Talk:Monarchy of Belgium

Untitled

Whats the native language of the Belgian kings? --P

French. Erwin 08:58, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I believe Albert II is bilingual in French & Flemish (and probably speaks some English & German) -- if only for political reasons. The Queen is a native of Italy, but also speaks French. --Michael K. Smith 22:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

My great-uncle, Professor Ferdinand Massart, as a Belgian Senator was one of the most stalwart defenders of the interests of the French Language politico-geographic groupings in the great debates of the 1960s. In the 1940s, he was teacher of natural sciences to the two princes at Laeken, the future Kings Baudoin and Albert, and evidently taught them in the medium of French, their mother tongue according to my mother, who played with them on the beach as children. However, the 1960s also made it very clear that the future monarch would be bilingual, and every effort was made to preserve that balance in Prince Phillip. It should however be noted that his military education was in the Francophone wing, and has married a francophone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.25.40.112 (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Timeline

I changed the timeline so that the names of the monarchs are now set inside their respective bars. My reason for this: I initially misunderstood the representation. I wondered how Leopold II. could have reigned that late, checked on his page, and was wondering... then realized I had missed the small stubby bar for Erasme, and had attributed the names to the bars below instead of left of them. I think the way I changed it makes it clearer for a person that just glances at the timeline for a second or two. The colors are definitely a matter of taste, and I encourage people with better feeling for colors to change them if necessary -- I just chose what was a readable background for blue text, and still easily distinguishable between king and regent.

History of Belgian Monarchy?

This article does not contain anything about how Belgium came to have monarchs, or even a link to its history so you can find out what came before.

It also does not refer to the probably best-known historical period associated with the Belgian monarchy, namely the atrocities committed in the Belgian Congo and the steps taken to change the Congo from a personal possession of the Belgian king Leopold to a Belgian colony.

No picture of the king and queen? If anyone has a picture it should be uploaded here...Mikeonatrike 16:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is factually incorrect in stating that the National Congress chose a Monarchy: it was forced on them by the Chairman of the Société Générale, Frederic Meeus, as part of his conditions for taking the finances of the State in charge. The crisis arose when Civil Service salaries fell due at the end of the month, as they had previously been paid by the expelled Netherlands administration: the only taxation easily recoverable was due from the Société Générale, but the Chairman initially refused, arguing that if the Revolution failed because of financial difficulties, he would have to pay the tax again! This is why Leopold I became a shareholder of SG, as the company owned (and during the next ten years sold off at a pittance to its major shareholders in their personal capacity) the Austrian Ducal Estates, a third of the Country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.25.40.112 (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a conspiracy theory. Even if some of it was true, something else was crucial. It is undisputed among historians that Leopold I was put on the throne due to British insistance. They wanted to find a new job for the widower of the late British Crown Princess, who was sitting idle in London. And make sure that English, not French, influence prevails in Brussels. They were later all the more disappointed by the king's marriage to a French king's daughter. Equord (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Polical involovment

Army - official BUT Administrative - non official

petition -> write : Peoples petition rather the parliament.--Ymulleneers 14:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

it says that the powers of the King have been under public debate and that they have continued to lessen under each successive King. As well it says that there has been some debate over reducing the role of the King to a purely ceremonial role. This is all without citation, I have little doubt that this could be true, but if so citations shouldn't be difficult to find. A public bebate should have newspaper articles and the like arguing the issue, otherwise its just a pet theory and a POV. Colin 8 22:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Comparisons with other monarchies

The article is full of comparisons with the British monarchy. Is this necessary? The Belgian Monarchy can stand alone without being compared with its peers, and I'm sure that people can understand the article without constantly wondering "is that the same as the do it in the UK?". Unless there is a consensus for keeping these references, I'll take them out soon.

--Chrisfow 16:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. Surtsicna (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. The Belgian monarchy had been modelled on the Bristih monarchy, a constitutional monarchy, but this Belgian monarchy, as Arango explained it, was nevertheless not truly a constitutionnal monarchy. The comparison with these other monarchies is very important. I recall that the title of this para is Its origins and about these origins, it is absolutely important to say (as Arango explained it but also Fusilier who made comparisons with the other monarchies), that this monarchy has not the same evolution as the other monarchies (in the Modernity). So, the Belgian monarchy was never an absolute monarchy, yes, ok, but this monarchy was not truly constitutionnal, having on this way some traits of an absolute monarchy even if it is closer the constitutionnal monarchies. There are relevant sources on these topics (mainly Arango and Fusilier), and there is a whole chapter of Arango explaining how Leopold IIi had a vision of the Belgian monarchy closer the absolute monarchies. The Belgian monarchy is (or was until 1950 but may be until Baudouin Ier died) very different from the other european monarchies. Perhaps in other words that I wrote. But I am going to put some elements coming from Arango, Fusilier, other authors... Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the argument is the inverse: not so much the effect of the British on Belgium as Belgium's on Britain starts in the status of Leopold I as widower of the British Crown Princess Caroline. Under the prevalent Catholic doctrines of the time, the absence of a strong heir to the British Throne (the future Queen Victoria being a mere 11 years old at the time, and under the tutellage of her mother, Léopold's sister) meant that had the newly-enthroned King William IV, already elderly and without issue, died, then her mother might have opted for the rule of her brother, an experienced warrior with a more direct claim, albeit through marriage, rather than her daughter.

Leopold had already refused the Greek monarchy, and his acceptance of the Belgian monarchy resolved a knotty problem which was one of the starting points for Victoria's displacement of her mother when she eventually came to the throne. This was complicated by British embarrassment over the creation of Belgium, as Castlereigh had created the pressures by refusing the Belgian approach through Prussia in the 1814 Congress of Vienna, asking for independence after Austria denounced its territorial claims, a historical oddity left outstanding in the wake of the Wars of the Spanish Succession. Claiming the country was too economically feeble to stand alone, Castlereigh eventually overcame William Prince of Orange's qualms about taking on what he considered to be a rabidly Catholic country by persuading him that he would far rather be King of both than Prince of the one, and advising him that he could finance it from the Austrian Ducal Estates. The Belgians reciprocated the feeling and the cashflow dried up, so William created the Société Générale with one of the more flintier-hearted Belgian financiers in charge, Frederic Meeus. Seen as the Dutch King's stooge, Meeus' town house in Brussels was burned by the mob in the 1830 Revolution, while he was actually leading an impromptu militia cavalry unit chasing the Dutch troops back across the border. On his return, Louis de Potter was in the serious financial straits I describe above, but had the Premiership passed to Meeus, the Maroliens would have destroyed the lot. However, he was able to take the title of Count de Meeus and with it the Ministry of Finance.

The integrality of the Meeus faction's subversion of the Belgian political system is described in the Royal Archivist Pierre-Alain Tailler's private monograph Ces Terres qui Firent Les Domaines Ducales, in which he substantiates his unpublished claim that the following ten years were "le plus grand vol de l'histoire de la Belgique" (text is in the National Archives, Rue de Bodenbroeck, 1000 Brussels). That set the precedent for Léopold II's private acquisition of the Congo.

The Netherlands reaction to the Belgian secession was to appeal to the Great Powers, who convened in London in December 1830, recognising Belgian independence. Léopold I's training as a constitutional monarch at British hands therefore established a certain precedent in his relationship with Meeus, but their increasing individual wealth took different turns under Leopold II, the King finding the Congolese wealth while the Argenteuil clan "invested in children". Under Albert I, the Belgian Monarchy reached its apogee, in holding the line against the German race to the sea in the Battle of the Yser: the monarchic relationship was recognised in the German declaration of war on Belgium in 1914 and in the UK's defence of its quasi-protectorate. It was in this time that my great-grandfather established the family relationship, being awarded the Chevalier of the Ordre de Léopold with oak-leaf clusters on the battlefield by the direct order of the King - the family went on to establish the Massart-Guiot press empire which maintained Belgian resistance in WWII. I can supply a link to a Tribunal de Commerce document establishing my own relationship with de Potter d'Indoie, the Cour de Cassation, de Pret Roose de Calesberg and Argenteuil.

The nadir of the Belgian monarchy was, evidently, the monarchy of Leopold III's subjugation during this period. However, his children's conduct as moderators of the sometimes fractious Belgian political system has obviously recovered that loss of reputation, and now we see the next generation moving up. Princess Elizabeth another Queen Victoria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.25.40.112 (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Origins

I have spent some time editing the sub-headings under Origins even though I feel they are poorly constucted and un-neccesarily "wordy". I always attempt to work with the existing article...to collaborate with the editors that have come before me. I would suggest further changes but at a later time.Buster7 (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The official Belgian federal website is not the best source. It is impssible to write (only) what it is said in this site. The monarchy in Belgium is a political problem and good authors as Fusilier and Arango said this monarchy was not truly constitutional. OK, this monarchy was never an absoute monarchy but at the time when Arango and Fusilier wrote, it was not truly a constitional monarchy. We must also put that in the page. Remember that the Belgian Royal Question was the worst politcal problem in the history of Belgium. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You wrote Since he is bound by the Constitution (above all other ideological and religious considerations, political opinions and debates and economic interests). I repeat I don't agree with that for several reasons: 1. It is not said in the Belgian Constitution. 2. The first king of the Belgians became quickly the richest man of Belgium and he was since 1835/1840 the most important shareholder of the Société Générale de Belgique. It is famous he was actually the Foreign minister of Belgium. And the actual political leader of Belgium (he was efficient in the vocabulary of Bagehot). Henri Pirenne wrote that very well... 3. Albert I of Belgium, also according to Pirenne, was not bound (de facto) by the Constititution. 4. Leopold III of Belgium was not above political opinions, his brother Prince Charles, when he was the Regent said about him to Jean Duvieusart (June 1950) his brother was l'homme d'un parti, the man of a political party. I will put all these remarks based on relevant sources. Sincerely José Fontaine (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)( I agree with the fact the king was a kind of a referee, but sometimes yes, sometimes no).

Dear Buster, simply thank you for your help. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I am so thrilled that we are working together...for the good of the article. Can it be? A Walloon and a Fleming working toward the same result? Your additions of today make the article flow much better. (I must admit that, at first, I felt we would be at odds). Hij sij bedankt. Buster7 (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ik ben ook zeer gelukkig. Im a also very happy. But i am only able to speak ABN (and not very well even if - af een toe - I translate short texts from Flemish fiends). Hartelijk, José Fontaine (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Family Tree section

Anybody know how to fix tha section's appearance? GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Bias in "A hereditary and (theoretically) constitutional system"

Starting with the "scare perenthesis" in the section header, this section appears to be a one-sided response to a consensus understanding of the Belgian monarchy -- and the consensus understanding itself hasn't been presented! Moreover, most of the citations and viewpoints are from one particular author. This needs serious work to conform to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view guideline, and it's actually difficult to read without trying to make guesses at the context. -- SCZenz (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to research the Press for the relevant clippings concerning King Albert II's position during the protracted formation of the 2011 Government, as his exasperation concerning the constitutional untenability of the interim government as a democratic structure reflected on his position as Head of State. It might be worth considering whether the fear of a repeat of that experience in 2014 led to his abdication now - vide Elio di Rupo's somewhat tongue-in-cheek comments about his laying down his post before the new King! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.25.40.112 (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Family name/surname

I am not sure that in 1920 their 'family name' was changed... If I recall correctly, there existed a time where the Belgian king's children were actually not officially "of Belgium" (this was an oversight in statutes regulating the titles and styles of the royal family). I don't think that the royal family has a surname in the regular sense. They just have a territorial designation in three languages. Saxe-Coburg and Gotha wasn't a surname to change anyway. It is and was a territorial and dynastic designation. 99.246.46.229 (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The 1920 date was contemporary with a review of the Belgian Legal Code's objectivity, producing for example the codification of ASBL Law in 1921. Given that the English ditched everything German including the Saxe-Coburg name during WWI, an option not available to the Belgian House, the same seems eminently likely in Belgium. Technically, the name of a noble house is normally toponymic, although sometimes this can be lost in the mists of antiquity (I'm thinking here of the one instance Desmarez got it wrong, describing de Montfort as parvenu in his Rue Isabelle, on the basis of their slot's location in the angle between that road and the Rue Terarken: in fact, it's visible on the 1567 Braun and Hogenburg map of Brussels, and the surviving tower, buried in the revetment wall of the Hotel Errara and accessible from the Bozar patio, is clearly far older, supporting the hypothesis that de Montfort is yet another cadet line of Koudenburg, as specified in the recent discovery of its roots in Judith of Cambrai's second son.

Parallels exist in ecclesia, where an Archbishop signs with his see ("Cantua") even though he may move on later, and established nobility ("Durham"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.25.40.112 (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

List of Kings of the Belgians

That section is incomplete. How does one edit it? GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Not "truly" constitutional?

If it is worth mentioning in the text that some historian named Ramon Arango thinks that the Belgian monarchy is not "truly" constitutional, it ought to be explained what he means by that. John Tatebury (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monarchy of Belgium. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512134150/http://www.expatica.com/be/articles/news/what-role-for-a-belgian-monarch-28879.html to http://www.expatica.com/be/articles/news/what-role-for-a-belgian-monarch-28879.html/

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) 04:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Split proposal

I would suggest that the sections #Royal family and #Deceased members be split into a separate article called Belgian royal family. I've already created a draft article (Draft:Belgian royal family). For reference, the every other European monarchy of kingly (or queenly) rank has a separate article for the royal family from that of the monarchy, safe for the Netherlands (which I will most likely propose a similar split of). estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Editability

Wikipedia is supposed to be editable. Isn't it? We have the recent (i.e. less than ten years ago, I think?) introduction of the evil institution of "annotated links" and now this article. Here are the words "her children are also recognised as members of the royal family." Then we see images:

1790–1865

r.1831-1865

Obviously this violates WP:MOS, which tells us this should be 1831–1865 instead of 1831-1865. I have spent more than a half hour trying to figure out how to edit this to correct a simple punctuation error. Why?? Why more than a half hour? Why don't those who have done this simply issue a public announcement that they now disapprove of editability of Wikipedia articles? Michael Hardy (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

If you don't know how to produce a literal en dash on your computer (it is easier on some systems than on others), you can always use the HTML entity – which is displayed as – — Tonymec (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)