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

[Prinsara]

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

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

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

And yet you're still overlooking that the only thing that determines whether a spouse receives a courtesy title in the Belgian monarchy is gender.

The spouse of a man does (at least until we get to same-sex marriages); the spouse of a woman does not.

So then it would be appropriate to compare two women who have been treated differently and ask why they were treated differently. Not expect that a man and a woman will suddenly have their spouses treated equally. You would not, I think, be so hopeful Laura's husband would have received something, if not for her father, who is the exception. Not her brother, who is the rule.

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

I think your last statement is an exaggeration. But yes, as far as royalty and nobility and the rules they observe are concerned, until something like the UK 2013 act comes along, there is no reason to pre-expect change from some of the last bastions of conservatism.

Philippe has no reason (or precedent, also very important!) that he should give a title to his niece's husband. Would it be an incredibly marginal point that doesn't actually do anything to advance the real cause of gender equality? Sure. But it's obviously not enough reason in his eyes that he should do anything other than the expected.

(Unless he somehow offered William the use of the courtesy title, and William turned it down.)

Seeing supposed change where it doesn't truly exist is only likely to lead to more frustration.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

And yet you're still overlooking that the only thing that determines whether a spouse receives a courtesy title in the Belgian monarchy is gender.

The spouse of a man does (at least until we get to same-sex marriages); the spouse of a woman does not.

So then it would be appropriate to compare two women who have been treated differently and ask why they were treated differently. Not expect that a man and a woman will suddenly have their spouses treated equally. You would not, I think, be so hopeful Laura's husband would have received something, if not for her father, who is the exception. Not her brother, who is the rule.



I think your last statement is an exaggeration. But yes, as far as royalty and nobility and the rules they observe are concerned, until something like the UK 2013 act comes along, there is no reason to pre-expect change from some of the last bastions of conservatism.

Philippe has no reason (or precedent, also very important!) that he should give a title to his niece's husband. Would it be an incredibly marginal point that doesn't actually do anything to advance the real cause of gender equality? Sure. But it's obviously not enough reason in his eyes that he should do anything other than the expected.

(Unless he somehow offered William the use of the courtesy title, and William turned it down.)

Seeing supposed change where it doesn't truly exist is only likely to lead to more frustration.

Thank you very much for saying something I couldn’t explain well myself.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

And yet you're still overlooking that the only thing that determines whether a spouse receives a courtesy title in the Belgian monarchy is gender.

I must say it is surprising that you believe I overlooked the very point I have been making throughout this entire conversation, including in the post you have just quoted:

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

So then it would be appropriate to compare two women who have been treated differently and ask why they were treated differently. Not expect that a man and a woman will suddenly have their spouses treated equally.

As for "expecting" that the King would treat a man and a woman equally: It seems you are overlooking the first post in this conversation, where I quoted my own prediction from 2021 that King Philippe would probably not treat Amedeo and Laura's spouses equally. In the same post I added that was not surprised, only disappointed, by his decision:

As I predicted, King Philippe did not accord a courtesy title to William Isvy, in contrast to the courtesy Princess title he allowed to Elisabetta Rosboch von Wolkenstein.

[...]

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

As for it being not "appropriate" to comment on sexism in royal titulature, we will have to agree to disagree on that.

You would not, I think, be so hopeful Laura's husband would have received something, if not for her father. Not her brother.

I hoped - not expected - that Laura would treated as the equal of her brother (not her mother), whether that meant neither sibling or both siblings being permitted to share their title (or part of their title, as it were) with their spouse.

If you simply meant to suggest that I believed the equal treatment of Astrid and Laurent's spouse's titles increased the chances of equal treatment in the next generation, then yes, of course (again, that does not mean I believed it was the most likely outcome, only more probable than it would be without the precedent). Decision makers tend to take recent precedents into consideration, even if they do not always ultimately follow them.

I will respond to your other points in another post.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

It seems you overlooked my response to Prinsara:



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

Yes I also read your posts, but the point about it not being about gender equity has been raised a number of times in my posts as well as Prinsara’s. Archduke Lorenz’s situation isn’t reasonable justification for the King to give his niece’s husband a title (courtesy or not) because it was in case Philippe didn’t have children (heirs he eventually had) so it’s not necessary for the King to do that. Yes, he could but he hasn’t and won’t give titles to William. Plus Maria-Laura is light years away from being monarch so there’s no real need for him to have any titles.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Yes I also read your posts, but the point about it not being about gender equity has been raised a number of times in my posts as well as Prinsara’s.

Then you will know that my reason for not responding to that point so far was because it did not impact on the points we were arguing, regardless of the number of times you and others discussed it. (I note that you and others also do not always respond to every last point I make, which is perfectly fine with me as not every point requires a response.)

Archduke Lorenz’s situation isn’t reasonable justification for the King to give his niece’s husband a title (courtesy or not)

Nobody said that it was. But nor is it reasonable justification for the King to give his nephew's wife a courtesy title, so I don't think it has any bearing on that.

Plus Maria-Laura is light years away from being monarch so there’s no real need for him to have any titles.

I do not believe that lack of necessity or Maria Laura being "light years away from the throne" had anything to do with King Philippe's decision for her husband not to have titles, for the simple reason that Amedeo is also light years away from the throne and he and his spouse have no real need for titles, either. Once again, I believe Maria Laura's gender was the sole reason behind the King's decision.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

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






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

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






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

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




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

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




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






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

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

Yes he can give courtesy titles, but Philippe didn’t give the Prince of Belgium title to Lorenz that was King Albert and it wasn’t for equality or flimsy excuses. Other than Lorenz with his courtesy titles, which untitled non-noble/royal male spouse in the has been granted to share the titles of his noble/royal wife? No one. There’s no real precedent. Again, the reason for giving Lorenz the title wasn’t about equality but about the future of the dynasty if Philippe didn’t have children that’s the salient point here not equality. I even mentioned in an a post that if Philippe married early, Astrid probably wouldn’t have been placed higher in the succession than Laurent and Lorenz might not have been made a Prince of Belgium. These things were out of pragmatism and necessity not equality or pandering to gender equity or feminism.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Yes he can give courtesy titles, but Philippe didn’t give the Prince of Belgium title to Lorenz that was King Albert and it wasn’t for equality or flimsy excuses. Other than Lorenz with his courtesy titles, which untitled non-noble/royal male spouse in the has been granted to share the titles of his noble/royal wife? No one. There’s no real precedent. Again, the reason for giving Lorenz the title wasn’t about equality but about the future of the dynasty if Philippe didn’t have children that’s the salient point here not equality. I even mentioned in an a post that if Philippe married early, Astrid probably wouldn’t have been placed higher in the succession than Laurent and Lorenz might not have been made a Prince of Belgium. These things were out of pragmatism and necessity not equality or pandering to gender equity or feminism.

Allow me to try to respond more simply: Accepting your post as true for the sake of argument (and overlooking the term "pandering to gender equity or feminism"), how does it rebut my view that "the fact that Amedeo is a man married to a woman, while Maria Laura is a woman, is the only reason why King Philippe has chosen to treat their spouses unequally in terms of courtesy titles"? If anything, your post would seem to support that assessment.

By the way, while it does not make a difference to any of my points, Lorenz's title of Prince of Belgium is a legal title (as is Claire's), not a courtesy title.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Then you will know that my reason for not responding to that point so far was because it did not impact on the points we were arguing, regardless of the number of times you and others discussed it. (I note that you and others also do not always respond to every last point I make, which is perfectly fine with me as not every point requires a response.)




Nobody said that it was. But nor is it reasonable justification for the King to give his nephew's wife a courtesy title, so I don't think it has any bearing on that.




I do not believe that necessity or Maria Laura being "light years away from the throne" had anything to do with King Philippe's decision for her husband not to have titles, for the simple reason that Amedeo is also light years away from the throne and he and his spouse have no real need for titles, either. Once again, I believe Maria Laura's gender was the sole reason behind the King's decision.

If Philippe died childless, Astrid would be Queen and Lorenz would be her consort but that isn’t happening any time soon as the King has heirs. Lorenz was given the title in the event of Astrid succeeding to the throne. My overall point is that it wouldn’t be practical for him to offer a title (official or courtesy) to William and he didn’t offer any titles to Elisabetta either.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Allow me to try to respond more simply: Accepting your post as true for the sake of argument (and overlooking the term "pandering to gender equity or feminism"), how does it rebut my view that "the fact that Amedeo is a man married to a woman, while Maria Laura is a woman, is the only reason why King Philippe has chosen to treat their spouses unequally in terms of courtesy titles"? If anything, your post would seem to support that assessment.

By the way, while it does not make a difference to any of my points, Lorenz's title of Prince of Belgium is a legal title (as is Claire's), not a courtesy title.

I never said Lorenz’s Prince of Belgium title was courtesy, I was referring to his Habsburg titles when I said “courtesy”. You keep emphasizing the inequity of the system but it’s also a matter of practicality. I already mentioned the King using traditional styles of women taking on husbands titles so you have your point. Aristocratic women in Belgium who marry commoners their husbands don’t share their titles and likewise in the royal family (bar Lorenz for a reason I already listed) no other Belgian Princesses share titles with her husband whether he’s a commoner or aristocrat. You can interpret any way.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I never said Lorenz’s Prince of Belgium title was courtesy, I was referring to his Habsburg titles when I said “courtesy”.

I see, thank you for the clarification.

You keep emphasizing the inequity of the system but it’s also a matter of practicality. I already mentioned the King using traditional styles of women taking on husbands titles so you have your point. Aristocratic women in Belgium who marry commoners their husbands don’t share their titles and likewise in the royal family (bar Lorenz for a reason I already listed) no other Belgian Princesses share titles with her husband whether he’s a commoner or aristocrat. You can interpret any way.

I am trying to understand your point of view (as some of your posts seem to be phrased as if you are rebutting my argument and yet some of your points seem to agree with some of mine). So, are you saying that the King's decision to treat Elisabetta and William unequally was a matter of both gender and practicality? (My view is that these decisions of his were solely based on gender - and likewise with the other Belgian princesses and noblewomen you mentioned.)

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I see, thank you for the clarification.



I am trying to understand your point of view (as some of your posts seem to be phrased as if you are rebutting my argument and yet some of your points seem to agree with some of mine). So, are you saying that the King's decision to treat Elisabetta and William unequally was a matter of both gender and practicality? (My view is that these decisions of his were solely based on gender - and likewise with the other Belgian princesses and noblewomen you mentioned.)

Glad we can finally come to an agreement. Thank you.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Glad we can finally come to an agreement. Thank you.

I'm not sure whether we have as you haven't answered my question about whether you believe the King's decision to treat Elisabetta and William unequally was a matter of both gender and practicality (since I believe he was motivated by gender only, I disagree that practicality was a consideration), but if my post served to clarify my comments for you, I'm glad to hear that.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Would [giving a title to his niece's husband] be an incredibly marginal point that doesn't actually do anything to advance the real cause of gender equality? Sure. But it's obviously not enough reason in his eyes that he should do anything other than the expected.

Regarding the general point about royal titles (and not specific Belgian precedents): I am not convinced that royal titles are so "incredibly marginal" - there has, after all, been at least one global backlash over allegations of people being denied royal titles due to racial inequality. But even if they are, a marginal advance is an advance nonetheless.

I think your last statement is an exaggeration. But yes, as far as royalty and nobility and the rules they observe are concerned, until something like the UK 2013 act comes along, there is no reason to pre-expect change from some of the last bastions of conservatism.

I'll refrain from replying in depth to this comment, since I did not understand your earlier comment (as you said my tentative understanding of it was "an exaggeration") or the reference to "until something like the UK 2013 act comes along". (The UK's Succession to the Crown Act 2013 comes to mind, but its provisions removing gender discrimination from the order of succession to the British throne for future generations were (as you mentioned) already enacted in Belgium in 1991, and its provisions on marriages to Roman Catholics and legally unrecognized marriages don't seem to have an analogue in the Belgian monarchy.)

I will comment that if, by conservatism, you are referring to reluctance to change existing rules (as you mentioned that in the same sentence), I am not sure monarchies and nobilities can be generalized. Like most institutions, they can be quick to modify to certain rules while remaining very stubborn on others. (For example, Philippe's acceptance of a controversially outspoken, lawsuit-filing, extramarital, previously unknown half-sister into the Royal Family regardless of previous protocols and customs was a lightning-fast change. And Belgium was only the second monarchy, after Sweden, to place a living princess ahead of her brother in the line of succession to the throne.)

Seeing supposed change where it doesn't truly exist is only likely to lead to more frustration.

Regardless of the reasoning that led to it, it is undeniable that Lorenz changed from not being a Prince of Belgium to being a Prince of Belgium. ?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

As was pressed for, I'll eventually address the repeated comments about "it wasn’t about equality purposes" and so on. Before doing so, however, I need to make a few points clear:

- Most importantly, while it may be an interesting issue for some, it was not what my original post was about. That post simply mentioned the decisions of 1995 and 2022 and my own feelings about the latter (no surprise, but disappointment). The purpose(s) of the decision(s) was not within the scope of my post.

- The invocation of Baudouin's and Albert II's alleged purposes, in this context, formulates precedent as a matter of the purpose, instead of the actual title. While we are all entitled to form our own definitions of "precedent", it is striking that this particular definition is hardly ever relied on in other threads on this forum. For example, the fact that the husbands of Elena/Cristina of Spain and Madeleine of Sweden failed to receive royal titles was not, at least officially, for sexist purposes (but because of the 1987 slimdown in Spain and the business policy in Sweden). Nevertheless, many comments have argued these examples are "precedents" in favor of sex-biased title rules. Those posting here have not criticized those comments, I think.

- The positions on Lorenz's Prince of Belgium title being given out of necessity and being "no real precedent" rely on subjective interpretation - and while there is nothing wrong with subjective interpretations, they are no more valid than other subjective interpretations. The king emeritus of Spain and the sovereign prince of Monaco would think that it was not a necessity at all, as they saw no reason to grant royal titles to the husbands or children of Elena and Caroline when they were in an analogous position, being the 'spare' to an unmarried brother in his mid-30s or older. For Belgium, others could consider that King Albert II followed 142 years of precedent, i.e. that the consorts of those in line to the Belgian throne share the titles of their spouse, and King Philippe breached it. Interpretations are also inevitably skewed by hindsight. For example, if Lorenz had never been created Prince of Belgium despite the change to the order of succession, but someone argued that he should have, I am quite sure there would be replies stating that it wasn't necessary, as Princess Astrid was never in the direct line of succession.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Onwards to the substantive question. First, the comments I was asked to address were seemingly written on the basis that there was a single decision to change the situation of Princess Astrid's branch of the family. I did not dispute that simplification because I agree that in essence, that is what happened. However, I think it is now necessary to explain that in the context of the law, there were technically at least three different changes:

1) A constitutional amendment adopted on June 21, 1991 and going into effect on July 21, 1991 established, for the direct legitimate natural descendants of Prince Albert (later King Albert II), the right of the firstborn to succeed to the throne regardless of gender.

2) A royal decree signed on December 2, 1991 and going into effect on December 15, 1991 conferred the qualification (in the French version) or title (in the Dutch version) of Prince or Princess of Belgium on the direct descendants of Prince Albert.

3) A royal decree signed on November 10, 1995 and going into effect on November 24, 1995 conferred the title Prince of Belgium on Lorenz, son-in-law of the now King Albert II.

Thus I will treat these separately, beginning with the constitutional amendment. Since it dealt with the succession to the throne, rather than titles, styles or names, I will discuss it in Belgian Abdication, Succession and Constitutional Issues.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I've posted the facts on the introduction of gender equal succession to the throne via the constitutional amendment of June 21, 1991 in the "Belgian Abdication, Succession, and Constitutional Issues" thread.

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...onstitutional-issues-28900-2.html#post2518212
https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...onstitutional-issues-28900-2.html#post2518213

The statements of the Government and the text of the reform in 1991 are clear, and do not support allegations that "everyone knows that's not progress", or that it had nothing to do with gender equality, or that the intent was only to make a one-time exception for Astrid and her children.


Moving on to the second item on the list, the royal decree of December 2, 1991. The relevant paragraphs of that decree are:

In Dutch:

Overwegende dat het aangewezen is, in het licht van de nieuwe artikelen 60 en 61 van de Grondwet, de titel van Prins of van Prinses van België toe te kennen aan de nakomelingen, zowel in vrouwelijke als in mannelijke recht lijn, van Z.K.H. Prins Albert, Felix, Humbert, Theodoor, Christiaan, Eugène, Marie, Prins van Luik, Prins van België;

Artikel 1. In de openbare en private akten die hen aanbelangen, dragen de Prinsen en de Prinsessen, geboren uit de nakomelingschap in rechte lijn van Z.K.H. Prins Albert, Felix, Humbert, Theodoor, Christiaan, Eugène, Marie, Prins van Luik, Prins van België, de titel van Prins of van Prinses van België. Die titel volgt op hun voornamen.
​

In French:

Considérant qu'en vertu des nouveaux articles 60 et 61 de la Constitution, il est indiqué que le titre de Prince ou de Princesse de Belgique soit accordé à la descendance en ligne directe, aussi bien féminine que masculine, de S.A.R. le Prince Albert, Félix, Humbert, Théodore, Christian, Eugène, Marie, Prince de Liège, Prince de Belgique;

Article 1. Dans les actes publics et privés qui les concernent, les Princes et Princesses issus de la descendance en ligne directe de S.A.R. le Prince Albert, Félix, Humbert, Théodore, Christian, Eugène, Marie, Prince de Liège, Prince de Belgique, seront qualifiés Princes ou Princesses de Belgique, à la suite de leurs prénoms.
​

Translation from the French:

Whereas by virtue of the new articles 60 and 61 of the Constitution, it is appropriate that the title of Prince or Princess of Belgium be accorded in the direct, female as well as male, line of H.R.H. Prince Albert Felix Humbert Theodore Christian Eugene Mary, Prince of Liège, Prince of Belgium;

Article 1. In the public and private acts relating to them, the Princes and the Princesses issuing in direct-line descendance from H.R.H. Prince Albert Felix Humbert Theodore Christian Eugene Mary, Prince of Liege, Prince of Belgium, will be referred to as Princes or Princesses of Belgium, following their forenames.
​

As explained in the thread linked above, "the new articles 60 and 61 of the Constitution" were the articles which were amended earlier that year, giving gender-equal access to the throne to all of Prince Albert's female direct, legitimate, natural descendants - not only to Princess Astrid. The preamble of the Royal Decree, by highlighting these articles as evidence that the new decree is "appropriate", implies that King Baudouin thought it "appropriate" to accord the title of Prince and Princess of Belgium to the princes and princesses in line to the throne - not merely to Astrid and her children.

Article 1 of the Royal Decree also contradicts the allegation that this was an exception to the rule for Astrid's nuclear family and not intended to set a precedent or continue. There is no reference to Astrid or her children by name. It is a general remainder to Princes and Princesses in Albert's direct-line descendance, without any generational restriction.

 

[Marengo]

The 'last name' of some members of the Belgian RF has changed. Prince Laurent and his family received a request from the administrative services of Tervuren to give some clarity.

The change of name is the result of a royal decree from 2015 that needed to solve the confusion between the name and the title. Up to now Laurent was 'Laurent van België, Prins van België'. He lives in the Flemish town of Tervuren, hence the Flemish spelling.

A year ago the prince was contacted byt he administrative services of Tervuren to changed their personal data. It is now 'Laurent van Saksen-Coburg' and 'Claire Coombs'.

The article states that it is not a problem for the childen of Pss Astrid, as they already use their father's last name 'd'Autriche-Este'.

The King, Queen, King Albert II, Queen Paola and Princess Elisabeth will continue to use 'van België'. The three younger children of the King are using 'van Saksen-Coburg' as well. Again in Flemish as Laeken is a Flemish municipalty as well.

https://www.hln.be/royalty/prins-la...0721cd/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Prince Laurent quiped that he was not happy with the new spelling as they went for the van and not the German von.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thanks for the update. There must have been a misunderstanding somewhere, as the 2015 decree dealt with the (legal) surnames of descendants of Leopold I, not their spouses. Mathilde, Lorenz, and Claire were created Princesses and Prince of Belgium by separate decrees which explicitly stated that they would keep their own surnames. Moreover, the decree did not differentiate between Elisabeth and her siblings; all of them had their surnames "clarified".

The article actually states that the legal surname of Astrid's children is "d'Autriche-Este (Habsbourg-Lorraine)". Which is correct - refer to these posts for sources:

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...elgian-royal-family-38975-24.html#post2455661

I've still yet to finish writing my long explanation of King Philippe's intentions with the 2015 decree, but the first few posts can be read here for anyone who is interested.

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...elgian-royal-family-38975-18.html#post2321611

One wonders why it took seven years for the Tervuren authorities to notice the royal decree which was published on November 24, 2015.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Returning to the changes of 1991 and 1995:

The third item on the list, namely the royal decree conferring the title of Prince of Belgium on Lorenz in 1995, can be dealt with more swiftly than the others. Unlike the 1991 constitutional amendment and the 1991 royal decree, the 1995 royal decree applied only to Lorenz personally:

Article 1. Dans les actes publics et privés qui le concernent, l'Archiduc Lorenz-Otto-Carl-Amedeus d'Autriche-Este, époux de Notre Fille bien-aimée, la Princesse Astrid-Joséphine-Charlotte-Fabrizia-Elisabeth-Paola-Marie, Princesse de Belgique, sera qualifié Prince de Belgique à la suite des noms et titres qui lui sont propres.

Artikel 1. In de openbare en private akten die hem aanbelangen, draagt Aartshertog Lorenz-Otto-Carl-Amedeus van Oostenrijk-Este, echtgenoot van Onze welbeminde Dochter, Prinses Astrid-Josephine-Charlotte-Fabrizia-Elisabeth-Paola-Marie, Prinses van België, de titel van Prins van België. Die titel volgt op zijn eigen namen en titels.​

Moreover, in contrast to the instruments of 1991, there was no explanatory preamble or press conference to reveal the considerations behind the royal decree of 1995. Thus, we simply cannot say with certitude what its purpose was, or whether or not the intent, at the time, was to treat future husbands of princesses similarly.

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

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

In 1991 the government informed the House of Representatives that the husband of a Queen of the Belgians would be known as Prince Consort. But of course that is not legally binding.

https://www.dekamer.be/digidoc/DPS/K2054/K20541513/K20541513.pdf

 

[An Ard Ri]

Prior to the Royal Decree of November 24, 1995 how did the Belgian Court address or style Lorenz?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The 'last name' of some members of the Belgian RF has changed. Prince Laurent and his family received a request from the administrative services of Tervuren to give some clarity.

The change of name is the result of a royal decree from 2015 that needed to solve the confusion between the name and the title. Up to now Laurent was 'Laurent van België, Prins van België'. He lives in the Flemish town of Tervuren, hence the Flemish spelling.

A year ago the prince was contacted byt he administrative services of Tervuren to changed their personal data. It is now 'Laurent van Saksen-Coburg' and 'Claire Coombs'.

The article states that it is not a problem for the childen of Pss Astrid, as they already use their father's last name 'd'Autriche-Este'.

The King, Queen, King Albert II, Queen Paola and Princess Elisabeth will continue to use 'van België'. The three younger children of the King are using 'van Saksen-Coburg' as well. Again in Flemish as Laeken is a Flemish municipalty as well.

https://www.hln.be/royalty/prins-la...0721cd/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Prince Laurent quiped that he was not happy with the new spelling as they went for the van and not the German von.

That is most interesting ideed.
This means that 4 surnames have the royal title:
Van België
Van Saksen-Coburg en Gotha
Van Oostenrijk-Este
O'Hare:


Albert Felix Humbert Theodoor Christiaan Eugène Marie van België, prins van België, Prins van Luik
(Koning Albert II)
Paola Margherita Giuseppina Maria Consiglia van België, prinses van België geboren des prinsen Ruffo di Calabria
(Koningin Paola)
Filip Leopold Lodewijk Maria van België, prins van België, Koning der Belgen
Mathilde Marie Christine Ghislaine van België, prinses van België geboren gravin d'Udekem d'Acoz
(Koningin Mathilde)
Elisabeth Theresia Maria Helena van België, prinses van België, Hertogin van Brabant

Gabriël Boudewijn Karel Maria van Saksen-Coburg en Gotha, prins van België
Emmanuel Léopold Guillaume François Marie van Saksen-Coburg en Gotha, prins van België
Eléonore Fabiola Victoria Anne Marie van Saksen-Coburg en Gotha, prinses van België

Astrid Joséphine-Charlotte Fabrizia Elisabeth Paola Marie van Oostenrijk-d'Este geboren Van Saksen-Coburg en Gotha, prinses van België
Lorenz Otto Carl Amadeus Thadeus Maria Pius Andreas Marcus d'Aviano van Oostenrijk-Este, prins van België
Amedeo Maria Joseph Carl Pierre Philippe Paola Marcus d'Aviano van Oostenrijk-Este, prins van België
Elisabetta Maria van Oostenrijk-Este, prinses van België geboren Rosboch von Wolkenstein
Maria Laura Zita Beatrix Gerhard Isvy geboren van Oostenrijk-Este, prinses van België
Joachim Carl Maria Nikolaus Isabelle Marcus d'Aviano van Oostenrijk-Este, prins van België
Luisa Maria Anna Martine Pilar van Oostenrijk-Este, prinses van België
Laetitia Maria Nora Anna Joachim Zita van Oostenrijk-Este, prinses van België

Laurent Benedikt Boudewijn Maria van Saksen-Coburg en Gotha, prins van België
Claire Louise van Saksen-Coburg en Gotha, prinses van België geboren Coombs
Louise Sophie Mary van Saksen-Coburg en Gotha, prinses van België
Nicolas Casimir Marie van Saksen-Coburg en Gotha, prins van België
Aymeric Auguste Marie van Saksen-Coburg en Gotha, prins van België

Delphine Michèle Anne Marie Ghislaine van Saksen-Coburg en Gotha, prinses van België
Joséphine O'Hare, prinses van België
Oscar O'Hare, prins van België

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The senior (blood) royals also have the legal surname of Saxe-Cobourg/Saksen-Coburg; the article is mistaken about that (as I will explain again shortly).


As it says (correctly) in the article, the legal surname of Lorenz and his children and grandchildren is "d'Autriche-Este (Habsbourg-Lorraine)". Even, for some reason, in Dutch.

Again, note how it appears in Princess Maria Laura's marriage consent decree:

Royal decree consenting to the marriage of Princess Maria Laura, in Dutch
Royal decree consenting to the marriage of Princess Maria Laura, in French

In Dutch:

De door artikel 85, tweede lid, van de Grondwet voorziene toestemming tot het huwelijk van Hare Koninklijke Hoogheid Prinses Maria Laura d'Autriche-Este (Habsbourg-Lorraine), Prinses van België, met de Heer William Isvy, wordt verleend.

In French:

Est accordé le consentement prévu à l'article 85, alinéa 2, de la Constitution au mariage de Son Altesse Royale la Princesse Maria Laura d'Autriche-Este (Habsbourg-Lorraine), Princesse de Belgique, avec Monsieur William Isvy.

Translation:

(The consent as foreseen in Article 85, second paragraph, of the Constitution is given for the marriage of Her Royal Highness Princess Maria Laura d'Autriche-Este (Habsbourg-Lorraine), Princess of Belgium, to Mr. William Isvy.)
​

And, like other Belgian men and women, the married women of the family all legally retain their own surnames, as we can see in - for example - the gazetting of Princess Claire's appointment as a grand ribbon of the Order of Leopold.

Bij koninklijk besluit van 14 juli 2004 werd benoemd :
Grootlint
Prinses Claire Coombs, Prinses van België.

Par arrêté royal du 14 juillet 2004 a été nommée :
Grand Cordon
la Princesse Claire Coombs, Princesse de Belgique.

Translation:

By royal decree of 14 July 2004 was awarded:
Grand Ribbon
Princess Claire Coombs, Princess of Belgium.

https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/c..._date=2005-01-05&numac=2004015232&caller=list​

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The Het Laaste Nieuws article mentions its source was Histoires Royales, whose report can be read at this link:

https://histoiresroyales.fr/famille-royale-belge-retrouve-nom-de-saxe-cobourg-etat-civil/

The original report from Histoire Royales says that all members of the royal family were asked by the municipal administrations to update their identity cards to include their "real" surnames at the beginning of 2022.

Selon nos informations, en 2022, les membres de la famille royale auraient été priés de faire modifier leur carte d’identité. [...] Officiellement, jusqu’à présent, les membres de la famille royale continuaient à faire usage du nom « de Belgique » ou « van België », en fonction de la région linguistique dans laquelle ils étaient enregistrés. Que ce soit à l’école, dans les administrations, sur leurs documents d’identité, le nom inscrit était bien « de Belgique ». [...] Selon nos informations, il y a environ un an, l’administration a prié aux membres de la famille royale de faire modifier leurs papiers afin que soit mentionné leur « véritable » patronyme. La mise en règle aurait opéré aux alentours du début de l’année 2022. Les princes et princesses de Belgique ont dû se rendre auprès de l’administration de leur commune de résidence pour faire modifier leurs papiers au début de l’année dernière.​

I think the dubious claim in the HLN article that the senior royals were exempted was (wrong) speculation inferred from the royal court's explanation in October 2022 of why Prince Gabriel wore "Van Saksen-Coburg" on his army name tag, while Princess Elisabeth wore "Van België" on hers. At the time, the royal court attributed the difference to Princess Elisabeth being the direct heir.

However, knowing what we now know, the difference in name tags could be ascribed to timing: Elisabeth completed her military training before the royal family updated their identity cards in early 2022, while Gabriel only began his military training a few months afterwards.


The re-registration in early 2022 would also explain why (as we discussed before) the 2015 decree by which the King granted consent to Prince Amedeo's marriage cited the prince as "His Royal Highness Prince Amedeo, Prince of Belgium", where the February 2022 decree for his sister's marriage included her legal surname, citing her as "Her Royal Highness Princess Maria Laura d'Autriche-Este (Habsbourg-Lorraine), Princess of Belgium".

The article as a whole is not completely reliable. For instance, it claims that only Astrid's family are entitled to use Princess/Prince before their own name, but that is false. See for example the usage of "Princess Claire Coombs, Princess of Belgium" in the official journal of the government.

However, the part about the modification of the royal family's civil registrations in early 2022 can be taken as reliable. Prince Laurent's comment to HLN seems to confirm it, and Histoires Royales also provides information from the public register of companies which seems to confirm it as well, as Prince Laurent and Princess Esmeralda both updated their names in the registrations of their companies/foundations:

Cela se confirme notamment en parcourant les documents qui concernent les administrateurs de société, qui sont consultables gratuitement en ligne et accessibles à tous. Le prince Laurent est le fondateur de la fondation sans but lucratif Global Renewable Energy & Conservation Trust (GRECT). La Banque-Carrefour des Entreprises (BCE), qui est le registre central d’identification des entreprises, identifie à présent l’administrateur de cette fondation comme étant « Laurent van Saksen-Coburg ». Le prince Laurent étant domicilié en Flandre, ses documents et son identité apparaissent en flamand. Il en va de même pour ses enfants.

Le prince Laurent est aussi administrateur de la société anonyme Compagnie des Éoliennes depuis 2019, succédant à son épouse, la princesse Claire, qui était l’administratrice depuis 2013. Une fois encore, leur nouvelle identité est confirmée, tout comme auprès de l’association sans but lucratif Environment Network dont ils sont les administrateurs depuis sa création en 2018. Sur les documents notariés d’il y a près de cinq ans, le frère du roi Philippe est encore identifié comme « le prince Laurent de Belgique ». Sur les derniers actes officiels de cette fondation, dont le but est le « développement et la gestion de projets environnementaux ou écologiques », la mention « de Belgique » a disparu. La princesse Claire est aussi officiellement identifiée comme « SAR Claire Coombs, princesse de Belgique », tout comme Laurent est (en français) « SAR Laurent de Saxe-Cobourg, prince de Belgique ».

Le changement d’identité affecte bien évidemment tous les membres de la famille royale. On peut le constater – et cela se confirme – lorsqu’on regarde les statuts de la fondation Friendship Belgium. Cette fondation a été créée en 2018 par la princesse Esmeralda, dernière fille du roi Léopold III et tante du roi Philippe. Lors de sa création, la princesse est identifiée (de manière assez hybride) comme « HRH Princesse Maria-Esmeralda de Belgique ». « HRH » est l’équivalent anglais de « SAR », la princesse étant une résidente britannique. Sa nouvelle identité auprès de la BCE est à présent bien mise à jour comme étant « Maria-Esmeralda de Saxe-Cobourg » avec la mention de « SAR la princesse Maria-Esmeralda » qui suit son patronyme en tant que princesse de Belgique.​

Again, I wonder why it took over six years between the publication of the 2015 decree and the updating of the civil registrations to be consistent with the decree.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The senior (blood) royals also have the legal surname of Saxe-Cobourg/Saksen-Coburg; the article is mistaken about that (as I will explain again shortly).


As it says (correctly) in the article, the legal surname of Lorenz and his children and grandchildren is "d'Autriche-Este (Habsbourg-Lorraine)". Even, for some reason, in Dutch.

Again, note how it appears in Princess Maria Laura's marriage consent decree:

Royal decree consenting to the marriage of Princess Maria Laura, in Dutch
Royal decree consenting to the marriage of Princess Maria Laura, in French

In Dutch:

De door artikel 85, tweede lid, van de Grondwet voorziene toestemming tot het huwelijk van Hare Koninklijke Hoogheid Prinses Maria Laura d'Autriche-Este (Habsbourg-Lorraine), Prinses van België, met de Heer William Isvy, wordt verleend.

In French:

Est accordé le consentement prévu à l'article 85, alinéa 2, de la Constitution au mariage de Son Altesse Royale la Princesse Maria Laura d'Autriche-Este (Habsbourg-Lorraine), Princesse de Belgique, avec Monsieur William Isvy.

Translation:

(The consent as foreseen in Article 85, second paragraph, of the Constitution is given for the marriage of Her Royal Highness Princess Maria Laura d'Autriche-Este (Habsbourg-Lorraine), Princess of Belgium, to Mr. William Isvy.)
​

And, like other Belgian men and women, the married women of the family all legally retain their own surnames, as we can see in - for example - the gazetting of Princess Claire's appointment as a grand ribbon of the Order of Leopold.

Bij koninklijk besluit van 14 juli 2004 werd benoemd :
Grootlint
Prinses Claire Coombs, Prinses van België.

Par arrêté royal du 14 juillet 2004 a été nommée :
Grand Cordon
la Princesse Claire Coombs, Princesse de Belgique.

Translation:

By royal decree of 14 July 2004 was awarded:
Grand Ribbon
Princess Claire Coombs, Princess of Belgium.

https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/c..._date=2005-01-05&numac=2004015232&caller=list​

That must be the infamous Belgian sloppiness and amateurism in three languages. There is no "Princess Claire Coombs". There is no "Princess Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz". Impossible.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

And, like other Belgian men and women, the married women of the family all legally retain their own surnames, as we can see in - for example - the gazetting of Princess Claire's appointment as a grand ribbon of the Order of Leopold.

Bij koninklijk besluit van 14 juli 2004 werd benoemd :
Grootlint
Prinses Claire Coombs, Prinses van België.

Par arrêté royal du 14 juillet 2004 a été nommée :
Grand Cordon
la Princesse Claire Coombs, Princesse de Belgique.

Translation:

By royal decree of 14 July 2004 was awarded:
Grand Ribbon
Princess Claire Coombs, Princess of Belgium.

https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/c..._date=2005-01-05&numac=2004015232&caller=list​

That must be the infamous Belgian sloppiness and amateurism in three languages. There is no "Princess Claire Coombs". There is no "Princess Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz". Impossible.

No, it is Belgian law and protocol.

First, it is the law that women (and everyone else) do not lose or change their birth names upon marriage:

https://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/belgians-abroad/registry/giving-name

5. Will marriage affect my surname?

Under Belgian law, marriage does not have any effect on the spouses' surnames. You keep the surname that you had before you were married.
​

In the specific case of Princess Claire, the royal decree by which she was legally created a Princess of Belgium decreed that this new title would follow her own names:

https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/mopdf/2003/04/08_1.pdf#Page8

Artikel 1. In de openbare en private akten die haar aanbelangen draagt Mejuffrouw Claire, Louise Coombs de titel van Prinses van België. Die titel volgt op haar eigen namen.

Article 1er. Dans les actes publics et privés qui la concernent, Mademoiselle Claire, Louise Coombs sera qualifiée Princesse de Belgique à la suite des noms qui lui sont propres.
​

Translated from the French:

Article 1. In the public and private acts relating to her, Miss Claire Louise Coombs will be referred to as Princess of Belgium following her own names.
​

But it is also the established official usage of the Royal Family. See how Queen Paola appeared in then Prince Philippe's marriage certificate issued by the City of Brussels in 1999. Her own surname also appears before the title Princess of Belgium.

https://heraldica.org/topics/royalty/royalbelge.htm#Belgique

[...] et de son épouse Sa Majesté la Reine Paola Margherita Maria-Antonia Consiglia des Princes Ruffo di Calabria, Princesse de Belgique, Grand Cordon de l'Ordre de Léopold, domiciliés à Bruxelles, [...]

([...] and of his wife Her Majesty Queen Paola Margherita Maria-Antonia Consiglia of the Princes Ruffo di Calabria, Princess of Belgium, Grand Ribbon of the Order of Leopold, domiciled in Brussels, [...])
​

And the then Princess Mathilde in 2000:

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

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)

Translation:

Order of Leopold
Appointed by royal decree of 19 September 2000:
Grand Ribbon
Princess Mathilde Marie Christine Ghislaine, Countess d'Udekem d'Acoz, Duchess of Brabant, Princess of Belgium (19.09.2000)
​

 

[maria-olivia]

Mathilde was never Countess d' Udekem d' Acoz.

As Belgian I don't trust Affaires Royales (2019) and Nicolas Fontaine.
This thread has some mistakes ! Sorry for us Belgians .

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

No, it is Belgian law and protocol.

First, it is the law that women (and everyone else) do not lose or change their birth names upon marriage:

https://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/belgians-abroad/registry/giving-name

5. Will marriage affect my surname?

Under Belgian law, marriage does not have any effect on the spouses' surnames. You keep the surname that you had before you were married.
​

In the specific case of Princess Claire, the royal decree by which she was legally created a Princess of Belgium decreed that this new title would follow her own names:

https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/mopdf/2003/04/08_1.pdf#Page8

Artikel 1. In de openbare en private akten die haar aanbelangen draagt Mejuffrouw Claire, Louise Coombs de titel van Prinses van België. Die titel volgt op haar eigen namen.

Article 1er. Dans les actes publics et privés qui la concernent, Mademoiselle Claire, Louise Coombs sera qualifiée Princesse de Belgique à la suite des noms qui lui sont propres.
​

Translated from the French:

Article 1. In the public and private acts relating to her, Miss Claire Louise Coombs will be referred to as Princess of Belgium following her own names.
​

But it is also the established official usage of the Royal Family. See how Queen Paola appeared in then Prince Philippe's marriage certificate issued by the City of Brussels in 1999. Her own surname also appears before the title Princess of Belgium.

https://heraldica.org/topics/royalty/royalbelge.htm#Belgique

[...] et de son épouse Sa Majesté la Reine Paola Margherita Maria-Antonia Consiglia des Princes Ruffo di Calabria, Princesse de Belgique, Grand Cordon de l'Ordre de Léopold, domiciliés à Bruxelles, [...]

([...] and of his wife Her Majesty Queen Paola Margherita Maria-Antonia Consiglia of the Princes Ruffo di Calabria, Princess of Belgium, Grand Ribbon of the Order of Leopold, domiciled in Brussels, [...])
​

And the then Princess Mathilde in 2000:

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

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)

Translation:

Order of Leopold
Appointed by royal decree of 19 September 2000:
Grand Ribbon
Princess Mathilde Marie Christine Ghislaine, Countess d'Udekem d'Acoz, Duchess of Brabant, Princess of Belgium (19.09.2000)
​

That is exactly the sloppiness: the title follows her own name. So it is Claire Louise Coombs, prinses van België. Not Prinses Claire Coombs. That is really amateurism by officials working in a little bureau which ressorts - utmost unlogical- under the Department of Foreign Trade & Development Cooperation.

Note that in the example of Mathilde it is actually correct: no "Princess Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz" but "Princess Mathilde, Countess d'Udekem d'Acoz, Princess of Belgium".

 

[Tatiana Maria]

And, like other Belgian men and women, the married women of the family all legally retain their own surnames, as we can see in - for example - the gazetting of Princess Claire's appointment as a grand ribbon of the Order of Leopold.

Bij koninklijk besluit van 14 juli 2004 werd benoemd :
Grootlint
Prinses Claire Coombs, Prinses van België.

Par arrêté royal du 14 juillet 2004 a été nommée :
Grand Cordon
la Princesse Claire Coombs, Princesse de Belgique.

Translation:

By royal decree of 14 July 2004 was awarded:
Grand Ribbon
Princess Claire Coombs, Princess of Belgium.

https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/c..._date=2005-01-05&numac=2004015232&caller=list​

And the then Princess Mathilde in 2000:

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

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)

Translation:

Order of Leopold
Appointed by royal decree of 19 September 2000:
Grand Ribbon
Princess Mathilde Marie Christine Ghislaine, Countess d'Udekem d'Acoz, Duchess of Brabant, Princess of Belgium (19.09.2000)
​

That is exactly the sloppiness: the title follows her own name. So it is Claire Louise Coombs, prinses van België. Not Prinses Claire Coombs. That is really amateurism by officials working in a little bureau which ressorts - utmost unlogical- under the Department of Foreign Trade & Development Cooperation.

Note that in the example of Mathilde it is actually correct: no "Princess Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz" but "Princess Mathilde, Countess d'Udekem d'Acoz, Princess of Belgium".

The only differences between the official styles of Mathilde and Claire, as quoted above from the Belgische Staatsblad (Moniteur Belge), the official record of the Belgian state authorities, are that "Countess" and "Duchess of Brabant" were included for Mathilde but not for Claire:

Mathilde:
Princess Mathilde, Countess d'Udekem d'Acoz, Duchess of Brabant, Princess of Belgium

Claire:
Princess Claire Coombs, Princess of Belgium


In both cases the title Princess of Belgium does follow after their own surnames (which I have highlighted in green), as stipulated in the decrees of creation.

Mathilde was never Countess d' Udekem d' Acoz.

The above citation of Mathilde's title is quoted from the Moniteur Belge, the official public record.

The government was correct to include the countess title. In 1999 Mathilde's father and his brothers and all their descendants received the title of count (countess). Quoting the Moniteur Belge again:


"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.
Cet arrêté entre en vigueur le 4 décembre 1999."

(By royal decree of 8 November 1999, the concession of the title of count for themselves and all their descendants is accorded to the baron Henri d'Udekem d'Acoz and to Mr. Raoul and Mr. Patrick d'Udekem d'Acoz, knights.
This decree enters into force on 4 December 1999.)

https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/c..._date=1999-11-13&numac=1999015266&caller=list

As Belgian I don't trust Affaires Royales (2019) and Nicolas Fontaine.
This thread has some mistakes ! Sorry for us Belgians .

If you read through my post about the Histoires Royales article, you will see that I pointed out a mistake in the article, so I am aware that Histoires Royales is not an infallible source (although it is certainly more reliable than Wikipedia).

But I have explained that I trust his statement about the early 2022 re-registration because it is backed up by Prince Laurent's comment as well as public records (and, indirectly, by the difference between Amedeo and Maria Laura's naming in the 2015 and 2022 royal decrees respectively).

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It may be the Moniteur Belge, in the ugliest amateuristic possible lay-out ever, truly a time warp to the era of AltaVista and Netscape, it still is not correct.

When the Royal Decree says the title Princess of Belgium follows her own name, it is Claire Louise Coombs, Princess of Belgium. And not Princess Claire Coombs as some sloppy clerk has written it down.

Otherwise it would be Princess Elisabetta Rosboch von Wolkenstein or Princess Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz. Neither the family Coombs, nor the families Rosboch von Wolkenstein or d'Udekem d'Acoz have any princely title. That title can not be used in combination with their surname. That is really so extremely incorrect. Im-pos-si-ble.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In the last few posts, I quoted a Royal Decree (2022), official notices of two other Royal Decrees (2000 and 2004), and a marriage certificate (1999). All were published in different years, so it is not one "sloppy clerk".

Again, these legal acts were published in the Belgische Staatsblad / Moniteur Belge which is the official paper of record for legislation and other legal public acts in Belgium.

When a name is printed incorrectly in the official record, a correction is made. If you search the Staatsblad/Moniteur, you will find various correction notices for incorrectly given names and information (example here). No corrections were issued for the Royal Decrees or marriage certificate I quoted. The names appeared correctly.

There are more examples of official documents which I can share, if you would like. However, you have not yet provided any documentation of the Royal Family or the Government using the form of titles for royal consorts that you say is correct - which would be helpful as it would show the basis for your claims.

In the specific case of Princess Claire, the royal decree by which she was legally created a Princess of Belgium decreed that this new title would follow her own names:

https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/mopdf/2003/04/08_1.pdf#Page8

Artikel 1. In de openbare en private akten die haar aanbelangen draagt Mejuffrouw Claire, Louise Coombs de titel van Prinses van België. Die titel volgt op haar eigen namen.

Article 1er. Dans les actes publics et privés qui la concernent, Mademoiselle Claire, Louise Coombs sera qualifiée Princesse de Belgique à la suite des noms qui lui sont propres.
​

Translated from the French:

Article 1. In the public and private acts relating to her, Miss Claire Louise Coombs will be referred to as Princess of Belgium following her own names.
​

When the Royal Decree says the title Princess of Belgium follows her own name, it is Claire Louise Coombs, Princess of Belgium. And not Princess Claire Coombs [...]

No, what the Royal Decree says is that the title Princess of Belgium follows her own names, which indeed it does. Nothing in the Royal Decree interferes with the established custom that "Princess" also precedes the first names of princesses of the Royal Family. So it is Princess Claire Coombs, Princess of Belgium, as stated in the Moniteur Belge.


Edited to add:

Otherwise it would be Princess Elisabetta Rosboch von Wolkenstein or Princess Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz.

Elisabetta is not legally a princess, so in the 2015 Royal Decree in which she is named, she was "Mrs. Elisabetta Maria Rosboch von Wolkenstein".

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

If then-Princess Mathilde had not inherited any title from her father, it would have been Princess Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz, Duchess of Brabant, Princess of Belgium. However, because she and her siblings did bear the paternal title of Countess since 1999, and the title of Countess precedes the surname "d'Udekem d'Acoz", she was named as Princess Mathilde, Countess d'Udekem d'Acoz, Duchess of Brabant, Princess of Belgium. The insertion of "Countess" is the only difference.

And the then Princess Mathilde in 2000:

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

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)

Translation:

Order of Leopold
Appointed by royal decree of 19 September 2000:
Grand Ribbon
Princess Mathilde Marie Christine Ghislaine, Countess d'Udekem d'Acoz, Duchess of Brabant, Princess of Belgium (19.09.2000)
​