--Previous Message--
: Did Leopold III have the legal right to make
: his children non-dynasts if he consented to
: his own marriage? It is one thing to
: regulate the titles of his wife and
: children, it is another to deprive or
: prevent the latter from having succession
: rights.
:
: --Previous Message--
: Remember the very bad timing of the
: marriage.
: War only started the previous year in
: Belgium; no one from the general public was
: aware the King had fallen in love again with
: such a young non-noble and very beautiful
: woman of Flemish origins and thought he was
: still mourning his first wife, the very
: popular and beloved Queen Astrid. Then he
: had contracted a religious wedding although
: Belgian law requires first a civil wedding
: in September 1941. This followed in December
: of the same year when King Leopold married
: in a haste the by that time already pregnant
: Lilian. While a lot of Belgian people
: suffered horribly from the war. King Leopold
: declared when the civil wedding was made
: public by the priests during the mass in
: December that any children born out of
: second marriage wouldn't have successional
: rights.
: I think King Leopold was aware of reactions
: and the consequences of his second marriage.
: Besides he had already two sons out of his
: first marriage, so possibly thinking the
: succession to the throne was secured.
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: King Leopold stipulated and made it clear
: after his civil was announced that his wife
: wouldn't bear the title of 'queen' and none
: of the children (sons at that time) would be
: in line of the succession to the throne.
: Technically it was not a morganatic marriage
: and Lilian was HRH Princess Lilian of
: Belgium, like the three children were and
: the surviving two daughters still are HRH
: Princess Marie-Christine of Belgium, HRH
: Princess Esmeralda of Belgium and the late
: HRH Prince Alexander of Belgium.
:
:
: Did the King really have the right to
: deprive his youngest son (Alexandre) of his
: successional rights?
:
: --Previous Message--
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: The example of Leopold III shows that a
: monarch does not need consent from the
: government or parliament to marry and remain
: on the throne.
:
:
: I had King Leopold in mind when I asked the
: question. If he didn't need the Parliament's
: consent, then why weren't his children from
: the second children seen as dynasts?
:
: It is however the government who since are
: the ones who can offer the new spouse
: her/his own title.
: The difference is clear between HRH princess
: Claire of Belgium and HRH princess Alexandre
: of Belgium. The first was given her own
: title upon her wedding the second wasn't.
:
: --Previous Message--
: According to the Belgium Constitution a
: member
: of the royal family can loose his (or her)
: rights by marrying without consent of the
: King (art. 85).
:
: So I would say no.
:
: There is one 'however': I don't know how
: 'the King' should be read in the Belgium
: Constitution. In the Dutch Constitution the
: term 'The King' should in some cases be
: translated in 'the government'. If the same
: applies in Belgium it would mean that the
: government had to approve of the marriage
: and they will probably only give that
: consent after approval of the parliament.
:
: --Previous Message--
: Did King Baudouin have to seek the
: Parliament's consent before marrying Fabiola
: de Mora y Aragon?
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
1
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index