased using the dynastic titles they held (Prince of Liège/Count of Flanders/Duke of Brabant) before Albert II was king, and in light of the political changes since, I don't foresee them being used or conferred again.

 

[Kataryn]

Just wanted to add the the style of Imperial & Royal Highness for a Habsburg-Lorraine Archduke (of Austria) and Imperial Prince (of Hungary and Bohemia) is not depending on the view the actual states of Austria and Hungary or Bohemia (now Czech and Slowakian Republics) have on that.



When Franz II. of Habsburg-Lorraine, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire abdicated in 1806 and formed the Imperial and Royal Empire of Austria and Hungary with him as the emperor, he declared that the Head of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine has a right to the title of Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary and that that any member of the House born to a marriage according to the rules set by the Head of the House has a right to the style of HI&RH Archduke/duchess of Austria and Imperial Prince/Princess of Hungary.


So once a state agrees to accept this historic decree of the Head of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine (as eg Belgium does, and Germany out of courtesy, but Austria of course not, not sure about Hungary? Bohemia's followers as nations?), it is up to the Head of the family to agree to a marriage and the family member to decide which style and title to use in these countries. Otto von Habsburg eg decided to not use the Archduke-title but accepted to be styled as HI&RH if he was addressed that way.


It was after 1806 the membership to a family through being born to an accepted marriage that gave them the titles, not the fact that their family ruled somewhere. So Astrid and Lorenz are well within their rights to claim these styles for their grandchild, as it was born according to the rules and Belgium acknowledged them as still existing.



Hope this helps a bit?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Just wanted to add the the style of Imperial & Royal Highness for a Habsburg-Lorraine Archduke (of Austria) and Imperial Prince (of Hungary and Bohemia) is not depending on the view the actual states of Austria and Hungary or Bohemia (now Czech and Slowakian Republics) have on that.



When Franz II. of Habsburg-Lorraine, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire abdicated in 1806 and formed the Imperial and Royal Empire of Austria and Hungary with him as the emperor, he declared that the Head of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine has a right to the title of Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary and that that any member of the House born to a marriage according to the rules set by the Head of the House has a right to the style of HI&RH Archduke/duchess of Austria and Imperial Prince/Princess of Hungary.


So once a state agrees to accept this historic decree of the Head of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine (as eg Belgium does, and Germany out of courtesy, but Austria of course not, not sure about Hungary? Bohemia's followers as nations?), it is up to the Head of the family to agree to a marriage and the family member to decide which style and title to use in these countries. Otto von Habsburg eg decided to not use the Archduke-title but accepted to be styled as HI&RH if he was addressed that way.


It was after 1806 the membership to a family through being born to an accepted marriage that gave them the titles, not the fact that their family ruled somewhere. So Astrid and Lorenz are well within their rights to claim these styles for their grandchild, as it was born according to the rules and Belgium acknowledged them as still existing.



Hope this helps a bit?

Thank you for sharing this, very interesting!

I think that for Lorenz and his children/grandchild to claim the predicate of HI&RH and the title of Archduke in Belgium in 1986/2016, there would have to be a legal basis separate from the Austrian emperor's decree in the 1800s.

1. It is true that the House of Habsburg-Lorraine views Austrian imperial decrees as applicable still. However, the Republic of Austria (not the House of Habsburg-Lorraine) is recognized as the proper government of Austria by the Kingdom of Belgium. And the Republic of Austria abolished noble titles, so I imagine it also repealed all the decrees entitling the Habsburg-Lorraine family to titles and styles.

2. Any Belgian citizen who claims a foreign noble title risks a financial penalty imposed by the penal code. Because Lorenz naturalized to Belgian citizenship, and his children and his granddaughter all acquired Belgian citizenship at birth, it seems to me that they would be in violation of the rules unless the "Archduchess/Archduke" on their birth/marriage certificates (and the "Prince/Princess" on Amedeo and Anna Astrid's birth certificates) is viewed as a Belgian title.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

So that they will be within the right discussion, I am moving two of my previous posts to this thread.




1) Elisabetta Rosboch von Wolkenstein's title


Quoted from a press release issued by the Court: https://www.monarchie.be/fr/agenda/...me-anniversaire-du-deces-de-sa-majeste-le-roi

(*) La Princesse Astrid et le Prince Lorenz, Le Prince Laurent, Le Prince Amedeo et la Princesse Elisabetta, La Princesse Maria Laura, Le Prince Louis, Le Prince Nikolaus et la Princesse Margaretha, La Princesse Marie-Astrid, La Princesse Maria-Anunciata, Le Prince Josef-Emmanuel, Le Prince Guillaume et la Princesse Sibilla, Le Prince Paul-Louis, Le Prince Léopold, La Princesse Charlotte, La Comtesse Louis-Arnold de Looz-Corswarem, L'Archiduc et l'Archiduchesse Charles-Christian et Marie Astrid, La Princesse Léa et Mr Renaud Bichara, La Princesse Maria-Teresa de Bourbon, Le Comte et la Comtesse Jean-Charles Ullens de Schooten Whettnall"​

The Court also noted her as "Princess Elisabetta" without "of Belgium" for her birthday and Christmas cards and the card for her first wedding anniversary.

koninklijkepost.punt.nl

The Court used "Princess Amedeo of Belgium" for the confirmation of her pregnancy, the announcement that she had given birth, and the announcement of her daughter's name, and for her second wedding anniversary.

https://www.facebook.com/BeMonarchie/posts/1684077428522557

https://www.facebook.com/PlaceRoyal...182161.301606.313749967160/10153355812262161/

https://twitter.com/x/status/733664995834245120

(Edited to add: Place Royale uses the term "Officiel" for information provided directly by the Palace.)


So, it seems that she is "Princess Amedeo of Belgium" in situations in which she is styled as a Princess of Belgium (as she is not a Princess of Belgium in her own right), however, she is styled "Princess Elisabetta" in situations in which she is styled as a Princess but not a Princess of Belgium.


If we assume that the King and Court see Elisabetta as a princess but not a princess of Belgium (which is the confirmed status of her daughter), then their use of titles for her seems reasonable:

Every time she was called Princess without designation (I assume this is her own title), she has been referred to by her own first name (Princess Elisabetta).
Every time she was called Princess of Belgium (I assume this is sharing her husband's title), she was referred to by her husband's first name (Princess Amedeo of Belgium).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

2) Saxe-Coburg family name and titles


The 2015 decree enacted changes to the rules of using "other titles" following the title Princess or Prince of Belgium.


1991 decree

[...] seront qualifiés Princes ou Princesses de Belgique, à la suite de leurs prénoms.​

Translation

[...] will be referred to as Princes or Princesses of Belgium, following their first names.​

2015 decree

[...] portent le titre de Prince ou de Princesse de Belgique à la suite de leur prénom et, pour autant qu'ils les portent, de leur nom de famille et de leur titre dynastique et avant les autres titres qui leur reviennent de droit par leur ascendance. [...]​

Translation

[...] carry the title of Prince or of Princess of Belgium following their first name 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. [...]​

As stated in the last source below, the Court styled the male-line descendants of King Leopold I as Princesses and Princes of Belgium, Duchesses and Dukes of Saxony, Princesses and Princes of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha in their communication to the 2017 edition of the publication Le Carnet Mondain.

Surprise, en effet, en découvrant « Le carnet mondain » dans sa version 2017. Tous les membres de la famille royale issus de la descendance de Léopold Ier (donc pas les épouses de rois, Mathilde et Paola, ou les conjoints de princes, Lorenz et Claire), à l’exception des enfants/petit-enfant d’Astrid et Lorenz, portent désormais aussi les titres de « Duc de Saxe, Prince de Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha » ou « Duchesse de Saxe, princesse de Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha ».

[...]

[...] comme le précise le volumineux ouvrage mondain, que « les informations concernant la famille royale de belgique sont reproduites tellse qu'elles nous sont communiquées par le Palais »."

[...]

Qu’en dit le Palais royal, justement ? [...] « L’arrêté royal de 2015 a confirmé que les membres de la famille royale portent les titres auxquels ils ont droit de part leur ascendance. C’est le cas », se borne-t-il à répondre.​

Translation

Surprising indeed on finding "Le carnet mondain" in its 2017 edition. All of the members of the royal family born in descent from Leopold I (thus not the wives of the kings, Mathilde and Paola, or the spouses of the princes, Lorenz and Claire), with the exception of the children/grandchild of Astrid and Lorenz, henceforth carry as well the titles of "Duke of Saxony, Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" or "Duchess of Saxony, Princess of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha".

[...]

[...] the bulky work specifies that "the information concerning the royal family of Belgium is reproduced from that which was communicated to us by the Palace"."

[...]

What does the Royal Palace have to say for it? [...] "The Royal Decree of 2015 confirmed that the members of the royal family bear the titles to which their ancestry gives them the right. This is the case," is its limited response.
​

The issue of what the legal surname(s) (and titles) of the born royals may be is complex and gives rise to divisions even between specialists in Belgian law. Different understandings were argued by King Baudouin, King Albert II, and King Philippe respectively.

King Philippe, according to the clarifications of the 2015 decree communicated by the royal court to the media, thinks that (for example) his daughter's legal surname is "of Saxe-Coburg" and her legal name is "HRH Princess Elisabeth Thérèse Marie Hélène, Duchess of Brabant, Princess of Belgium, Duchess of Saxony, Princess of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha".

LOI - WET
Le Roi limite l’octroi du titre de "prince de Belgique" - La Libre
Quel nom pour les princes qui ne seront plus «de Belgique»? - Le Soir
https://www.docme.ru/doc/1728984/le-soir-104-2017 (page 7)

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Interestingly, in November 2018, when the New York Times queried King Albert II's lawyer about Delphine Boël's legal rights should a court decision potentially recognize her as Albert's daughter, his lawyer agreed with King Philippe's 2015 opinion of the royal family's surnames.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/world/europe/belgium-king-paternity.html

A lawyer for Albert, Guy Hiernaux, said that Albert would “think about the appropriate reaction to today’s decision, which is not in his favor.”

[…]

Asked whether Ms. Boël could claim a succession to the Belgian throne, Mr. Hiernaux said that “if she’s proven to be his biological daughter, she could hypothetically take his aristocratic name,” which is Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

But to become a member of the royal family and claim succession to the throne, she would first need the agreement of the Belgian government — and “we’re not quite there yet,” he said.​

Delphine Boël herself is said to agree with King Philippe's opinion. The Belgian newspapers have stated she has decided that if she is recognized as Albert's daughter, she intends to take his surname and she considers it is "of Saxe-Coburg".

 

[Mbruno]

2) Saxe-Coburg family name and titles


The 2015 decree enacted changes to the rules of using "other titles" following the title Princess or Prince of Belgium.


1991 decree

[...] seront qualifiés Princes ou Princesses de Belgique, à la suite de leurs prénoms.​

Translation

[...] will be referred to as Princes or Princesses of Belgium, following their first names.​

2015 decree

[...] portent le titre de Prince ou de Princesse de Belgique à la suite de leur prénom et, pour autant qu'ils les portent, de leur nom de famille et de leur titre dynastique et avant les autres titres qui leur reviennent de droit par leur ascendance. [...]​

Translation

[...] carry the title of Prince or of Princess of Belgium following their first name 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. [...]​

As stated in the last source below, the Court styled the male-line descendants of King Leopold I as Princesses and Princes of Belgium, Duchesses and Dukes of Saxony, Princesses and Princes of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha in their communication to the 2017 edition of the publication Le Carnet Mondain.

Surprise, en effet, en découvrant « Le carnet mondain » dans sa version 2017. Tous les membres de la famille royale issus de la descendance de Léopold Ier (donc pas les épouses de rois, Mathilde et Paola, ou les conjoints de princes, Lorenz et Claire), à l’exception des enfants/petit-enfant d’Astrid et Lorenz, portent désormais aussi les titres de « Duc de Saxe, Prince de Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha » ou « Duchesse de Saxe, princesse de Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha ».

[...]

[...] comme le précise le volumineux ouvrage mondain, que « les informations concernant la famille royale de belgique sont reproduites tellse qu'elles nous sont communiquées par le Palais »."

[...]

Qu’en dit le Palais royal, justement ? [...] « L’arrêté royal de 2015 a confirmé que les membres de la famille royale portent les titres auxquels ils ont droit de part leur ascendance. C’est le cas », se borne-t-il à répondre.​

Translation

Surprising indeed on finding "Le carnet mondain" in its 2017 edition. All of the members of the royal family born in descent from Leopold I (thus not the wives of the kings, Mathilde and Paola, or the spouses of the princes, Lorenz and Claire), with the exception of the children/grandchild of Astrid and Lorenz, henceforth carry as well the titles of "Duke of Saxony, Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" or "Duchess of Saxony, Princess of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha".

[...]

[...] the bulky work specifies that "the information concerning the royal family of Belgium is reproduced from that which was communicated to us by the Palace"."

[...]

What does the Royal Palace have to say for it? [...] "The Royal Decree of 2015 confirmed that the members of the royal family bear the titles to which their ancestry gives them the right. This is the case," is its limited response.
​

The issue of what the legal surname(s) (and titles) of the born royals may be is complex and gives rise to divisions even between specialists in Belgian law. Different understandings were argued by King Baudouin, King Albert II, and King Philippe respectively.

King Philippe, according to the clarifications of the 2015 decree communicated by the royal court to the media, thinks that (for example) his daughter's legal surname is "of Saxe-Coburg" and her legal name is "HRH Princess Elisabeth Thérèse Marie Hélène, Duchess of Brabant, Princess of Belgium, Duchess of Saxony, Princess of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha".

LOI - WET
Le Roi limite l’octroi du titre de "prince de Belgique" - La Libre
Quel nom pour les princes qui ne seront plus «de Belgique»? - Le Soir
https://www.docme.ru/doc/1728984/le-soir-104-2017 (page 7)

So, should we infer that Prince Laurent’s grandchildren will be called “ Prince/ Princess xxx, Duke/Duchess of Saxony, Prince/Princess of Saxe-Coburg -Gotha” without the HRH style ?

As far as family names are concerned, even though King Philippe’s children’s family name may be Saxe-Coburg, they don’t use it in practice after their given names and before the title of Prince/Princess of Belgium as the 2015 royal decree mandates that family names be used. My interpretation then still is that, for all practical purposes they don’t use a family name and that “ Prince of Saxe-Coburg -Gotha”, if used at all, is a title rather than a family name.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

I would suggest checking out the Wikipedia page on Belgian nobility, which discusses the various titles used in Belgium.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_nobility

If a Belgian Princess marries a commoner, could the gentleman be given a nobility title that has been unused for years?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If a Belgian Princess marries a commoner, could the gentleman be given a nobility title that has been unused for years?

Did you have a specific title in mind? I don't think there is any constitutional impediment, but given that numerous titles such as Prince of Belgium, Prince, or Count are in use and available, there seems little need to revive an unfamiliar title.

The other titles previously used by the Belgians Royal Family were ; Prince & Princess of Liège , Count & Countess of Hainaut Count & Countess of Flanders,the last were abolished by Albert II.

Don't think so as King Albert II. abolished all the Titles used by the Royal Family with the exception of Duke/Duchess of Brabant in 2001 short before the birth of Princess Elisabeth. Reason was that they are referring to either cities or Regions in Flanders or the Wallonie.

Count of Hainaut was actually the only title abolished by King Albert II. The countdom of Flanders became extinct with the death of Prince Charles, Count of Flanders in 1983, while the princedom of Liège merged with the crown on the ascension of Prince Albert, Prince of Liège to the throne as King Albert II in 1993.
https://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/royalbelge.htm

Even so, King Albert II created the spouses of Prince Philippe, Princess Astrid, and Prince Laurent Princes(ses) of Belgium in their own right. It remains to be seen whether King Philippe shall do likewise for Prince Amedeo's fiancée and the future spouses of his siblings.

The King never granted a legal title to his nephew's wife, but he has allowed her to be titled by courtesy as HRH Princess Amedeo of Belgium and as Princess Elisabetta.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...-1-july-2014-present-37162-9.html#post2252368

 

[Marengo]

Count of Hainaut was actually the only title abolished by King Albert II. The countdom of Flanders became extinct with the death of Prince Charles, Count of Flanders in 1983.

I suppose the county of Flanders still exists in a way as it is part of the titles of the King of Spain, inherited through the Burgundian dukes who unified most of the low countries. The same is the case for the titles Duke of Brabant (in use by the Belgian RF) and Duke of Limburg (from 1815 until 1890 in use by the Dutch RF). The king is also titular count of Hainaut and Namur. The titular counties of Holland and Zeeland were given up in the peace of Westphalia in 1648.

Did you have a specific title in mind? I don't think there is any constitutional impediment, but given that numerous titles such as Prince of Belgium, Prince, or Count are in use and available, there seems little need to revive an unfamiliar title.

The king can still raise people into the nobility, which these days is mostly limited to personal titles only. Handing out hereditary titles is rare, I am not sure if King Philippe has even done so.

Prince Lorenz became Prince of Belgium. It remains to be seen if the king will elevate a future husband of Pss Eleonore to the same status. As you say handing out a lower title does not seem to make sense but technically the king can still do that. I would be very surprised if he will.

 

[Mbruno]

The claim to the titles was confirmed by a communiqué from the Palace itself in 2017. It is true that it has not been used in any public legal document.

Here is the quote from the Palace communiqué, which I posted in the thread on titles and styles:




Again, I will return to this in the thread Titles of the Belgian Royal Family.

But if you read the Royal Decree of November 12, 2015, the Civil Code, the statements from the Palace in 2015, and the commentary from legal experts in 2015, it is clear that the Royal Decree would likely be unenforceable (and the name on Princess Anna Astrid's birth certificate in 2016 would likely be incorrect) unless the Saxe-Coburg titles and surname are valid. And if it is not clear, I will be happy to explain in the thread Titles of the Belgian Royal Family in due course.

Princess Anna Astrid does not carry the name Saxe-Coburg, nor any Saxe-Coburg titles.



The royal decree only says that family names are used after given names and before dynastic titles as long as the person in question carries them. I don't see any evidence King Albert or his children ever carried a family name.



The royal decree also says that other titles to which they are entitled by descendance are used after "prince of Belgium". I am not sure either if they are entitled by descendance to use "prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" and "duke of Saxony" as those titles have been abolished in Germany, but by the House laws they are. Again, there is no proof other than the palace note that they are actually using it in legal documents. Does Anna-Astrid use Archduchess of Austria-Este ? The royal decree where consent is given to Prince Amedeo's marriage refers to hin only as Prince of Belgium and omits Archduke of Austria-Este or family names, apparently in violation of the 2015 decree per your logic.

PHILIPPE, Roi des Belges,
A tous, présents et à venir, Salut.
Vu l'article 85, alinéa 2, de la Constitution;
Considérant la demande formelle qui Nous a été adressée le 20 septembre 2015 par Son Altesse Royale le Prince Amedeo, Prince de Belgique, à consentir au mariage avec Mme Elisabetta Maria Rosboch von Wolkenstein, célébré le 5 juillet 2014,
Nous avons arrêté et arrêtons :
Article unique. Consentement est accordé au mariage de Son Altesse Royale le Prince Amedeo, Prince de Belgique, avec Madame Elisabetta Maria Rosboch von Wolkenstein, célébré le 5 juillet 2014.
Le présent consentement produit ses effets le 4 juillet 2014.
Donné à Bruxelles, le 12 novembre 2015.
PHILIPPE
Par le Roi :
Le Premier Ministre,
Ch. MICHEL
Le Ministre de la Justice,
K. GEENS

Please also note that all articles in the 2015 decree on titles apply exclusively to the "Princes and Princesses [....]", which some people understand to mean the dynasts (in the French sense of princes du sang), i.e. legitimate descendants of Leopold I in male line up to Albert II and any legitimate descendant (in paternal or maternal line) of Albert therafter. It is not clear if Delphine falls under that category.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Princess Anna Astrid does not carry the name Saxe-Coburg, nor any Saxe-Coburg titles.

Nor did I say she did. ? What I said is that without the validity of those titles (for others), the name on her birth certificate would be arguably incorrect.

Again, I will respond to your points, but as you raise a long list of good questions and points and the available information is unfortunately printed in many different articles and sources, it will take some time (if you would like, I can outline the main points for you by private message, but a full answer with sources will need more work).

 

[Mbruno]

The royal decree awarding the Grand Cordon of the Order of Léopold to Princess Elisabeth is now available online , see

https://www.etaamb.be/fr/arrete-royal-du-25-octobre-2019_n2020200512.html

It is worth noting that the royal decree refers to the Princess as “ Son Altesse Royale la Princesse Élisabeth, Duchesse de Brabant , Princesse de Belgique”, with no reference to either “Duchesse de Saxe” or “ Princesse de Saxe-Coburg-Gotha “.

Despite the recent changes to the coats of arms of members of the Belgian RF and the confusion arising from the 2015 decree on royal titles and styles , I am yet to see any evidence that members of the Royal Family are using the family name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha or any of their ancestral German titles.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Given the relevance of King Philippe's Royal Decree of November 12, 2015 to topics in the news threads, I am going to use this thread to set out some of the sources of information concerning the Royal Decree, which will allow me to refer to them when the discussion next comes around.


I feel that it is probably best to begin with the legal arrangements concerning surnames in Belgium.


Translator's note

Please be aware that there are instances when the term "naam" in Dutch or "nom" in French needs to be translated into English as "surname", rather than "name".

In English, the term "name" tends to be interpreted as given name.

However, in Dutch and French, the terms "naam" and "nom" tend to be interpreted as family name.

The translation problem was acknowledged in a court case at the European Court of Justice against the Belgian state:

6. The very ‘naming of names' reveals differences and difficulties. In Dutch, French and German, for example, the general word for ‘name' designates the surname, the given name being referred to as a forename.​

Civil Code provisions concerning surnames

In certain countries such as the United Kingdom, citizens are allowed to adopt whatever surname they wish for themselves or their children.
In Belgium, the situation is quite different.

The Belgian legal provisions concerning surnames are set out in Article 335 of the Civil Code. They are legally binding on Belgian citizens, with some exceptions (since 2018) for Belgian citizens who also hold a foreign citizenship. There are no special rules or exceptions for members of the Royal Family.

See the Civil Code here:
Dutch: LOI - WET
French: LOI - WET





The Belgian Federal Public Service summarizes the Civil Code provisions dealing with the surnames of firstborn children who were born since June 1, 2014. (These laws had jurisdiction over the surname of King Albert II's first great-grandchild, Princess Anna Astrid, who was born in Belgium as a Belgian citizen in 2016.)

Giving a name | Federal Public Service Foreign Affairs

Giving a name

A person's surname and name is governed by the laws of the country of which that person is a national.

Which surname will my child take when it is born?

If your child is Belgian by birth, (see the Nationality section), Belgian law applies when determining the child's surname.

[...]

Which surname does the child take when parentage has been simultaneously established for both parents?

The Law of 8 May 2014, which came into force on 1 June 2014, has fundamentally changed the old regulations.

Prior to 1 June 2014, the child would have taken its father's surname.

From 1 June 2014, parents have several options: the surname of one of the parents or a combination of both names. When the couple has children together who were born before 1st June 2014, this choice is more limited.​

The FPS also summarizes the Civil Code provisions dealing with the surnames of adults whose parentage is legally changed by a court judgment. (These laws will eventually have jurisdiction over the surname of Delphine Boël, a Belgian, if, as is expected, she becomes the legal child of King Albert II as a result of the forthcoming court session in September 2020.)

Familienaam toekennen | Federale Overheidsdienst Justitie
Attribution du nom de famille | Service public federal Justice


Changed parentage

[...] If the parentage of an adult child is modified as the result of an action to dispute the parentage, the family name may be modified only with his or her consent. In the judgment, the judge takes note of the new surname chosen by the adult child from the legally available options.​

As indicated in Article 335, § 4, of the Civil Code, the legally available options for a new surname (if the adult child chooses not to keep her or his current surname) are the same options which are available to parents naming their firstborn child: the legal father's surname, the legal mother's surname, or a combination of both.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Post 1.

Post 2.

To understand King Philippe's Royal Decree, it is also a necessity to understand how the Belgian system of noble titles works.

1. As a general rule, no "of Something" is included in a Belgian title of nobility.
2. A distinction is legally made in Belgium between the title and the surname.


It is easier to understand this by using the federal government's guidance on entering an individual's title of nobility and their name into the National Register.

In the National Register, the title of nobility and the name are entered into different fields, and the government uses separate guides for the title of nobility versus the name.

Guidance on entering the surname and forename (Dutch)
Guidance on entering the surname and forename (French)
Guidance on entering the title of nobility (Dutch)
Guidance on entering the title of nobility (French)


The guidance on the title of nobility enumerates the complete list of titles that are available to be entered into the registration:

code titre : le titre de noblesse est codé par 2 chiffres conformément au tableau ci-dessous :

01 Prince
02 Princesse
03 Duc
04 Duchesse
05 Marquis
06 Marquise
07 Comte
08 Comtesse
09 Vicomte
10 Vicomtesse
11 Baron
12 Baronne
13 Chevalier
15 Ecuyer
17 Archiduc
18 Archiduchesse
19 Grand-Duc
20 Grande-Duchesse
21 Roi des Belges
22 Reine des Belges
23 Prince de Belgique
24 Princesse de Belgique
25 Duc de Brabant, Prince de Belgique
26 Duchesse de Brabant, Princesse de Belgique​

From this list of available titles, one sees it is impossible for an individual to be registered as holding a title of Count of Something or Princess of Something (the only exception is "of Belgium").

The legally recognized title is "only" Count or Princess (what some royal watchers call a "count of nothing" or "princess of nothing".)




As an example, the Queen's late father was known as Count Patrick d'Udekem d'Acoz. But he never officially had the title of Count d'Udekem d'Acoz, because legally no such title existed. Rather, he had the title of "Count" and - a separate thing - the surname "d'Udekem d'Acoz".

Notice the official announcement of the bestowal of new titles on him and his brothers in 1999 states that the title they received was "count", not count d'Udekem d'Acoz.

Par arrêté royal du 8 novembre 1999 concession du titre de comte pour eux-mêmes et tous leurs descendants est accordée au baron Henri d'Udekem d'Acoz et à MM. Raoul et Patrick d'Udekem d'Acoz, écuyers.

(By royal decree of 8 November 1999, the grant of the title of count is conferred on Baron Henri d'Udekem d'Acoz and Messrs. Raoul and Patrick d'Udekem d'Acoz, jonkheers.)​

Naturally, in ordinary conversation, one may describe Patrick as "a Count d'Udekem d'Acoz", in the same manner as one may describe the UK's Princess Beatrice of York as "a Princess of York". Legally, though, Patrick's title of "Count" did not include "d'Udekem d'Acoz" (which was his surname), just as Beatrice's title of "Princess" does not include "of York" (which is her territorial designation).

 

[Mbruno]

Post 1.

Post 2.

To understand King Philippe's Royal Decree, it is also a necessity to understand how the Belgian system of noble titles works.

1. As a general rule, no "of Something" is included in a Belgian title of nobility.
2. A distinction is legally made in Belgium between the title and the surname.


It is easier to understand this by using the federal government's guidance on entering an individual's title of nobility and their name into the National Register.

In the National Register, the title of nobility and the name are entered into different fields, and the government uses separate guides for the title of nobility versus the name.

Guidance on entering the surname and forename (Dutch)
Guidance on entering the surname and forename (French)
Guidance on entering the title of nobility (Dutch)
Guidance on entering the title of nobility (French)


The guidance on the title of nobility enumerates the complete list of titles that are available to be entered into the registration:

code titre : le titre de noblesse est codé par 2 chiffres conformément au tableau ci-dessous :

01 Prince
02 Princesse
03 Duc
04 Duchesse
05 Marquis
06 Marquise
07 Comte
08 Comtesse
09 Vicomte
10 Vicomtesse
11 Baron
12 Baronne
13 Chevalier
15 Ecuyer
17 Archiduc
18 Archiduchesse
19 Grand-Duc
20 Grande-Duchesse
21 Roi des Belges
22 Reine des Belges
23 Prince de Belgique
24 Princesse de Belgique
25 Duc de Brabant, Prince de Belgique
26 Duchesse de Brabant, Princesse de Belgique​

From this list of available titles, one sees it is impossible for an individual to be registered as holding a title of Count of Something or Princess of Something (the only exception is "of Belgium").

The legally recognized title is "only" Count or Princess (what some royal watchers call a "count of nothing" or "princess of nothing".)




As an example, the Queen's late father was known as Count Patrick d'Udekem d'Acoz. But he never officially had the title of Count d'Udekem d'Acoz, because legally no such title existed. Rather, he had the title of "Count" and - a separate thing - the surname "d'Udekem d'Acoz".

Notice the official announcement of the bestowal of new titles on him and his brothers in 1999 states that the title they received was "count", not count d'Udekem d'Acoz.

Par arrêté royal du 8 novembre 1999 concession du titre de comte pour eux-mêmes et tous leurs descendants est accordée au baron Henri d'Udekem d'Acoz et à MM. Raoul et Patrick d'Udekem d'Acoz, écuyers.

(By royal decree of 8 November 1999, the grant of the title of count is conferred on Baron Henri d'Udekem d'Acoz and Messrs. Raoul and Patrick d'Udekem d'Acoz, jonkheers.)​

Naturally, in ordinary conversation, one may describe Patrick as "a Count d'Udekem d'Acoz", in the same manner as one may describe the UK's Princess Beatrice of York as "a Princess of York". Legally, though, Patrick's title of "Count" did not include "d'Udekem d'Acoz" (which was his surname), just as Beatrice's title of "Princess" does not include "of York" (which is her territorial designation).

Interesting ! How do you explain, however, Princess Mathilde's citation below?

Ordres nationaux Ordre de Léopold Par arrêté royal du 19 septembre 2000 a été nommée : Grand Cordon La Princesse Mathilde, Marie, Christine, Ghislaine, Comtesse d'Udekem d'Acoz, Duchesse de Brabant, Princesse de Belgique (19.09.2000)

Source: https://www.etaamb.be/fr/arrete-royal_n2001015137.html

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Post 1.

Post 2.

Post 3.

Interesting ! How do you explain, however, Princess Mathilde's citation below?

Ordres nationaux Ordre de Léopold Par arrêté royal du 19 septembre 2000 a été nommée : Grand Cordon La Princesse Mathilde, Marie, Christine, Ghislaine, Comtesse d'Udekem d'Acoz, Duchesse de Brabant, Princesse de Belgique (19.09.2000)

Source: https://www.etaamb.be/fr/arrete-royal_n2001015137.html

Under the current federal guidance cited in my previous post:

Mathilde, Marie, Christine, Ghislaine – forename(s)
Comtesse – title
d'Udekem d'Acoz – surname
Duchesse de Brabant, Princesse de Belgique – title(s)

However, I must add that (1) at the time the announcement to which you linked was published (in 2001), "de Belgique" was still viewed as a surname (though not as the legal surname of consorts such as Mathilde), and (2) though the "Princesse" in "Princesse Mathilde" would seemingly be a title under the current guidance, the 2015 royal decree makes the matter more complex. I will clarify both of these issues in ensuing posts.



If you were wondering whether "Comtesse" being prefixed to "d'Udekem d'Acoz" makes "d'Udekem d'Acoz" part of Mathilde's comital title rather than (only) her surname, the answer is no.

In the usage of the Benelux countries, it is not incorrect to put the title in front of the surname, even though the surname is ordinarily not part of the title (as per the authorities cited in my last post).


In relation to the Belgian royal family, my future posts will hopefully make this clearer. For the time being, see the Dutch royal decree concerning the title and surname of Prince Constantijn's children for an example from another Benelux monarchy:

De geslachtsnaam van de kinderen die geboren mochten worden uit het huwelijk van Zijne Koninklijke Hoogheid Prins Constantijn Christof Frederik Aschwin der Nederlanden, Prins van Oranje-Nassau, Jonkheer van Amsberg met Petra Laurentien Brinkhorst luidt «van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg», met de titel graaf en het predikaat jonkheer.

Zij zullen zijn: graaf (gravin) van Oranje-Nassau, jonkheer (jonkvrouwe) van Amsberg.


The family name of the children who may be born of the marriage of His Royal Highness Prince Constantijn Christof Frederik Aschwin of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau, Jonkheer van Amsberg with Petra Laurentien Brinkhorst is "of Orange-Nassau van Amsberg", with the title of count and the predicate of jonkheer.

They will be: count (countess) of Orange-Nassau, jonkheer (jonkvrouwe) van Amsberg.​

The decree states definitively that "of Orange-Nassau van Amsberg" is a surname, "count" is a title, and "jonkheer" is a predicate.

All the same, in the second quoted paragraph, you will see that "count" is prefixed to "of Orange-Nassau" and "jonkheer" is prefixed to "van Amsberg". The title and predicate are not placed separately from the surname.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Under the current federal guidance cited in my previous post:

Mathilde, Marie, Christine, Ghislaine – forename(s)
Comtesse – title
d'Udekem d'Acoz – surname
Duchesse de Brabant, Princesse de Belgique – title(s)

However, I must add that (1) at the time the announcement to which you linked was published (in 2001), "de Belgique" was still viewed as a surname, and (2) though the "Princesse" in "Princesse Mathilde" would seemingly be a title under the current guidance, the 2015 royal decree makes the matter more complex. I will clarify both of these issues in ensuing posts.



If you were wondering whether "Comtesse" being prefixed to "d'Udekem d'Acoz" makes "d'Udekem d'Acoz" part of Mathilde's comital title rather than (only) her surname, the answer is no.

In the usage of the Benelux countries, it is not incorrect to put the title in front of the surname, even though the surname is not part of the title (as per the authorities cited in my last post).


In relation to the Belgian royal family, my future posts will hopefully make this clearer. For the time being, see the Dutch royal decree concerning the titles and surname of Prince Constantijn's children for an example from another Benelux monarchy:

De geslachtsnaam van de kinderen die geboren mochten worden uit het huwelijk van Zijne Koninklijke Hoogheid Prins Constantijn Christof Frederik Aschwin der Nederlanden, Prins van Oranje-Nassau, Jonkheer van Amsberg met Petra Laurentien Brinkhorst luidt «van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg», met de titel graaf en het predikaat jonkheer.

Zij zullen zijn: graaf (gravin) van Oranje-Nassau, jonkheer (jonkvrouwe) van Amsberg.


The family name of the children who may be born of the marriage of His Royal Highness Prince Constantijn Christof Frederik Aschwin of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau, Esquire van Amsberg with Petra Laurentien Brinkhorst is "of Orange-Nassau van Amsberg", with the title of count and the predicate of jonkheer.

They will be: count (countess) of Orange-Nassau, jonkheer (jonkvrouwe) van Amsberg.​

The decree states definitively that "of Orange-Nassau van Amsberg" is a surname, "count" is a title, and "jonkheer" is a predicate.

All the same, in the second quoted paragraph, you will see that "count" is prefixed to "of Orange-Nassau" and "jonkheer" is prefixed to "van Amsberg". The title and predicate are not placed separately from the surname.

Correct. And because one can not use several titles and predicates, the highest title and predicate corresponding that title is used: graaf (gravin) van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg.

The predicate jonkheer (jonkvrouwe) for untitled nobles is not used, as there is a title. The predicate for a graaf (gravin) is hooggeboren heer (vrouwe) which translates in highborn lord (lady).

De hooggeboren heer Claus-Casimir graaf van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg.

 

[Mbruno]

Correct. And because one can not use several titles and predicates, the highest title and predicate corresponding that title is used: graaf (gravin) van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg.

The predicate jonkheer (jonkvrouwe) for untitled nobles is not used, as there is a title. The predicate for a graaf (gravin) is hooggeboren heer (vrouwe) which translates in highborn lord (lady).

De hooggeboren heer Claus-Casimir graaf van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg.

Is De hooggeboren heer still used anywhere in practice ? The Hoge Raad van Adel does not use it for its own members.


Constrast it e.g. with the Diputación Permanente y Consejo de la Grandeza de España y Títulos del Reino, which always uses Excmo Sr. or Ilmo. Sr as the case may be to refer to its members (diifferent system of nobility though, similar to the British peerage with personal nobility attached to a title, not to a patrilineal family name).



By the way, since you have raised the issue, is Hoogeboren in the Netherlands the same as Högvälborne (feminine Högvälborna) in Sweden? I believe the usage is similar although the Swedish honorific is archaic.

 

[Somebody]

Is De hooggeboren heer still used anywhere in practice ? The Hoge Raad van Adel does not use it for its own members.

Constrast it e.g. with the Diputación Permanente y Consejo de la Grandeza de España y Títulos del Reino, which always uses Excmo Sr. or Ilmo. Sr as the case may be to refer to its members (diifferent system of nobility though, similar to the British peerage with personal nobility attached to a title, not to a patrilineal family name).

By the way, since you have raised the issue, is Hoogeboren in the Netherlands the same as Högvälborne (feminineHögvälborna) in Sweden? I believe the usage is similar although the Swedish honorific is archaic.

I'd say it is hardly ever used. Probably in some very formal circumstances but normally it isn't (and yes, it seems a lot like the Swedish version - and is considered archaic). It's probably a bit like the predicate 'zeer geleerde vrouwe/heer' (very learned lady/lord) for those with a doctorate (except for full professors, they would be 'hoog geleerde vrouwe/heer' (highly learned lady/lord)) which is only used at the highly ceremonial viva (oral defense ceremony of a doctoral thesis) both by the candidate when answering the questions of the panel as well as when the doctorate is conferred. Outside of those ceremonies, I've never heard (or read) anyone address me or someone else like that.

N.B. Not sure how we ended up discussing Dutch titles and predicates in the 'titles of the Belgian royal family'-thread...

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Is De hooggeboren heer still used anywhere in practice ? The Hoge Raad van Adel does not use it for its own members.


Constrast it e.g. with the Diputación Permanente y Consejo de la Grandeza de España y Títulos del Reino, which always uses Excmo Sr. or Ilmo. Sr as the case may be to refer to its members (diifferent system of nobility though, similar to the British peerage with personal nobility attached to a title, not to a patrilineal family name).



By the way, since you have raised the issue, is Hoogeboren in the Netherlands the same as Högvälborne (feminine Högvälborna) in Sweden? I believe the usage is similar although the Swedish honorific is archaic.

The Hoge Raad van Adel mentions it: https://www.hogeraadvanadel.nl/adel/adellijke-titulatuur/richtlijnen-gebruik-adellijke-titulatuur

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Post 1.

Post 2.

Post 3.

Post 4.



This post gives the history of the titles and surnames which members of the royal family legally used prior to the 2015 royal decree.

To decrease confusion, it only encompasses the titles/surnames of princesses/princes of the blood who were descendants in male line of Leopold I, the premier King of the Belgians.



The history can be broken down into three periods.

Until 1891, male-line princesses/princes of the blood royal were legally recognized as Duchess/Duke of Saxony and Princess/Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, but were not legally recognized as Princess/Prince of Belgium.

From 1891 to 1921, male-line princesses/princes of the blood royal were legally recognized as Princess/Prince of Belgium and Duchess/Duke of Saxony, Princess/Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

From 1921 to 2015, male-line princesses/princes of the blood royal were legally recognized as Princess/Prince of Belgium, but were not legally recognized as Duchess/Duke of Saxony or Princess/Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.



Until 1891

The future King Leopold I was born a male-line descendant of the reigning dukes of Saxony, and his eldest brother ruled over the German states of Coburg and Gotha. Leopold and his legitimate male-line descendants were recognized in law as Duchess/Duke of Saxony and Princess/Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha by right of his ancestry.

However, during the first 60 years of the Kingdom of Belgium, the princesses and princes of the royal family were not recognized in law as Princesses and Princes of Belgium.

For instance, in 1870, Leopold I's male-line granddaughter Princess Henriette was named in her birth act (an image of it appears in this link) as:

Son Altesse Royale Madame Henriette-Marie-Charlotte-Antoinette duchesse de Saxe, Princesse de Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha

(Her Royal Highness Madame Henriette Marie Charlotte Antoinette duchess of Saxony, Princess of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha)​

Notice that "of Belgium" is not mentioned there.



From 1891 to 1921

King Leopold II's nephew Prince Baudouin, who was touted as a future king given that Leopold II had no surviving son of his own, died in January 1891. Prince Baudouin's death act, in like manner to his sister Henriette's birth act (above), showed no title or surname except for "duc de Saxe" and "Prince de Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha".

The revelation that no "Belgian" title or surname was shown in the death act of the anticipated future King of the Belgians was a sore point for the royal family. Two months later, in March 1891, a new Royal Decree remedied the problem. It stated:

Art. 1er. — Dans les actes publics et privés qui les concernent, les princes et princesses, issus de la descendance masculine et directe de feu Sa Majesté Léopold Ier, seront qualifiés princes et princesses de Belgique, à la suite de leurs prénoms et avant la mention de leur titre originaire de duc et de duchesse de Saxe.

[...]

(Article 1. – In the public and private acts relating to them, the princes and princesses, in male-line and direct descendance from His late Majesty King Leopold I, will be referred to as princes and princesses of Belgium, following their forenames and preceding the mention of their original title of duke and duchess of Saxony.

[...])​

During the 30 years after the royal decree, the princesses and princes of the male line of Leopold I were referred to in their official documents (acts) as Princess/Prince of Belgium and Duchess/Duke of Saxony, Princess/Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.



From 1921 to 2015

From 1914 to 1918, the German Empire, which the duchies of Coburg and Gotha had joined, carried out an invasion and occupation of Belgium and caused numerous casualties.

In April 1921, King Albert I's chief of staff indicated to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the King had made a verbal decision regarding his family's Saxon titles. However, the king and government did not issue a new Royal Decree.

The King's verbal decision of April 1921 ended the use of the Saxon titles in the official documents of princesses and princes born after the decision was announced. (The titles remained in the documents of princesses and princes who were alive in April 1921.)


For example, in the marriage act of Prince Laurent in 2003, the prince (born 1963) was named as:

Zijne Koninklijke Hoogheid Prins Laurent Benoît Baudouin Marie, Prins van België, Senator, [...]

Son Altesse Royale le Prince Laurent Benoît Baudouin Marie, Prince de Belgique, Sénateur, [...]

(His Royal Highness Prince Laurent Benoît Baudouin Marie, Prince of Belgium, Senator, [...])​

Neither Saxony nor Saxe-Coburg-Gotha were mentioned in his name.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Post 1.

Post 2.

Post 3.

Post 4.



Post 5.




To untangle King Philippe's 2015 royal decree, it is crucial to grasp this:

After 1891, "of Belgium" was widely seen as the surname of the princesses/princes descended from King Leopold I in the male line.

(Post 4 covered the changes made in 1891 and 1921.)




First, I will write about the legal reasons why "of Belgium" was considered a surname.



1. Belgian concepts of law


Substantive information and evidence for how Belgian law interprets surnames and titles is set out in Post 2. But in short, in Belgium, a member of the nobility such as Princess Alix of Ligne is not technically a Princess of Ligne as no such title is legally registered. In accordance with Belgian law, she has the title Princess and the surname "of Ligne".

If the law should treat the titles and surnames of Princess Astrid of Belgium in the same way as those of Princess Alix of Ligne, Astrid would legally have the title Princess and the surname "of Belgium".




2. No other reasonable alternative for male-line royal princesses/princes born after 1921

Duchess/Duke of Saxony and Princess/Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha were excluded from the documents of descendants of Leopold I born after April 1921 (refer to Post 4), as shown in for instance the marriage act of Prince Laurent, where his name was listed as

Zijne Koninklijke Hoogheid Prins Laurent Benoît Baudouin Marie, Prins van België

Son Altesse Royale le Prince Laurent Benoît Baudouin Marie, Prince de Belgique

(His Royal Highness Prince Laurent Benoît Baudouin Marie, Prince of Belgium)
​

The Civil Code stipulates all citizens should mention their surname in official records. (I will elaborate on this requirement in another post.) It has no exemption in the case of the royal family.

Due to this rule, Laurent could not be surnameless in his marriage act, which as quoted above names him as "His Royal Highness Prince Laurent Benoît Baudouin Marie, Prince of Belgium". If the legal rules were followed, his surname should be someplace within "His Royal Highness Prince Laurent Benoît Baudouin Marie, Prince of Belgium".

His Royal Highness, Laurent Benoît Baudouin Marie, and Prince are evidently not surnames. With the other alternatives exhausted, his surname has to be "of Belgium".



As Princess Esmeralda once said in an interview:

Vous vous appelez « de Belgique » ?

C’est ce qui est écrit sur mon passeport. Nous n’avons pas d’autre nom, puisque Saxe Cobourg a été abandonné avant la Première Guerre mondiale par mon grand-père.


Your name is "of Belgium"?

That's what is written in my passport. We have no other surname, since Saxe Coburg was abandoned before [sic] the First World War by my grandfather.
​

3. Original meaning of the 1891 Royal Decree


The Government that passed the Royal Decree of 1891 (discussed in Post 4) understood "of Belgium" to be a surname. The official report included with the decree stated:

Après 60 ans d’une vie nationale à laquelle la maison royale est si indissolublement liée, ses membres ne portent ni nom ni titre qui les rattache directement au pays.

Dans le sein de la grande famille belge où, à tous les titres, ils sont les premiers, on ne les désigne que par leur prénom, mais, à l'étranger, on qualifie nos princes et nos princesses du nom de la Belgique et tel est bien le nom qui leur revient.
​

Translation:

After 60 years of a national life to which the royal house is indissolubly bound, its members carry neither surname nor title that attaches them directly to the country.

Within the great Belgian family where, of all the titles, they are paramount, they are referred to by only their forename, but abroad, our princes and our princesses are designated by the name of Belgium and that is the surname to which they are entitled.
​

Le Soir also raises the point that this is the only legal text prior to 2015 to specifically mention the "surname" of the royal family.




4. Recognition in personal documents


"Of Belgium" has appeared in the surname box in blood princesses'/princes' birth acts and identity cards.

Leur acte de naissance ou carte d’identité porte donc le nom « de Belgique ». [...]

« Dans les actes de naissance, nous confirme-t-on à bonne source, c’est le titre “prince de Belgique,” qui apparaît dans la case “nom’. On considère donc que le nom est “de Belgique,” quand on a en même temps le titre “prince de Belgique”. [...] »
​

Translation:

(Their birth act or identification card thus bears the surname "of Belgium". [...]

"In the birth acts," a reliable source confirmed to us, "it is the title 'prince of Belgium' which appears in the box 'surname'. So we consider the surname to be 'of Belgium' when they simultaneously have the title 'prince of Belgium'. [...]")
​

See Post 1 for details of why "nom" is translated as "surname".

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Is there any take which could reasonably explain their thought process, or is it pure double standards?

It would be appreciated if anyone could provide some insights. These specific "experts" really do not make sense to me.

However, it is extremely ironic that many of the very same royal experts who most severely attack inheritance of royal and noble titles through female lines because it is "a breach with tradition" and "laws cannot change the fact that dynasties are determined by the father" are adamantly declaring that Delphine Boël deserves to be an HRH Princess of Belgium because "the times have changed" and "there is no law that explicitly forbids her from becoming one".

And it is ironic that they rely on Article 2 of the 2015 law to assert that Delphine has the right to be a princess while claiming that Astrid's grandchildren Anna Astrid and Maximilian have no right to be Belgian princes(ses), even when the formula "Princes and Princesses" specifying descendants of King Leopold I in Article 4 is identical to the formula specifying children and grandchildren of King Albert II in Article 2.

Links to the text of the law in Dutch and French are posted here.

Translation:

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.​

It seems more than a little hypocritical to interpret Article 2 as giving the right to be a prince(ss) to all children and grandchildren of Albert II while interpreting Article 4 as not giving the right to be a prince(ss) to all descendants of Leopold I.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Once again it wrecks that Belgium has no difference in the Royal House and in the royal family, like the Netherlands. There the names and titles of the Royal House are established by Royal Decree and do NOT follow the Civic Code. In the Royal House we see princes and princesses of the Netherlands, princes and princesses of Orange-Nassau with the prefix Royal Highness.

The names and titles of the royal family follow the same rules as the Civic Code and the Nobility Act. There we see Van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg (hereditary counts and countesses with the prefix highborn lord/lady), De Bourbon de Parme (hereditary princes and princesses with the prefix Royal Highness) , Ten Cate, Brenninkmeijer, Van Oranje-Nassau van Vollenhoven (princes ad personam with the prefix Highness), Van Vollenhoven, Van Lippe-Biesterfeld van Vollenhoven and Guillermo.

Belgium would had less a problem when the titles prince or princess of Belgium were exclusively for members of the Royal House and not subjected to the general rules in the Civic Code.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thank you, I greatly appreciate your help.

I don't think their use of seemingly double standards is corroborated by the Civil Code, mainly because the Civil Code is gender-neutral. Also, I have no recollection of them ever discussing it.

Are there any other reasonable explanations for their opinions?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Post 1.

Post 2.

Post 3.

Post 4.

Post 5.



Post 6.



Consensus


Since 1891, the inference that "of Belgium" was a surname could reasonably be drawn from law and documentation, as explained in Post 5. By 2015, this explanation had found prominent supporters, including the royal court, the prime minister's office and a number of legal experts. In practice, there was a settled consensus that "of Belgium" was the surname of the male-line descendants of King Leopold I.


An official brochure produced in 2010, with the assistance of the Board of Directors of the Royal Palace, by the Chancellery of the Prime Minister, stated:

Members of the royal family bear the family name “of Belgium”.​

The author of the information-rich article "Royal Titles in Belgium" (2001) agreed:

Par cet arrêté royal, les princes belges ont un nom (de Belgique) et un titre (prince).

(By this royal decree [of 1891], the Belgian princes have a surname (of Belgium) and a title (prince).)​

Other legal experts continue to endorse this argument, according to Le Soir's reporting, despite the Palace's challenge to it in 2015.

Mais les spécialistes et juristes que nous avons consultés ne sont pas forcément d’accord avec l’analyse du Palais. Pour eux [...] les enfants de Laurent qui s’appellent « de Belgique » [...]

(But the experts and lawyers with whom we consulted are not necessarily in agreement with the Palace's analysis. For them [...] the children of Laurent who are named "of Belgium" [...])​

(See Post 1 for details of why "nom" is translated as "surname".)




Importance

Is it so important whether "of Belgium" is a surname or a title? For the King, it does matter.


The power of the King to confer titles is recognized in the Constitution.

Article 113

The King may confer titles of nobility, without ever having the power to attach privileges to them.​

Accordingly, a title of nobility may be dealt with by the simple making of a Royal Decree, signed by the King and countersigned by a minister of government (e.g. this royal decree from 2003).


In contrast, the King has no authority to regulate surnames. As the legal experts explained to Le Soir:

Car c’est le code civil qui règle la question de l’octroi du nom. [...] Et un arrêté royal ne peut contredire à la loi.

(Because it is the civil code that deals with the issue of conferring a surname. [...] And a royal decree cannot contradict the law.)​

It follows that the King cannot unilaterally confer or withhold a surname in a situation where the Civil Code does not allow him that authority. Only Parliament may exercise that power.


That is the core importance underlying the legal argument over whether "of Belgium" is a title or a surname:

If it is a title, the King has the power to change the rules of who may or may not be "of Belgium".

If it is a surname, the right to be "of Belgium" is a legal right, protected by the Civil Code as explained in Post 1, which the King cannot strip or deny.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

A second question regarding Delphine Boël (I would still greatly appreciate any answers to my first question here: https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...elgian-royal-family-38975-18.html#post2342320). Assuming that she will be legally recognized as Albert's child and exercise her choice to adopt his surname, will she have the legal option to also change the surnames of her children? Article 335, § 4, of the Civil Code does not appear to make that clear.

 

[macedonsky]

From far Russia

Is there any take which could reasonably explain their thought process, or is it pure double standards?

It was very interesting to read all 359 messages during one evening. What is "direct line"?

My modest attempt to define all 47 princes and princesses of Belgium can be found here (Google translate can be used for Russian text):
https://euro-royals.livejournal.com/924286.html
https://euro-royals.livejournal.com/935948.html
https://euro-royals.livejournal.com/955941.html
https://euro-royals.livejournal.com/964124.html
https://euro-royals.livejournal.com/996678.html

Recent news about recognising lawful titles of Their Royal Highnesses Delphine Saxe-Cobourg, Princess of Belgium, Josephine Saxe-Cobourg, Princess of Belgium and Oscar Saxe-Coburg, Princess of Belgium is very interesting in part of their future surnames.

What about interpretation of Article 4 I suppose "the Princes and Princesses, born in direct descendance" means just "issue". Children of Son Altesse Royal Princesse Marie-Esméralda, Adelaide, Lilian, Anne, Léopoldine, Princesse de Belgique, are born in direct descendance from His Majesty Leopold, George, Christian, Frederick of Saxe-Coburg, and are not covered by Articles 1 to 3. But they are not princess and prince.