History of Belgian monarchy

The liberal Belgian middle-class of 1830 founded a solid, separate State of the Church according to the model of Félicité on Lamennais (Constitution adopted in 1831). It installed a monarchy which it wanted republican , whose Léopold I {{er}} was elected by the National congress (the election of the son of Louis-Philippe, king of the French, was rejected by this King himself). Single case of a democratically founded monarchy (hereditary from there), and also from the constitutional start and member of Parliament (without last absolutist). It was essential as the center of the political power in Belgium for a long time, while playing the game of the Constitution Libérale conceived to limit its prerogatives drastiquement, even within the framework of a democracy Censitaire.

Monarchy is essential: Léopold Ier (1831 - 1865)

Quickly dominating, the financial fraction of the Belgian middle-class understood that monarchy appeared stability.

the explanation of Pierre Lebrun

The middle-class richly equipped Léopold Ier which became the principal shareholder of the General society of Belgium, principal holding company of the country, and, consequently, the first fortune of Belgium which, thanks to the industrial Sillon of Walloon, became an industrial power. Léopold Ier thus seized the power at the same time on the economic plan and policy.

the explanation of Henri Pirenne

Henri Pirenne announces the failure of the middle-class woman of 1831. It describes Léopold Ier thus: For this realistic spirit the policy was reduced to art to control, and the dogma of the sovereignty of the people was only one great mot. At the bottom, it was a conservative (...) In spite of his dealings and of its English sympathies, which perhaps dominates in him, it is the German principle of Ancien Mode, as hostile with the revolutionary principles of France as to the Germanic nationalism of Prussia. Its ideal, it is Austria of Metternich, with its horror of the democracy and its government legitimist and authoritative. In its eyes, the Belgian Constitution was a nonsense. And it should be wondered how, thus appreciating it, it could apply it with a control which makes of him the type more completed constitutional monarch that Europe knew. In this its thorough knowledge of English parliamentarism, such especially that it was included/understood and applied by the Whigs, was to him undoubtedly of an invaluable help. She had taught him that in a free country, the government is not possible that with the assistance of the opinion. But in Belgium, it was not as in England an aristocracy broken with the handling of the businesses and supported on a political long tradition which directed the opinion, but a middle-class with liberal tendencies, infatuée of its importance, imbue of an ideology revolutionary, hastened to inaugurate a very new constitution and so to speak to carry out the test of it. Monarchy such as it included/understood it, it was a republican monarchy in which the crown was to be only one ornament and not a capacity (...) With a consumed address and an tireless patience, it knew, while being erased seemingly, to take an increasing influence (...) Its constitutional irresponsibility, by concealing its action with the public, enabled him to more exert it in the Council. Scrupulously faithful to the Constitution, it I {{er}} let it function by reserving for it the crucial role of the regulator in a machine. By that even as it hid, its intervention in the businesses was more constant and more profonde.

Léopold II (1865 - 1909)

August 1st Léopold II, wire and successor of Léopold Ier, is a sumptuous, but unpopular king. He cuts immense a colonial Empire with the Congo whose benefit will embellish Brussels (Triumphal arch of the Fiftieth anniversary, several elements of the Palais Royal, the Serres of Laeken), but these benefit are obtained thanks to the exploitation of the forced labor. Following a worldwide campaign stigmatizing what it names the crimes committed in the State independent of Congo (personal possession of the king), he must yield the colony at the Belgian State at the end of the reign. It is necessary to however note reserves with regard to this thesis or a point of view more moderate.

Albert Ier (1909 - 1934)

Nephew of the precedent, Albert I {{er}}, with the favor of First World War, makes operate with monarchy a fantastic increase in moral prestige and be able. Henri Pirenne will write in the French Encyclopédie that the moral authority of the sovereign enables him to use more largely than its predecessors of its capacities constitutionnels. In twenty years of reign, Albert Ier allows himself to resign two Prime Ministers, as much as his predecessors. The reading of its Notebooks of war (1914-1918) (Duculot, Gembloux, 1991), reveals that it is him which controls. Luc Schepens, important Flemish historian, goes until writing of Albert Ier, confirming the remarks of Pirenne: The two large victims of the war in Belgium seem to be the Constitution and the parliamentary democracy. And that did not go without consequences. During the continuation of the reign of Albert Ier, and also under that of Léopold III, the king exerted within the executive power a role out of proportion with what had been of habit before the First World War (...) It is only after this situation is normalisée.

Léopold III (1934 - 1951)

Albert Ier thus amplified this royal capacity, with the favor of the war and his/her son, Léopold III, inherits it.

Authority of this king

A scene brought back by the Flemish historians Velaers and van Goethem is revealing. February 2nd, 1939, Léopold III convenes the government in one of the rooms of the Royal palace, the Salon of the Thinker . It covered its uniform of Lieutenant Général. The Grand Marshal of the Court introduces it. The meeting does not expect that one speech of the king without answer of the ministers. Those leave the interview with mines of children reprimands by a schoolmaster.

The royal Question

However, these same ministers enter in serious conflict with the king as of on May 25th, 1940, at the moment when the Belgian army delivers battles on the Lily with the German army. Léopold III considers that Belgium is neutral and must be satisfied to defend the Belgian territory without binding to France and the United Kingdom. The ministers, of all tendencies, are opposite opinion. The opinion of the king carries it. It capitulates on May 28th like chief of the army , for the reasons which one has just said and for reasons of interior policy: behaviors of the Flemish regiments and Walloons divergent at this point which the king fears that the Germans do not draw pretext from it to take again to them political separatism of 1914 to 1918. The very same day, the Prime Minister Hubert Pierlot estimates that the king “broke the bond which linked it with its people”. It is the beginning of the royal Question. Robert Devleeshouwer judges the political Legacy severely of at the beginning of 1944 when the king justifies his policy of war.

The Belgian government in London

After one period of consecutive hesitation to the French defeat, four of the principal Belgian ministers (Hubert Pierlot, Paul-Henri Spaak, Camille Gutt and Albert de Vleeschauwer) are found in London in October 1940 and decide to continue the war at the sides of the British. The Minister for the Colonies Albert de Vleeschauwer was already in London since July 4th, 1940. They were opposed thus to the policy of the king but while protesting nevertheless of their fidelity. They regarded the king as in impossibility of reigning because of occupation, which corresponded to the statute of prisoner of war that Léopold III asserted.

Prisoner, the king will however seek to meet Hitler via his sister the princess Marie-Jose, wife of the crown prince to Italy Umberto: this meeting, which will remain secret, will take place on November 19th, 1940 with Berchtesgaden. Léopold III fact primarily of the humane requests in favor of the Belgian prisoners of war and the supply of the civil population. He also asks for security as for the future independence of the country. Hitler will refuse to reach these requests. According to the historian Jean Stengers, this refusal of Hitler and its decision to leave this secret meeting undoubtedly saved the future of the king who would have indeed taken then political positions opposed to those of his government in London. Thereafter, of 1941 to 1944, the king will be locked up in silence, ignoramus in a way deliberated the action on his government.

Always captive, king Marie however in 1941 with Lilian Baels, marriage which was announced in Belgium in December 41. This advertisement in an occupied country was badly accepted and undoubtedly constituted the first stage of the rupture between the sovereign and the public opinion (or at least part of this opinion).

The king is transferred in Germany in June 1944 (after the Débarquement of June 6th, 1944). After, as of April or May 1945, between concerned the unfavourable popular public opinion with the king who will start later on the serious events of July 1950. Let us note however that other monarchies had problems in the same circumstances.

Charles, the prince regent Régent (1944 - 1950)

August 1st With the Release, the Belgian Parliament elects Régent the brother of the King Léopold III, the prince Charles that the political community judged more flexible than his/her brother. Its principal private secretary Andre De Staercke published a work over this period of the history of Belgium.

After the abdication of Léopold III

The events of the royal Question attract the reflections like those of Arango and Raymond Fusilier, then with the country even. The critical works are especially historical works like Jean Duvieusart in 1975 or Jean Stengers and initially does not seek to think the direction of the monarchical institution.

André Molitor proposes an interesting work. Partisan of the monarchical institution, André Molitor reveals a contradictory speech held in connection with monarchy: it is central, but the capacity of the king is denied a little.

Francis Delpérée incarnates a little the doctrines on the king who made consensus in the French-speaking political community: Which is the role of the King in this forty years history? I want to recall here with force the formula-key which should be registered with the pediment of the Belgian Constitution: the King reigns but does not control. the King does not control. It is simple to include/understand. He has neither personal prerogative, neither to be able of authority, nor reserved domain. In any matter, that it is of foreign policy or interior (...) the King reigns (...) Same during the last century, one hardly wondered about this maxim. Or one sought to give him a reducing direction. The King Te Deum chairs the protocolar and ceremonies. He presents, each year, his wishes with the Nation. I protest highly against this caricature. To reign does not mean to follow of an eye distracts the occupations from the government or the activities of the good people. It is to contribute, with modest means certainly, but a will clearly posted with the good performance of the State.

Baudouin Ier (1951 - 1993)

The capacity of the king is especially this capacity of influence difficult to measure and “catch” (like Pirenne says it), since the conversations of the king are covered by the constitutional secrecy. Two Flemish journalists, under the direction of the historian Else Witte, collected, under cover of anonymity, the confidences of eminent personages on this topic. Léopold III, for example, even after its abdication was of all its weight on his/her son. In the interior policy: ministers imposed or refused, put well off several of the adversaries of 1950, attempt at revocation of the Prime Minister Eyskens in 1960, etc Outside: refusal to assist with the funeral of George VI, assassination of Patrice Lumumba, Congolese nationalist leader and Prime Minister with the independence of Congo (1960), in 1961. In this business in particular, a Parliamentary commission of investigation recognizes that the king could be recognized as morally responsible what can be under consideration like attenuating the things, but, constitutionally, the king (article 106 of the Constitution), can be recognized as responsible neither politically nor juridically , etc

The king Baudouin takes importance: he manages a hard lesson with the political world in 1979. He names Wilfried Martens like Prime Minister in 1982 and quarantines his political rival Léo Tindemans. It acts in the same way with Jose Happart, then appointed very popular Walloon separatist. He makes send paras to the Rwanda in 1990: the indiscretion of a minister revealed that the position of the king on this policy had been determining. He refuses to sign the law dépénalisant partially the abortion the same year. Nonthe signature of the law on the abortion does not have a legal consequence. Some regarded as a entourloupe or a constitutional stratagem the fact that the king was regarded as in impossibility of reigning . This enabled him not to sign the promulgation of the law which gives him effect and which the Government promulgates it as a Head of the collective State in this circumstance). Robert Senelle, Emile Clement, Edgard Van de Velde estimate on the other hand that the recourse to the concept of impossibility of reigning was in conformity with the spirit of the Constitution. They add however that three other solutions, in conformity with the text constiututionnel could have been under consideration in 1990: the abdication of the sovereign, the designation of a regent and the resignation of the government , but these three solutions would have posed acute political problems and more exactly a crisis of mode . Indeed, in the first case (abdication), nothing made it possible to think that the successor of king Baudouin Ier would not have adopted the same attitude, which worsened obviously the crisis. The second solution (desgnation of a regent), requiring the meeting of the joined together rooms (to elect it) would have caused the spreading out of the crisis in time and the pourissement of the situation . As for the third (resignation of the government), it would have led to elections, which would have caused that the person of the king would have been in the middle of an electoral debate which would have been of a plebiscitary nature

Albert II (1993 -)

August 1st Albert II, brother of Baudouin Ier and his successor, is eminently popular. Contrary to its predecessors, it reigns on a Federal state and considers that the first role of the king of the Belgians is from now on to maintain the unit of the country and the good agreement between the areas, the communities and the Federal state.

In the social domain, the king Albert II and the Paola queen chose to carry out on the long run a combat against the draft of the human beings, the pedophilia and the pedopornography. It for example managed with much tact the discredit of the Belgian official world in the Affaire Dutroux in 1996 in particular by chairing a Roundtable between the parents of the victims and the political officials the day before of the white Marche and as a militant for creation in Brussels of the center Child Focus for missing children and sexually exploited. Like his brother king Baudouin, it denounces racism and xenophobia in his speeches, and never receives goes down for hearing of them the politicians of the extreme-right-hand side (Front National and Vlaams Belang).

In foreign politics, the king Albert II is a convinced European and supports all the initiatives in favor of European construction. He grants also much importance to the image of Belgium abroad and our old colonies in central Africa.

Its reign is marked by two deep crises in which it had to play its moral part of " Father of Nation" : the Dutroux business in 1996 and impossibility of forming a federal government in 2007.

The inviolability of the King: political irresponsibility and legal immunity

The King is irresponsible: the Parliament cannot blame it, all its acts political being contresigned by a minister who consequently makes responsible from there, according to the terms of the Belgian Constitution. This political immunity is prolonged by an immunity legal (and penal) to some extent absolute. A Parliamentary commission in 1949 ruled on the direction to give to this immunity in these terms: From the civil point of view, immunity (...), because of its general information, protects the King against any action in front of the civil jurisdiction. A corrective measure is brought to the rigor of the principle with regard to the obligations of private law which milked with the inheritance of the king. Also one admits, in this matter, the possibility of an legal action, immunity appearing only by the fact that the king cannot be attracted personally in justice, but is represented there by the intendant or the administrator of the List civile.

According to the Soenens Commission: The inviolability having of another goal only to ensure the permanence and the heredity of monarchy by protecting the holder from the royal function, this privilege does not extend to the members from the Royal family. This privilege is somewhat extended to them all the same by the penal code, except if, by royal Arrêté, the Minister for Justice decides some differently, which has just occurred with the prince Laurent in the business from the diversions to the Belgian Navy which could have benefitted installation from its villa (judged business starting from January 8th, 2007 with Hasselt).

Limits of inviolability according to Jean-Baptiste Nothomb (1830)

Jean-Baptiste Nothomb declared what follows in 1830 in connection with immunity and of inviolability: Heredity and inviolability are two political fictions, two public fates, two exceptions in the social order. Vis-a-vis these fictions draws up itself, always threatening, the sovereignty of the people which, in the extreme cases, will break them at once.

In their book, Velaers and van Goethem think that, in fact and in right, this manner of breaking was carried out with regard to Léopold III at the end of the royal Question.

Monarchy and introduction of the federalism

The Belgian Federalism (initiated in 1980), however introduced a new data: the process of the political decision in the Areas and the Communautés escapes partly as well the king as with the federal bosses. Because the cumulated capacities of each entity (in practice comparable with a federate State) can be regarded as covering now more than 50% of Belgian official competences according to methods which make Belgian federalism a Fédéralisme with share, in particular for the reason which competences of the federate States are réelelment Exclusive competences and because these competences are worth équivalemment within the Belgian Federation and on the international scene. Even within this federal structure, Belgian monarchy enjoys a real prestige near most of the population (80% of probed in the event of investigations into the subject in Flanders and Wallonia).

An international comparison

Raymond Fusilier, who compared six “small” parliamentary monarchies of Europe (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium), sees with the source of the royal Question of 1940-1950, a defect constitutive of Belgian monarchy because of his variation compared to the Constitution of 1831, in particular because of the existence around the king of a cabinet , kind of government parallel which yet entirely did not disappear. For him, Belgian monarchy has to be able more that other European monarchies. Admittedly the work dates, but it remains the only valid comparison, in French language in any case, of European monarchies, only the case of the Spain not being treated, owing to the fact that at the time Franco remained the Regent about it.

Popularity in Flanders, Brussels and Wallonia: not very significant variations

A more recent survey of the newspapers of the group Towards the Future , dating of October 19th, 2004, gave these results (only the Flanders and Wallonia are taken into account):

Question: If your Area becomes an independent State, do you wish that it be a republic? :

*Flandre : a republic with 40%

*Wallonie: a republic with 36%

Question: If your Area becomes an independent State, do you wish that it be a monarchy?

*Flandre : a monarchy with 47%

*Wallonie: a monarchy with 46%

73% of Walloons want to keep the royal family against Fleming 55%: only this question generates a significant variation.

Elements of bibliography

In addition to the quoted works, let us announce (nonexhaustive list):

Jean Stengers, the action of the king in Belgium since 1831 , Duculot, Paris Leuwen-the-new, 1992.
Jean Stengers, Léopold III and the government. two Belgian policies of 1940 , Editions Root, Brussels, 2002 (2^e edition).
Laurence van Ypersele, King Albert, History of a myth , Ottignies - Leuwen-the-New (Quorum), 1995,
Jacques has. - M. Noterman, the republic of the king , Collet, Brussels, 1999.
José-Andre Fralon, Baudouin - the man which did not want to be a king , Fayard, 2001.
Léopold III, For the history , Racines, Brussels, 2001
Mr. Vandenwÿngaert, L. Beullens, D. Brants, To be able and monarchy , Pire, Brussels, 2002
Christian Laporte, Albert II, First federal king , Roots, Brussels, 2003
Guy Polspoel and pol. Vandendriessche. Jacques Van Ypersele de Strihou (the principal private secretary of the king), Luc Worse. 2003.

Vincent Leroy, " Chronicles of the reign of Albert II" , editions Azimuths, 2006

External bond

Official site of Belgian Monarchy (quadrilingual)

See too

Random links:

Sibyl of Arménie | Cut from the Netherlands of male volley ball