An Artificial State?

The Mad Monarchist challenges one of the most common clichés about Belgium.

The Belgian Abdication

The Mad Monarchist has some reflections on the similarities and differences between the abdications of Albert II and his father, Leopold III, as well as good wishes for the new King of the Belgians to be, Prince Philippe Leopold Louis Marie, Duke of Brabant.

Some media outlets have erroneously reported that this is the first abdication in Belgian history which, I am sure, most monarchists at least know is not true. King Leopold III abdicated in 1950 but he was, until now, the only Belgian monarch to abdicate and that was under some rather unique (and unfair) circumstances. King Leopold I did offer to abdicate once but his people did not wish it. He, as well as King Leopold II, King Albert I and King Baudouin all reigned until their deaths. Traditionally, the situation in Belgium is rather like that in the United Kingdom; abdications have happened but only rarely and under difficult circumstances. So, in that regard, the abdication of King Albert II is something surprising and out of the ordinary... 

In any event, Prince Philippe will soon be the new King of the Belgians and I would be hard pressed to name a modern royal figure for whom I have greater respect for than the Duke of Brabant. I do hope he takes the name ‘King Leopold IV’ rather than ‘King Philippe I’ but, alas, I doubt it. I am sure he will be told that the name “Leopold” has negative connotations these days but that is unfair and unfortunate. Particularly the last one, King Leopold III, has been the victim of some of the most gross injustices and slander of any royal figure in recent history. He was a fine, upstanding, God-fearing man who does not deserve to be spoken of with anything less than pride and admiration. Similarly, whatever he shall be called, it remains to be seen if Prince Philippe will be given a fair chance. As we have talked about before, the Duke of Brabant has also been subject to many unfair efforts to lower his standing in the eyes of the public with all sorts of slander and cruel jokes being made about him despite the fact that he has done nothing at all to deserve it. In fact, he has often been ridiculed specifically for being such an upstanding man. I pray he will be given a fair chance and that the public will rally to support him. If he is given that support I have no doubt he will be one of the great monarchs of Belgian history. He certainly has the character for it. (Read entire post)

The Abdication of Albert II

Well, it's official this time. Today, King Albert II of the Belgians announced his abdication, effective July 21, 2013, in favor of his son, Prince Philippe. I hope and pray for the best for Albert and Paola, for the new King Philippe and Queen Mathilde, for the rest of the Belgian royal family, and for their people and country.

A Glimpse of Royal Brussels

Here is an interesting documentary on the Royal Palace of Brussels and the contemporary Belgian monarchy.

Depressing

Ten years after legalizing euthanasia, Belgium is now considering extending the practice to children and people with Alzheimer's and dementia. God help us. Is Albert II going to sign this law, too? Really, at a certain point it is time to stand up for moral principles, whatever the consequences. Of course, Belgium is a secular state, but this is not merely a matter of religion. The protection of innocent human life is fundamental to any just political order. It is not negotiable.

Beauty of Flanders

As we have been discussing the divide between Flanders and Wallonia, it might be interesting to consider the case of the Flemish beauty who became the second wife of Leopold III. She was the very type of the Catholic, royalist Flemish who played such an important role in deciding the popular consultation in Leopold's favor after World War II. (Sadly, with the current trend towards separatism, more and more Flemings now seem to be turning rather venomously against the monarchy as a icon of Belgian unity). Princess Lilian was also the very type of the upper-class Flemish who adopted French culture.

This position made life even more difficult for a woman already castigated by the aristocracy as a vulgar adventuress marrying far above her station, and by other elements of popular opinion and the press as a unworthy successor to an impossibly saintly Queen Astrid, as an unscrupulous temptress, devoured by ambition, luring the King into preferring private pleasure to public duty. Lilian was doubly resented for her Flemish heritage by many Walloons. She was also blamed by more nationalistic Flemings, such as her denigrating biographer, Evrard Raskin, for supposedly betraying this same heritage through her Francophile affinities.

As Jean Cleeremans describes in Léopold III, sa famille, et son peuple sous l'occupation, there were also kinder voices among the Flemish who expressed pride at their Sovereign's marriage to one of their own, to a daughter of the talented and energetic class that had brought such prosperity to the Belgian cities through the centuries. As always in Lilian's life, however, spiteful portrayals gained much greater publicity than any appreciative ones. Hating the Princess de Réthy became a veritable industry.

Yet, through it all, Lilian remained steadfastly loyal to her principles as a woman devoted to Belgium and its monarchy. Michel Verwilghen, in Le mythe d'Argenteuil, describes her concern at the rise of separatism during the last years of her life. She even worried that her step-son, King Baudouin, might not be doing enough to oppose the efforts to shatter the country. I wonder what she would say of Belgium's most recent political crises.

A Republic of Flanders?

An intelligent, humorous commentary on the Flemish separatist movement. I think it would be a tragedy if Belgium and her monarchy disappeared from the face of the earth and I see no compelling reason why the loss would be worthwhile.

Flanders has, for most of recent memory, been more prosperous than Wallonia. I am sure some of the more racist Flemish nationalists (and there are plenty of them) would likely attribute this to the natural superiority of the more Germanic Flemings over the more Latin Walloons. Actually, in racial terms, there is hardly any difference between the two and the real reason is that Flanders has followed a more intelligent economic policy compared to Wallonia which has long been dominated by the socialists and has an economy that shows this. I can completely understand the Flemings being upset that their hard-earned tax euros get shoveled over to the Walloons to compensate for their bad economic decisions. However, the answer to that problem does not require independence, it only requires getting the socialists out of Wallonia and a good way to start would be to see them cut off from outside help so they would be forced to face the economic reality that socialism simply does not work. If the Red Chinese can figure it out, so can the Walloons. Ignoring the huge problem that would be Brussels, there is also the problem of what to do with the two halves of the former Belgium if Flanders declared independence. 

Contrary to what some think, the area of modern Belgium has been a distinct political area for quite some time before the declaration of independence in 1830. It was distinct during the period it was united to The Netherlands after the Napoleonic Wars and before that it had long been the westernmost outpost of the Hapsburg empire. Wallonia as a part of the French Republic holds no romance for me and would be an odd fit; the similarities of language aside. However, Wallonia is not the driving force behind this but rather Flanders. What would become of Flanders? There are two options: either Flanders remains independent or joins their fellow Dutch speakers in a “Greater Netherlands”. Neither option appeals to this monarchist. First of all, let there be no confusion on this point: an independent Flanders would be a republic. Period. Without doubt. So, in that scenario, Europe loses a monarchy and is cursed with another republic. In the second case; Flanders being annexed by The Netherlands, no new republics are created (assuming Wallonia joins France as is most likely) but Europe is still down one monarchy. Not good. Furthermore, I do not believe Flanders would be happy in The Netherlands anyway. They have too much of a regional mindset and are too used to being treated as something special for me to believe that they would be content to be just another Dutch province. So, I say “no” to a Flemish republic and “yes” to the Kingdom of Belgium (which, lest we forget, has been a country longer than Germany, Italy, Poland and a number of others).

Celebrating Belgium

A postcard commemorating the 75th anniversary of Belgian independence in 1905, incidentally also the year the future Queen Astrid was born. The coats of arms of Belgium and her then nine provinces are displayed, along with a picture of the monument to Leopold I at Laeken, the Belgian flag and the national motto, "union makes for strength."

Belgium and Leo XIII

In Leo XIII: A Light from Heaven (1961), Brother William J. Kiefer, S.M. discusses the time that Joachim Pecci, future Pope Leo XIII, spent as papal nuncio to Brussels. There he found Church and State in great ferment, and became the target of many calumnies, from both secular and ecclesiastical enemies. Nonetheless, he was able to do a great deal of good, particularly in the field of Catholic education. He won the regard not only of the devout Catholic queen, Louise d'Orléans, but also of her husband, Leopold I, a Protestant Freemason. In turn, Pecci developed a special, life-long attachment to Belgium. His social teachings as Pope must surely have influenced the Christian humanism of figures such as Albert I and Leopold III.

His mission nearly came to a tragic end before it had properly begun. On his way to Brussels, he went by way of Mechlin to visit Cardinal Sterckx, the archbishop. While crossing a canal bridge near Vilvorde the horses took fright and were about to plunge into the water when a priest of the neighborhood courageously seized them by the reins. Pecci refused to ride any further, but left the coach and walked all the way to the capital, where the king joked pleasantly with him about his accident and his coming into Brussels on foot.

The division among the religious and political parties of Belgium with their perpetual intrigues, rendered the post of nuncio to Belgium extremely delicate and difficult...Parties of all sorts, some anti-Catholic, came into being. The country became a hotbed of secret societies conspiring against the monarchical institutions of Europe.

The task was almost insurmountably difficult for any nuncio coming to Brussels, as can be gathered from a long letter Lambruschini wrote as a private instruction for Pecci in which he refers to the complete separation of Church and State. The Pope had already condemned the novelties and systems of Lamennais. Archbishop Pecci was to see that teachers were no longer under the influence of this man, whose errors had caused the bishops of Belgium to create the University of Louvain. At the time of the new nuncio's appointment, the bishops had a bill before the government asking for recognition of the university as a legally incorporated body. Pecci was instructed to see that the bill was withdrawn as the time was not propitious for it. There were constant conflicts between various parties, Church and state, prelates and laity. The parties were struggling for power, and this caused heated opinions and policies, even in other countries of Europe...

How the nuncio felt the weight of his responsibility in these circumstances is described in a letter he wrote to his brother Charles: "You will pardon me, dear brother, for devoting myself entirely to Belgium where the Lord's will has called me to fill an exalted office. Its duties and concerns are extremely delicate and difficult, as you may easily understand without my mentioning them. I ask you always to remember me in your prayers, so that the Lord may assist me with His holy grace. May the appeal of your heart ascend to God from the slopes of Mount Capreo, to win happiness for me and for Belgium." He prayed as if he expected everything from God; he acted as if success depended entirely on his own efforts.

Nationality and the Belgian Monarchy

Michael Palo thoughtfully reviews Belgium and the Monarchy: from National Independence to National Disintegration, an adapted English translation of Herman van Goethem's book  De monarchie en ‘het einde van België’: Een communautaire geschiedenis van Leopold I tot Albert II. I must admit, however, that I did not like the reviewer's vaguely ominous comments about the intentions of Leopold III. While discussing his Political Testament, Palo claims that the King "had done nothing less than outline an authoritarian future for his country." This suggests that the Political Testament was a call to change the Belgian Constitution radically along authoritarian lines, which it was not. In fact, in the same document, Leopold noted that his role, as a constitutional monarch, did not allow him to take sides with one political doctrine or program or another. Rather, he said, it was for the Belgian people, freely consulted, to decide upon any possible changes to the political structure of the kingdom.

The Royal Family in Captivity: Part III

Prince Baudouin, the heir to the throne, at Hirschstein

(Continued from Part I and Part II)

As we recently celebrated Epiphany, perhaps it is appropriate to recall how the royal hostages spent their first Christmas in captivity at the dreary fortress of Hirschstein. Shortly before Christmas, Hitler had sent a message to his prisoners, grandiosely inquiring if they had any wishes he might grant. Wary of being placed in their enemy's debt, King Leopold and his family had only one request: they would be glad to have a priest to celebrate midnight Mass. A man in clerical garb promptly arrived, claiming to be a priest from the medieval monastery of Klosterneuberg, founded, ironically enough, by St. Leopold of Babenburg, Margrave of Austria. Posing as sympathetic and solicitous, the man offered to hear the prisoners' confessions. The quick-witted Princess Lilian, who was familiar with Klosterneuberg, had the good sense to cross-question him first, to determine whether he were an impostor. Finding that he was unable even to give a correct reply concerning the location of his supposed monastery, she quietly told her husband that the man was certainly not from Klosterneuberg, and that she doubted whether he were a priest at all. As described in Un couple dans la tempête, however, King Leopold indulged his ironic sense of humor by agreeing to let the man hear his confession and by submitting to a series of highly indiscreet questions under the guise of fatherly pastoral care. As the impostor prepared to deliver absolution, however, his royal penitent stopped him and sent him away, unmasked. Together with his family and small band of faithful followers, all King Leopold could do to commemorate Our Savior's birth was to sing Minuit Chrétien and Stille Nacht, to piano accompaniment. Princess Lilian gave the royal children watercolors she had painted using a box of colors smuggled into her luggage on the journey from Brussels. She had fashioned the picture-frames out of branches gathered in the small garden of Hirschstein.

As always, the King was determined that his household should display dignity and courage in adversity and resist the temptation to despair. Christmas was not the first time that they had bravely improvised a humble, poignant celebration.  On July 21, 1944, just over a month after their deportation, they had fervently celebrated their national holiday, albeit with meagre means. They had managed to construct a Belgian flag, using strips of red, yellow and black fabric, stitched together with vegetable fibers. The flag was draped over the poorly tuned piano, and M. Weemaes was able to play a few measures of the Belgian national anthem, the Brabançonne, bringing tears to the eyes of his fellow sufferers. Throughout the long months at Hirschstein, the King and his officers wore their uniforms at table and the children's lessons and games continued. Princess Lilian even composed and directed a play, Pygmalion, giving roles to the different members of the family. Whenever possible, the children exercised outside, in the small garden. They suffered severely from malnutrition.  Albert eventually developed hunger edema; little Alexandre, rickets. In January, 1945, while the princes were helping to build a sled, Albert also seriously injured his thigh. Mishandled by an S.S. officer, the wound became dangerously infected and began to putrefy. At Lilian's insistence, the family's gaoler, the S.S.  Colonel Lürker, perhaps afraid of being blamed for the death of a royal hostage, summoned a distinguished physician from Dresden, Professor Lang, to treat the prince. The man was obliged to disinfect and bandage the gangrenous wound in silence, as he had been forbidden to speak with the prisoners.  Thankfully, Albert's leg was saved. A Nazi physician, Dr. Ghebart, also arrived to examine the boy, sadistically seizing the opportunity to shock Leopold and Lilian with descriptions of the experiments he had secretly performed upon political prisoners in concentration camps. The King's blood froze with horror. Leopold and Lilian also had the frightening feeling that their tormentor did not expect them to live to repeat the revelations. Further traumas would follow in February, with the Allied fire-bombing of Dresden. The inferno was clearly visible from the windows of Hirchstein, so dazzling that night and day were equally bright. On Ash Wednesday, the capital of Saxony lay in ashes. The icy Elbe carried countless charred and mangled corpses past the royal family's horrified eyes. Lilian especially remembered seeing the bodies of two women, floating hand in hand, surely mother and daughter. 

Meanwhile, at the beginning of February, in an ominous new development, the King had been threatened with separation from his entourage. Due to the advance of the Soviet army, he had been told, the royal family would be transported to a new place of detention in southern Germany. His suite would be moved to yet another location. Leopold immediately protested this scheme, refusing to be divided from any of his companions. To Ernst Kaltenbrunner, chief of the Gestapo, he sent the following telegram: "It has been communicated to me that an order of displacement could soon be given to me and that the persons who have voluntarily accompanied us in captivity would be directed to a different destination. I express the formal desire that these persons, for whose fate I am responsible, may continue to share my captivity and that they may not be suddenly isolated in this manner. In addition, there are, among these persons, three officers, for whom I demand a treatment compatible with their rank". Departure would be delayed until March, and the royal party would be allowed to travel together to their next prison, the villa of Strobl, Austria, opening a new chapter of their weary captivity.

(to be continued)

The Testimony of Felix Kersten, masseur of Heinrich Himmler

For some time, I have hesitated to use this account, because Dr. Kersten apparently had a tendency to distort the facts in order to portray himself in a more heroic light. However, I have never heard of his testimony regarding Leopold III being challenged, although it has often been neglected. It has been taken seriously by respected scholars, such as Jean Vanwelkenhuyzen, an eminent Belgian authority on the Second World War. It is discussed by Michel Verwilghen in Le mythe d'Argenteuil (2006) and by Christian Laporte in an article dated March 1, 1996, and published in Le Soir, a testimony all the more surprising and compelling since it comes from a paper traditionally hostile to Leopold III. Kersten's description of Heinrich Himmler's venom against the King squares with the revelations of General Alexander von Falkenhausen, military governor of Belgium during the Nazi occupation, and with the memoirs of Paul Schmidt, Hitler's interpreter. Both men indicated that there was no love lost between the Nazi hierarchy and their royal captive, despite continuing claims that Leopold sympathized with their regime. The recent television documentary, Léopold III, mon père, mentions that highly placed Nazi leaders, towards the end of the war, were considering the deportation and even the execution of the King of the Belgians. As is well known, Leopold and his family would indeed be deported to Germany at the time of the Allied landings in Normandy, although they managed to survive their ordeal. In the light of all this, Kersten's testimony seems plausible.

Dr. Felix Kersten's story is a fascinating one. A talented Finnish masseur of Estonian origin, he was approached by the SS to soothe the stomach cramps of Heinrich Himmler. Although Kersten appears to have exaggerated his role at times, he was also genuinely heroic in using his privileged position to save the lives of many. Himmler seems to have spoken quite freely in Kersten's presence, fulminating against the King of the Belgians on several occasions. Kersten, in turn, secretly kept a diary of his patient's confidences. In 1995, four documents relating to Leopold III were discovered among Kersten's papers by Professor Léon Masset of the University of Amsterdam and published in an issue of La Révue générale dedicated to the Second World War, with a commentary by Jean Vanwelkenhuyzen. King Leopold's devoted widow, Princess Lilian, was intrigued and pleased by the discovery of the documents concerning her late husband, as well as stunned by the fact that it had taken fifty years for the materials to come to light. According to Kersten's testimony, far from viewing Leopold III as a friend, Himmler saw him as an obstinate, bitter foe, a puppet of the Jews and the Roman Catholic Church. He was outraged that the King, the son of a Coburg father and a Wittelsbach mother, should have resisted the German invasion. He was furious that Leopold had rebuffed Hitler's attempts to entice him into collaborating with the Third Reich. Himmler also hated Leopold's sister, Princess Marie-José, for her opposition to Hitler. Like her brother, he insisted, she had betrayed her German blood. With a great deal of patience and tact, however, taking advantage of the fact that Himmler needed his services, Felix Kersten managed to persuade him to treat Leopold in a humane and dignified manner. By March, 1945, however, Himmler had changed his mind, and decided to have him killed. Kersten had to intervene once again to save his life.

The Belgian Revolution

Tomorrow, of course, will be Belgium's National Day, commemorating the swearing-in of the first King of the Belgians, Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, 180 years ago. (Sadly, barring an overnight miracle, it will be Belgium's second National Day in a row without a government!) I can warmly recommend reading the New Advent article on the early modern history of Belgium. Here is an excerpt describing the Belgian Revolution of 1830, the fruit of a curious alliance between Catholic and Liberal opponents of King William I of the Netherlands, which gave rise to the new Kingdom of Belgium:

Soon after the victory of the Allied Powers, who became masters of Belgium, they established there a provisional government under the Duke of Beaufort (11 June, 1814). The new governing powers promptly proclaimed to the Belgians that, in conformity with the intentions of the Allied Powers, "they would maintain inviolable the spiritual and the civil authority in their respective spheres, as determined by the canonical laws of the Church and by the old constitutional laws of the country". These declarations roused hopes which, however, were destined to be disappointed; for by the secret treaty of Chaumont (1 March, 1814), confirmed by Article 6 of the Treaty of Paris (30 May, 1814), it had even then been decided that Holland should receive an addition of territory, and that this addition should be Belgium. The secret Treaty of London (23 June, 1814) furthermore provided that the union of the two countries was to be internal and thorough, so that they "would form one and the same State governed by the constitution already established in Holland, which would be modified by mutual consent to accord with new conditions". The new State took the name of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and was placed under the sovereignty of William I of Orange-Nassau.

The object of the Powers in creating the Kingdom of the Netherlands was to give France on her northern frontier a neighbour strong enough to serve as a barrier against her, and with this aim in view they disposed of the Belgian provinces without consulting them. The State resulting form this union seemed to offer numerous guarantees of prosperity from the standpoint of economics. Unfortunately, however, the two peoples, after being separated for more than two centuries, had conflicting temperaments; the Dutch were Calvinists, the Belgians Catholics, and the former, although greatly in the minority, 2,000,000 as against 3,500,000 Belgians, expected to rule the Belgians and to treat them as subjects. These differences could have been lessened by a sovereign who would take the duty on himself; they were, however, aggravated by the policy adopted by William I. Arbitrary, narrow-minded, obstinate, and moreover an intolerant Calvinist, he surrounded himself almost exclusively with Dutchmen, who were totally ignorant of Catholic matters and of the Belgian character. In addition, he was imbued with the principles of "enlightened despotism" which made him regard his absolutism as the form of government best suited to the needs of his kingdom, and thus he was unequal to his tasks from the very outset. While still Prince of Fulda, he had persecuted his Catholic subjects until the Diet was forced to check him. As King of the Netherlands, he showed that he had learned nothing by experience, and imagined that he could effect the fusion of the two peoples by transforming Belgium into Holland as far as possible.

Defending Life in Belgium

A hopeful and inspiring article by Bryan Kemper on the second March for Life in Brussels, which took place this past spring. The official website of March for Life Belgium may be found HERE.

Calumny

The Exiled Belgian Royalist has some reflections on The Beast of Berlin, a melodramatic American propaganda film produced during World War I, demonizing Kaiser Wilhelm II and portraying his much-admired cousin and opponent, King Albert I, as something of an avenging angel. While many are aware that the Kaiser suffered from undue vilification in the wake of the war, fewer probably realize that King Albert himself endured his share of mudslinging at the same time. Lionized in the Allied press as the incarnation of right versus might, he was shamelessly defamed and derided by German journalists as a coward, traitor and general failure. The Belgian patriot Emile Cammaerts lamented:

In spite of the most authentic documents, of the most glaring material proofs, it might be difficult to realise that the human spirit may fall so low. It seems as if we were diminishing ourselves when we accuse our enemies. We have lived so long in the faith that "such things are impossible" that, now that they happen almost at our door, we should be inclined to doubt our eyes rather than to doubt the innate goodness of man. Never did I feel this more strongly than when I saw, for the first time, a caricature of King Albert reproduced from a German newspaper.

Surely if one man, one leader, has come out of this severe trial unstained, with his virtue untarnished, it is indeed Albert the First, King of the Belgians. His simple and loyal attitude in face of the German ultimatum, the indomitable courage which he showed during the Belgian campaign, his dignity, his reserve, his almost exaggerated modesty, ought to have won for him, besides the deep admiration of the Allies and of the neutral world, the respect and esteem even of his worst enemy. There is a man of few words and noble actions, fulfilling his pledges to the last article, faithful to his word even in the presence of death, a leader sharing the work of his soldiers, a King living the life of a poor man. When in Paris, in London, triumphal receptions were awaiting them, he and his noble and devoted Queen remained at their post, on the last stretch of Belgian territory, in the rough surroundings of army quarters.

The whole world has noted this. People who have no sympathy to spare for the Allies' cause have been obliged to bow before this young hero, more noble in his defeat than all the conquerors of Europe in their victory. But the Germans have not felt it. Not only did they try to ridicule King Albert in their comic papers. Even the son of Governor von Bissing did not hesitate to fling in his face the generous epithet, "Lackland." (1) As soon as the last attempt to conciliate the King had failed the German press in Belgium began a most violent and abusive campaign against him. The Diisseldorfer General-Anseiger published a venomous article, in which he was represented as personally responsible for "the plot of the Allies against Germany and for the crimes of the franc-tireurs." He was stigmatised as "the slave of England," and it was asserted that " If he did not grasp the hand stretched out to him by the Kaiser on August 2nd and the 9th it is only because he did not dare to do so" (October 10th, 1914). He was said to have "betrayed his army at Antwerp. Had he not sworn not to leave the town alive?" And Le Reveil, another paper circulated in Belgium by German propagandists, announced solemnly that, once on the Yser, the King wanted to sign a separate peace with Germany, but England had forbidden him to do so. The Hamburger Nachrichten, the Vossische Zeitung and the Frankfurter Zeitung repeated without scruple this tissue of gross calumnies. The Deutsche Soldatenpost, edited specially for the German soldiers in Belgium, went even a step further and violently reproached the Queen of the Belgians for not having protested against the cruelties inflicted on German civilians in Brussels and Antwerp, at the outbreak of the hostilities! (Through the iron bars: two years of German occupation in Belgium: Volume 4, Issue 6, 1917, pp. 28-30)

(1) Suddeutsche Monatshefte, April 1915.

May 24-25, 1940: The Tragedy of Wijnendale

Today, we remember King Leopold III of the Belgians and his heroic but tragic refusal to accompany his government into exile in the last, desperate moments of the Belgian army's resistance to Hitler's onslaught. As is well known, the night before, in the Flemish castle of Wijnendale, where the King had established his headquarters, the four exhausted, harried Cabinet ministers, M. Pierlot, the Prime Minister, M. Spaak, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, General Dennis, the Minister of Defense, and M. Van der Poorten, the Minister of the Interior, who had been trying to convince the King to flee the country for days, made their final, futile appeal. Leopold insisted that his duty, as Commander-in-Chief, required him to remain with his army to the end. The ministers countered that his duty, as Head of State, transcended his duty as Commander-in-Chief. As Head of State, Leopold must avoid falling into the hands of the enemy at all costs. As King, however, Leopold firmly believed that he must remain with his people. In humanitarian terms, he was convinced that he could better assist the Belgians, during the rigors of a cruel occupation, by remaining in Belgium. Nothing could persuade him to flee. 

Please leave a comment to tell me whether you think the King made the right decision. I used to view it as absolutely correct, and hotly contested all suggestions that Leopold III should have departed into exile. Now I am not so sure. The King's motives were undeniably noble. He bravely risked life, limb and liberty to assist the Belgian army and people in their most terrible trial. Well aware that his decision to remain in Belgium during the Nazi occupation would place him in an endlessly difficult, complex and potentially compromising position, exposing him to the world's misunderstanding, scorn and derision, he bravely risked his reputation, too. Yet, since the King and the government must always act politically in concert, according to the Belgian constitution, the fracture between Leopold and his ministers created an anomalous, explosive situation, as emphasized in the recent RTBF documentary, Léopold III, mon père. The King's inviolability was threatened because his actions could no longer be covered by the government. Of course, Leopold realized that he could not act politically without his ministers; this is why he emphasized that his capitulation to the Germans on May 28, 1940, was a strictly military action. It is also why he had to refuse to reign under the Nazi occupation, insisting upon his status as a prisoner of war.

Nevertheless, the fateful parting of ways at Wijnendale set the stage for many disastrous controversies to come; the odious accusations of treason, leveled at the King by Pierlot and Spaak following the Belgian capitulation, further tensions and suspicions between monarch and ministers, over the next four years, despite an apparent reconciliation after Leopold was publicly vindicated by figures such as Cardinal van Roey and Admiral Keyes, the shattering rift sparked by the King's stern and unyielding memorandum to Pierlot, dated January 25, 1944, requiring a solemn apology for the ministers' accusations in 1940, and, finally, Leopold's dispute with the Allies over the validity of certain treaties, including agreements regarding shipments of Congolese uranium to the Americans to assist in the development of the atom bomb. The King contended that these treaties lacked validity, since they had been concluded without his signature, on the Belgian government's sole authority. In other words, the separation between Leopold and his ministers on May 25, 1940, initiated the chain of events known as the Royal Question, which shattered the King's reign and ultimately threatened to destroy the monarchy and cast Belgium into civil war. By remaining in Belgium, as his people's advocate during the Nazi occupation, Leopold III undoubtedly comforted and benefited the Belgians and saved lives through his humanitarian interventions. Yet, he also placed himself in an extremely delicate position, and, as it happened, imperilled the political structure of Belgium after the war. In Léopold III, mon père, his youngest daughter, and close, loving confidante, Princess Esmeralda, startled me by suggesting that her father might have been better advised to go into exile in London in 1940. She suggested that Leopold himself had been haunted by doubts, in later years, as to the wisdom of his decision at Wijnendale, and that he felt that the destiny of his entire reign had been played out in only a few hours, in that tragic castle. Yet, she added, it is hard to judge a decision taken at a moment of such tremendous physical and mental tension.

The Duke of Brabant Pays Visit to Seattle Sidewalk Counselors

Given the pro-life stance of King Baudouin I, this story about his nephew, Prince Philippe, the current heir to the Belgian throne, is particularly interesting:

"On the morning of Saturday March 8 [2008], about 15 people, including Sarah Schaper, were praying in front of the Planned Parenthood on E. Madison St. in Seattle. Some of those praying held signs which said, 'God Loves You and Your Baby”, 'Stop Abortion', and 'I Regret My Abortion.' One sign was a picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

A Yellow Cab stopped in front of the vigil attendees. A lady got out of the back seat. She asked for permission to take Sarah’s photo. Two men got out of the cab and photographed others in the group.

The lady told Sarah, 'We have a prince.' Prince Philippe, the crown prince of Belgium, introduced himself, took a photo of Sarah and said, “God bless you.”

May God bless Prince Philippe and his family!"

The Last King of Italy

For readers who know Italian, here is a fascinating website on King Umberto II (1904-1983), the husband of Princess Marie-José of Belgium (1906-2001).

The Tragedy of Albert II

Here is a very sad article from La Libre Belgique describing how King Albert II was basically bullied into signing Belgium's euthanasia bill in 2002. (The paper, however, presents it as a good thing). How far we have fallen...

Marie Antoinette (2006)

An interesting critique of Sofia Coppola's film from Tradition in Action.