Jump to content

Talk:Princess Delphine of Belgium

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title

[edit]

I don't believe that Ms. Boel would have had the option of "taking her mother's title," since titles in Europe usually descend through the male line only, unless the mother is a reigning monarch or was granted some special concession. That sentence may need to be rewritten or removed.68.72.97.109 (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Tu n'es pas ma fille" doesn't translate to "You are not my daughter anymore". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.44.1 (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, "tu" is very informal. A contemporary European constitutional King wanting to stress to an unfamiliar person that she's not his child would likely use "vous". YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Delphine Boël. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Delphine Boël. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is she Albert II's daughter?

[edit]

@Helsing90: argues that Boel isn't Albert II's daughter. What say you all? GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have never say that! I said that Delphine Boel isn't legally Albert II's daughter, she is the biological daughter only. The legal father of Delphine Boël is still Jacques Boël, there is a trial in June to determine if Delphine Boël can legally be the daughter of Albert II. Indeed, the court have to decide if the prescription has not yet arrived. In Belgium, this is not the DNA who decide the filiation, it is the law. If you want the truth, you can go on the WP:FR and the website of de Belgian Monarchie. btw --Helsing90 (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Albert II is still her father & belongs in the infobox as such, no matter what the court decision is. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay: I don't care, she is not a member of the royal family and will probably never be officially her daughter and will probably never inherit. Indeed, en Belgium, we are up to 30 years from 18 years old before the prescription but she waited 33 years; so she will never be her daughter. For those who want the truth, you can go on the WP:FR and the website of de Belgian Monarchie. --Helsing90 (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's arguing that she is a member of the Belgian royal family or in the line of succession to the throne. BTW - Seems to me, you're simply refusing to accept her being the retire king's daughter, for your own personal reasons. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay No, you don't understand french and I do, that's it!
Ya better brush up on your english, then. This is English Wikipedia, after all. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay You're racist? It's better something true but with mistakes as something wrong but with a perfect langage! ;) --Helsing90 (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How am I racist? Albert & Delphine are both caucasian race. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Helsing90:, Jacques Boël is not the legal father of Delphine, that was decided at the highest court (Cassatie) last year, as reported in many, many sources (in English, French and Dutch). Fram (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aaand she's just been granted the title of 'Princess of Belgium', as have her children (yes, yes, I know). JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed Princess?

[edit]

She won the royal name, yes - but the royal style and title?

I see that most, if not all, sources claiming that she now is a Princess goes back to the statement her lawyer made. Not the actual case ruling in itself. It should be noted that representatives of King Albert state that the matter of Princely titles is not for the court to decide, but the head of the Royal House of Belgium by Royal Decree. https://www.insider.com/former-king-albert-belgium-daughter-delphine-royal-title-2020-9 Further substantion is needed. Jonar242 (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I agree that her claim to the title of princess, the style and all the other lofty stuff need way more evidence to be included in the article. It seems to be mainly based on her own self-promotion, even when reported by some media. The royal family seems reluctant to officially recognise her as a princess. For someone born out of wedlock to a man married to someone else, claiming all these pretentious titles that have always been inherited only by legitimate and dynastic descendants is a textbook example of an extraordinary claim (because it has never happened before, at least not in modern European history) that requires extraordinary evidence. --Tataral (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read the lengthy, well-sourced replies in the section below, where you were discussing this yesterday? Your reply here suggests that you haven't, or else that no source, not even straight from the royal family, would ever satisfy you. That things didn't happen in the past is irrelevant, even monarchies finally have entered the 21st century. The law was changed in 2015[1], making all descendants of Albert II a prince or princess. Nowhere in that law is a distinction made between "legitimate" or "illegitimate", "wedlock" or "inside a marriage", "dynastic" or not... Please try to put your concerns in neutral words instead of accusing persons of self-promotion and the like, per WP:BLP. We are here to report on what reliable sources post, not on what the motives of the subjects of articles may be. Fram (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tataral wanted a source on the official website of the Belgian royal family. I've given one below, where she is called "Her Royal Highness Princess Delphine" in French and Dutch on that very official website of the Belgian royal family. So we have met Tataral's benchmark for proper sourcing, everybody should be happy... Sigur (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Fram, just a small correction: Not all descendants of King Albert II are princes or princesses, only his children and grandchildren (Art. 2 of the Royal Order - unless they also qualify under Art. 1, but Delphine and her offspring don't). Sigur (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion on this: see sections below, "Legitimacy of title" and "Wrong lemma".

Purported marriage

[edit]

Does anybody have a decent source for the purported marriage of Delphine? The first source cited says "husband", but without further precision. The second source cited only says they are living together since 2003 - just as any other source I've seen until now. So, there is a serious doubt about that marriage. Sigur (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least in 2009, she was not married to O'Hare. See here. Without confirmation from either of the two, we shouldn't describe them as married. Fram (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And apparently in 2020 they aren't married either: [2]: "Delphine noemt Jim haar echtgenoot, maar ze zijn niet getrouwd." Fram (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a parameter for "partner" or something similar in Template:Infobox royalty. Should the spouse field just be cleared in the infobox? Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed :-) Fram (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimacy of title

[edit]

Delphine Boël may be the daughter of King Albert, but she was born in 1968, nine years after her father was married to Queen Paola, whom he has been married to ever since. There is no evidence that he was ever married to Delphine's mother. There is no evidence at all that she isn't illegitimate, like the Duke of Monmouth tried to claim to assert 'his' rights. Delphine doesn't seem to have made a case for the idea that her parents were secretly married at all, so how in the world could she be a princess? Let alone her children - after all, their father was not related to royalty at all. Unless by naming Delphine "Princess Delphine of Belgium" they are proclaiming her sovereign princess of a new nation that is coincidentally also named Belgium, which is the only way I can see for her children to be royalty - and it's hardly more absurd than what they're currently doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.0.125 (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what your expertise in Belgian constitutional law is based on? Nobody has ever asserted that Delphine of Saxony-Coburg's parents have ever been married to each other. So, definitely, she was born out of wedlock and thus excluded from succession to the Belgian throne under Article 85 of the Constitution which requires the heir to be a "natural" (i.e. not adoptive) and "legitimate" (i.e. born in wedlock) descendant in direct line of King Leopold George Christian Frederic of Saxony-Coburg. She is all of that, except born in wedlock. But titles, be it "princess" or "of Belgium" aren't regulated in the constitution, but in ordinary legislation. And ordinary Belgian legislation has abolished all distinction as to birth within or out of wedlock. In particular, a Royal Order of 12 November 2015 has determined in its Article 2:
In public and private acts concerning them, the Princes and Princesses, children and grandchildren, direct descendants of His Majesty King Albert II bear the title of Prince or Princess of Belgium after their forename and, insofar as they bear these, of their surname and their dynastic title and before the other titles to which they have a legal right by their descent. Their forename is preceded by the predicate His or Her Royal Highness.
The lady we are talking about has made it abundantly clear that she insists on bearing her legally recognised father's surname. Therefore, she legally is (predicate - forename - surname - title) "Her Royal Highness Delphine of Saxony-Coburg, Princess of Belgium".
Based on the mentioned Royal Order, I have absolutely no doubt that the Brussels Court of Appeals was right in determining exactly that - and that consequently you err. Sigur (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear that her legal parents were Jacques Boël (after all, she carried his name) and Sybille de Selys Longchamps, who were married to each other until 1978. Simply taking a DNA test doesn't void your legal parents. She can "insist" on any name she likes, but there is no evidence that Jacques Boël isn't her legal father (who may be a different person as the biological father, typically for adopted children, or people born out of wedlock). Noble and royal status is inherited only by people born in marriage, and while she may "insist" on calling herself "de Saxe-Cobourg" as a surname, that doesn't in itself make her a princess (which is not a name, but a title; after all her father never even carried the title) or give her the style of royal highness, or a place in the line of succession or anything else that comes with it. Any court decisions regarding her (biological) parenthood are separate from the question of constitutional titles and a place in the line of succession that are, in every country, granted by the sovereign or given as a result of being born in marriage (sometimes even dynastically) to a royal father.

Not to mention her children, who have a father of their own, who isn't royal. Their mother simply taking a DNA test doesn't render their own father irrelevant. Everyone who is a biological (illegitimate) descendant (over several generations) of someone who happens to be royal isn't automatically a prince. Not even all legitimate descendants of royalty carry princely titles (e.g. Princess Anne's children). It seems to me that the insistence that she, her husband and children suddenly carry all these titles, despite not even being in the line of succession, is based on her own self-promotion and dubious claims.

More importantly, she and her family don't seem to be included on the official website of the royal family, as princes or princesses, and as long as that is the case there is simply not sufficient evidence to suddenly give them these titles here, especially when they wouldn't automatically have these titles under the laws of any monarchies on the planet.[3]. --Tataral (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her legal father is King Albert II, as judged by the court. Her legal name is Princess Delphine, as judged by the court. The website of the royal family has absolutely no legal value at all. We go with what is legal, and with what reliable, independent sources state: all newspapers call her princess Delphine. Fram (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, newspapers calling her "princess" isn't proof of legal parenthood as such, but they did also report the judicial decision establishing legal parenthood (and earlier the decision rescinding Jacques Boël's paternity); so there can't be any doubt about that. And I have earlier linked to the legal basis for the title, once it is legally established that one is the child of Albert II. Sigur (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like very original research to me, in the sense that it also ignores mainstream interpretations. You have been quoting a text that discusses the rights of children and descendants of the monarch in a constitutional context, however in such contexts "children" always refer to legitimate and dynastic children and descendants in every country I am aware of. The civil issue concerning parenthood under civil law is entirely separate from the constitutional issue concerning the line of succession and the things that come with it (e.g. various lofty styles and titles) and that primarily relate to the country of Belgium rather than her biological father personally. In other words, while a judge may give her the right to carry the surname "de Saxe-Cobourg" and the right to inherit a portion of her father's wealth when he dies, only Belgian constitutional law can give someone a place in the line of succession, or legal, constitutional privileges (i.e. rights that ordinary Belgians don't have) that relate to Belgium as a country rather than her father as private individual (biological father).
As long as she isn't even included as a princess on the website of the Belgian royal family itself, we can safely assume that she isn't officially a princess, and that these claims are the result of a combination of self-promotion and tabloid reporting built on a lack of understanding of how such titles are awarded or inherited. The reasoning that assumes that a "biological child" must automatically be a "princess" regardless of legitimacy (when her biological father was even married to someone else at the time of her birth) and without any official acknowledgement of her alleged title from the king is quite nonsensical; history is full of biological descendants of royalty who were never considered dynastic or royal; for example Albert of Monaco also has (illegitimate) children without titles, princely status or succession rights. Because (at least until now), nobody has ever heard of an illegitimate descendant of a monarch automatically inheriting such lofty titles, even in circumstances where the monarch fought tooth and nail against acknowledging the paternity. Historically, an illegitimate descendant of a monarch acknowledged by their father as such would sometimes be given a much lesser title (e.g. count), but since the 20th century they have typically not been awarded any title. In any event, for someone who isn't born in marriage to royalty it would require a specific act (as in ennoblement), a gift of the monarch, to give them any title, and the proof of that would surely be found in the official communications of the royal family rather than foreign tabloids reporting on a DNA test that former king wanted no part in. --Tataral (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"As long as she isn't even included as a princess on the website of the Belgian royal family itself, we can safely assume that she isn't officially a princess, and that these claims are the result of a combination of self-promotion and tabloid reporting built on a lack of understanding of how such titles are awarded or inherited. " I would advise you to drop this line of reasoning, the website of the royal family has zero value for these issues. The royal family website (nor the royal family) decides who is or isn't legally a prince or princess in Belgium. Whatever happens in other countries again is irrelevant.
As for the quality of the sources; De Standaard is very far from a tabloid, and they unreservedly proclaim her "princess"[4]. The VRT is the state-funded (Flemish language) TV and Radio station, and they call her "Princess" and "Her Royal Highness" as well[5]. Le Soir is probably the most serious, least tabloid newspaper on the Francophone side, and they call her Princesse as well. As does the RTBF, the Francophone equivalent of the VRT[6]. Internationally, I wouldn't call The Guardian a tabloid[7], or The New York Times[8], or the BBC[9]. The legal battle and her legal right to the title "princess" is described by Reuters, highly respectable news source[10].
So, unless you can provide a plethora of better sources which actually make the claim that she is not the legal daughter of Albert and that she isn't a princess, I think the article stays like it is. Fram (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen no evidence of her being a princess. For all other royal families Wikipedia tends to rely heavily to exclusively upon authoritative, official statements from the royal court, typically presented on the official website of the royal house, on who is and who isn't a prince or princess. When some media have called her a "princess", they may have used that term in an informal sense; many fathers call their daughters "princesses" informally too. When she isn't mentioned as a princess on the official website of the Belgian royal family, it means that, in all likelihood, she isn't formally or constitutionally a princess of the country of Belgium, that she isn't in the line of succession either, and that she doesn't hold any particular (constitutional) privileges normal Belgians couldn't get via a civil paternity lawsuit. Natural child of a man who was married to someone else at the time of her birth (whether legally established or not) ≠ princess.
If she were in fact a princess, it should be easy for you to find an official statement to that effect from the Belgian king, the royal court or the government, like we have for all other people claimed to be princesses of extant countries. --Tataral (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, let's sum up here: What do we have? On the one side a court decision reported by all Belgian mainstream news outlets as deciding that she has the right to her father's surname and the princely title. Sorry, but they can't all be wrong. The TV stations had reporters posted in front of the court building when the decision was handed down, so it's not as if this could be something where they all copy the same faulty source. They were all there themselves. On the other hand we have your subjective impression that it's not thinkable that a king's adulterous child can get royal titles. And you have very exactly zero sources to back that up as far as Belgium is concerned. But just in case, have a look at the official Facebook page of the Belgian monarchy, scroll down and you will find a "Joint communication of the King and Princess Delphine" (15 October 2020, 6:45 - open it to see the English version) (EDIT: Just seeing it on the Palace's website as well in French and Dutch). But I suppose you will tell me now that even the king got it wrong and she's not a princess after all, because it just can't be... This is really getting ridiculous. Sigur (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in Belgium, "Natural child of a man who was married to someone else at the time of her birth (whether legally established or not) ≠ princess. " simply isn't true. Who is or isn't a princess is defined by law, not by declaration, and it is the courts who can (in case of dispute, like here) decide who may carry the title. The government doesn't decide this (they made the law, they don't decide to whom it applies), and neither does the royal family (nor their website). It is quite clearly explained in this article in Le Soir. One would expect that, when all newspapers and TV channels declare that someone is a princess, and subsequently is invited to the royal palace (first by King Filip, later by Albert and Paola), that someone would make an official statement declaring that "contrary to what the court and the newspapers have said, she isn't a princess.
Absent such a declaration, and considering the many, many reliable sources all stating that she is a princess, not in some fairytale sense but legally, there is no reason for us at all to doubt the legitimacy of her title. If neither the government nor the royal family takes further steps to appeal the court decision, but on the contrary give every appearance of accepting it fully, then there is nothing left to discuss.
Note, finally, that apparently the royal family is calling her "princess" in the press releases about the two visits, e.g. here and here. I doubt that the VRT would falsify a quote from the royal palace. Fram (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See also the following section “Wrong lemma” on this topic. Equord (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong lemma

[edit]

The name as currently used by this article, Princess Delphine of Belgium, is incorrect. While the current Royal family uses the last name "of Belgium" following a change by King Albert I after WWI, this was solely an informal change and was never changed legally. Hence the Brussels Court of Appeals has based itself on the Constitution, in which article 85 states that the last name of King Leopold I, first King of the Belgians, is "of Saxony-Coburg". This also follows a recent change in policy by the current King Philippe, who has decided that only children of the current monarch and heir may bear the last name "of Belgium" while all other family members will bear the last name "of Saxony-Coburg". Hence her name is not, as this article suggest, "Princess Delphine of Belgium", but rather "Delphine of Saxony-Coburg" with the title "Princess of Belgium". Here is a Dutch source on the matter by a professor in law of the university of Leuven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:DC38:CE00:C507:DE4E:45DE:BAE9 (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As your source correctly states, "of Belgium" isn't a surname for any of those royals, but part of the title "Prince(ss) of Belgium" for all of them (including Delphine). It's just that some of them de facto have the habit of actually using their surname and others don't. But legally, both the surname and the titel are the same for Delphine and her half-siblings. Now, I don't care, what the lemma should be, but I note that the lemmas for all her half-siblings are styled "... of Belgium", so at least this seems coherent. Sigur (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discrepancy is a result of, as I mentioned, a recent change in policy by the current king. Previously every member of the family was allowed to bear the surname "of Belgium", so when Delphine's half-siblings were born they gained this last name. The current king however changed this policy to the one I described up above, and since Delphine was granted official family status after this change happened the Royal family requested that the name "of Saxony-Coburg" be used, a request which the Court of Appeals followed. So Delphine bears a different surname than her half-siblings, true, but this is her legal name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:DC38:CE00:C507:DE4E:45DE:BAE9 (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please read your own source? "Sinds Albert I verkiest de koninklijke familie de titel te ­gebruiken, in plaats van hun ­familienaam. Vandaar de verwarring." Okay? They use a title instead of a surname. They haven't changed their surname. "Titel" "in plaats van hun familienaam". Yes, their surname, because "of Saxony-Coburg" remains their surname, they simply have the habit of not using it and using their title instead. It's crystal clear. But the rule is the same for everybody, and I gave the link to the rule and its translation above. It's easy to see that Delphine and her half-siblings bear the same surname and the same title. She said she wasn't going to use the title much, but definitely the surname. Her choice. Her half-siblings are permanently using their title, but generally not their surname. Their choice. Does that warrant a difference in the lemma? I don't know, and I actually don't care. But stop saying that they don't share the same surname. It is simply beyond conceivable debate that they all legally have the same surname ("of Saxony-Coburg") and the same title ("Prince(ss) of Belgium"). Sigur (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I follow this link: Delphine officieel prinses van Saksen-Coburg on standaard.be about the court ruling of 1 Oct 2020 (only to the title and subtitle of the article because of the payment barrier), it clearly states that she was given the name prinses van Saksen-Coburg. There is no mention of a Princess of Belgium. A fundamental distinction must be made: The family name of the royal family is de Saxe-Cobourg/Saksen-Coburg/Sachsen-Coburg (in the 3 official languages of Belgium), with the associated (originally German) title of prince/ss. The title Prince/ss of Belgium is not a family name, as correctly stated in the discussion above, but a constitutional title. It is only available to members of the royal family who are in direct line of succession to the throne after Albert II. (which she as an illegitimate child is not). The members of the house have indeed a family name (with an ancient title), plus a current royal title: Prince/sse de Saxe-Cobourg, prince/sse de Belgique. Which of these they use in everyday life is up to them. The court could only recognize a last name, not a title. Many newspaper articles confuse this, which was probably due to the misleading press release from her lawyer. Courts can recognize or assign family names, but can hardly grant titles of nobility. This is reserved for monarchs. The ex-king's lawyer also emphasized it: https://www.businessinsider.com/former-king-albert-belgium-daughter-delphine-royal-title-2020-9 And nowhere, absolutely nowhere, could I find the text of the court ruling online. Probably for reasons of privacy. On her own website she calls herself Delphine de Saxe-Cobourg [11] Another question is whether this is just an official surname or actually a title of nobility. If the current king, her half-brother, recognizes the title of princess (of Saxe-Coburg), she will be ennobled. I haven't found any official confirmation that this happened. The royal family's website contains the following message about a meeting between the king, her half-brother, and Delphine: Message commun de Sa Majesté le Roi et de Son Altesse Royale la Princesse Delphine. There she is called "Her Royal Highness Princess Delphine", although without mentioning her family name (Saxe-Coburg). In no way is she called “Princess of Belgium” there. This could indicate that her princess title (of Saxe-Coburg) will be recognized as such. The Coburgians are entitled to the title of Royal Highness, both in the Anglo-German and Belgian branches. But press releases are no substitute for a letters patent. Nothing is known of such a thing yet. Press secretaries are not monarchs either (and who knows who ordered what... or who didn't want to annoy whom). If you search here, you won't find an official press release about it, just tons of newspaper articles with contradicting information. But journalists can no more ennoble than judges or employees of the press office. I think the current lemma is simply wrong, she is neither Princess of Belgium nor is that her name. She's not a Princess of Saxe-Coburg either, that's just her name - as long as there is no letters patent. Her children may also use the name, but certainly not as a noble title, because female succession to noble titles is not provided for under traditional Salic law in Belgium, unless it is expressly stated in a Letters Patent. The designation of Delphine's children as Princes of Belgium in this article is therefore absurd. Even more so since in 2015 the King limited the title of “Prince/ss of Belgium” to the children and grandchildren of the monarch and the heir to the throne who are in the “line of succession”: Le Roi limite l’octroi du titre de "prince de Belgique", while all other descendants (in the male line) will just keep their family name and title of Prince/ss of Saxe-Coburg. In previous generations, monarchs would have given their enfants bâtards worthy but inferior morganatic titles, as did King Louis XIV (and many others). If Albert II had done this in time, he would probably have saved himself a lot of trouble. Unfortunately, the discussion here is full of (press) smokescreens and a lot of confusion. The correct lemma would be: Delphine of Saxe-Coburg or, as English is not an official language of Belgium and her mere name not (undisputedly) a title - rather: Delphine de Saxe-Cobourg, as she calls herself. Equord (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on her children

[edit]

Her children are now notable ? Her children are also members of the reigning royal family and officially received the royal titles. So should we create articles for them? [12], [13], “ As a result, the down-to-earth teenager immediately swapped her old name of Josephine Boel for the new title of Princess Josephine de Saxe-Cobourg Gotha — as did her little brother Prince Oscar, 12.”. All children of the senior members of royal family have their standlone WP articles. Princess Josephine de Saxe-Cobourg Gotha is in 17. VocalIndia (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not think we should. Notability is not inherited, and those are really not the kind of sources upon which an encyclopedia should be built. They are just minors whose mother has won a court case. We have also recently deleted articles about Prince Laurent's children. Surtsicna (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ughh... Surtsicna Thank you so much for pointing me to this. VocalIndia (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gotha

[edit]

I've just taken off "et Gotha" as part of her surname. I know that the name is often given as Saxony-Cobourg and Gotha, which was the traditional name of the family before the first king acceded to the Belgian throne, but the Belgian constitution keeps it to "Saxony-Cobourg" and this is also the version I've seen Delphine's lawyer use when commenting the court proceedings. So, unless there is some official source for the version with "Gotha", I think we need to keep the one we find in the constitution. Sigur (talk) 07:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leopold I of Belgium was actually born a Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, not of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. The latter house was founded by his elder brother Ernest I, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. When he swapped Saalfeld for Gotha in 1826, the family changed its name. Equord (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Princess_Delphine_of_Belgium&oldid=1257639963"