Royal question
The royal question (
The crisis emerged from the division between Leopold and his Government, led by Prime Minister
With Belgium liberated but the King still in captivity, Leopold was declared officially "unable to rule" in accordance with the constitution and his brother, Prince Charles, Count of Flanders, was elected regent. The country was divided along political lines over whether Leopold could ever return to his functions, and with a dominantly left wing government in Belgium, Leopold went into exile in Switzerland. In 1950, a national referendum was organised by a new centre-right government to decide on whether Leopold could return. Although the result was a victory for the Leopoldists, it produced a strong regional split between Flanders, which was broadly in favour of the King's return, and Brussels and Wallonia which generally opposed it. Leopold's return to Belgium in July 1950 was greeted with widespread protests in Wallonia and a general strike. The unrest culminated in the killing of four workers by police on 30 July. With the situation fast deteriorating, on 1 August 1950 Leopold announced his intention to abdicate. After a transition period, he formally abdicated in favour of Baudouin in July 1951.
Background
Monarchy and the constitution
The first King, Leopold I, accepted the terms of the Constitution but attempted to use its ambiguities to subtly increase his own powers. This was continued by his successors, although with little real success.[2]
King Leopold III
German invasion and occupation, 1940–44
On 10 May 1940, German forces invaded neutral Belgium without a formal declaration of war. King Leopold III headed immediately to Fort Breendonk, the headquarters of the Belgian army near Mechelen, to take control of the army. He refused to address the Belgian parliament beforehand, as Albert I had famously done at the outbreak of World War I.[6] The speed of the German advance, using the new Blitzkrieg approach, soon pushed the Belgian army westwards despite British and French support. On 16 May, the Belgian government left Brussels.[7]
Break between King and Government
Soon after the outbreak of war, the King and Government began to disagree. While the Government argued that the German invasion had violated Belgian neutrality and made Belgium one of the Allies, Leopold argued that Belgium was still a neutral country and had no obligations beyond defending its borders. Leopold opposed allowing British and French forces into Belgian territory to fight alongside Belgian troops, as a breach of its neutrality.[7]
On 25 May 1940, Leopold met senior representatives of his Government for a final time at the
King Leopold negotiated a cease-fire with the Germans on 27 May 1940, and the Belgian armed forces officially surrendered the following day. Leopold became a
King Leopold during the German occupation
"Military honour, the dignity of the Crown and the good of the country forbade me from following the government out of Belgium."
Political Testament of Leopold III, 1944[12]
With the Belgian surrender on 28 May 1940, Belgium was placed under German occupation and a military administration was established under General Alexander von Falkenhausen to govern the country. Belgian civil servants were ordered to remain at their posts in order to ensure the continued functioning of the state and to attempt to protect the population from the demands of the German authorities.[13]
With France's defeat and the installation of the pro-German
Imprisoned, the King continued to follow his own political programme. He believed that after the German victory a "New Order" would be established in Europe and that, as the senior Belgian figure in occupied Europe, he could negotiate with the German authorities. King Leopold corresponded with Adolf Hitler and tried to organise a meeting with him.[16] Hitler remained uninterested and distrustful of the King, but on 19 November 1940, King Leopold succeeded in gaining an unproductive audience with him at Berchtesgaden.[17]
Popular support for Leopold in Belgium declined sharply in December 1941 when news of Leopold's remarriage to
Amid German defeats against the Russians on the
Regency and the early crisis, 1944–49
Leopold declared "unable to reign", 1944
After the Allied landings in Normandy, Allied troops advanced eastwards and crossed the Belgian frontier on 1 September 1944. German forces offered little resistance and, by 4 September, the Allies were in control of Brussels although the last occupied parts of Belgian territory were only liberated in February 1945. On 8 September 1944, the government in exile returned to Brussels and was greeted with general indifference.[22] Although the King was no longer in the country, his Political Testament was presented to the returned Government as he had wished, and was soon circulated publicly.[22] At the same time, a copy was presented to the British King, George VI, and was seen by the Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden. The text reignited the divisions within the Government which had been largely hidden since earlier in the war.[23]
Since the King was still in German custody, there was no opposition to the creation of a
Political recovery and revival of the royal question
Soon after the liberation, Belgium
Under the early regency, both the Pierlot and subsequent Achille Van Acker governments attempted to avoid confronting the issue of Leopold's return despite calls from Communists, some Socialists and trade unionists for the King's abdication in April and May 1945.[31] Soon after the King's liberation, Van Acker and a government delegation headed to Strobl, Austria to negotiate with Leopold. At a series of meetings between 9 and 11 May 1945, Van Acker insisted that the King publicly announce his support for the Allied cause and his commitment to parliamentary democracy.[31][32] No agreement was reached.[31] In the meantime, Leopold took up residence in Pregny (near Geneva) in Switzerland under the pretext that heart palpitations made further negotiations or thoughts of return to political life impossible.[33][34]
In Belgium, political debate about the royal question continued and grew after the war, and remained a polemical topic in the popular press, notably in the Francophone newspaper
Culmination of the crisis, 1950
Referendum of March 1950
The Eyskens government agreed to a national referendum, known as the "popular consultation" (consultation populaire or volksraadpleging), which was scheduled for 12 March 1950.[37] It was the first ever referendum in Belgian history and was intended to be advisory. Campaigning was vigorous on both sides, with little disruption at the polls, despite the contentious nature of the subject.[38]
Result of the referendum was that Leopold's return won a 58 percent majority in the national vote, with majorities in seven of the nine provinces. However, the vote was heavily divided by region.[38] In Flanders, 72 percent voted in favour of Leopold's return, but in the arrondissement of Brussels, the Leopoldists won only a minority of 48 percent. In Wallonia a mere 42 percent voted for the restitution of the King.[39] The final results, in percentages by province, were:[39]
*The majority in the arrondissement of Verviers voted in favour of the King's return. **The arrondissement of Namur voted against the return.
The result confirmed the worries of some, including Spaak, that the vote would not be sufficiently decisive in either direction and could divide the country along regional and linguistic lines. On 13 March, Eyskens traveled to Pregny to attempt to encourage Leopold to abdicate.
King Leopold's return to Belgium
On 29 April 1950, Prince-Regent Charles
One of the first acts of the Duvieusart government was to introduce a bill bringing the "impossibility to reign" to an end. On 22 July 1950, Leopold returned to Belgium for the first time since June 1944 and resumed his functions.[42]
General strike and abdication
In 1949, the FGTB–ABVV voted a special budget of ten million Belgian francs to establish a Committee of Common Action (Comité d'action commune) aimed at supporting strike action taken in event of the King's return. The union took the lead in the opposition which emerged in the summer of 1950. André Renard, a Walloon trade union leader, called for "insurrection" and "revolution" in the newspaper La Wallonie shortly after the King's return in July 1950.[43] Modern historians have noted that "the smell of revolution was on the air" as Walloon nationalists called for the immediate secession of Wallonia and the creation of a republic.[44]
The general strike of 1950 began in the coal mining centres of
As the situation escalated, the National Confederation of Political Prisoners and their Dependents (Confédération nationale des prisonniers politiques et des ayants droit, Nationale Confederatie van Politieke Gevangenen en Rechthebbenden, or CNPPA–NCPGR), the organisation representing political prisoners detained during the German occupation, offered to act as intermediaries between the different parties because of their respected status.[47] The CNPPA–NCPGR succeeded in persuading both the King and the Government to reopen negotiations which resumed on 31 July. In the afternoon on 1 August, Leopold publicly announced his intention to abdicate in favour of his eldest son, Baudouin, to avoid further bloodshed.[44] Baudouin, at the age of 19, became regent, with the title of "prince royal" on 11 August 1950.[48]
Accession of King Baudouin, 1951
King Leopold's abdication message of 1 August 1950 was premised on a reconciliation in the person of his eldest son over the course of a year.
Assassination of Julien Lahaut
On 11 August 1950, as Crown Prince Baudouin was taking the oath of allegiance (as regent) to the Constitution in front of the Parliament, an unidentified individual in the Communist benches shouted "Vive la république!" ("Long Live the Republic!"). The interruption caused outrage.[50] It was widely suspected that the culprit was Julien Lahaut, the noted Communist leader who had been one of the leading opponents of Leopold's return. A week later (18 August), Lahaut was shot dead by an unidentified assassin outside his house in Seraing, near Liège.[50] The murder shocked the Belgian public and an estimated 200,000 people attended Lahaut's funeral.[50] Although no-one was ever prosecuted for the murder, it was widely attributed to clandestine Leopoldist militia like the Ligue Eltrois or the Bloc anticommuniste belge who operated with the knowledge of the security services.[51]
Aftermath and significance
In the aftermath of the royal question, national priorities shifted to other political questions. On 17 September 1950, the government of
Modern historians describe the royal question as an important moment in Belgian recovery after World War II. The opposition between Leopoldists and anti-Leopoldists led to the re-establishment of Socialist and Catholic political parties from before the war.[30] The Question was also an important moment in the Belgian linguistic conflict. It also put an end to the federalisation of Belgian institutions which might exacerbate the regional tensions exposed by the royal question.[55] In addition, the perceived failure of the PSC–CVP to realise Flemish demands for the return of Leopold helped to strengthen support for the Flemish nationalist Volksunie party after 1954.[56] In Wallonia, the legacy of trade union and socialist political mobilisation during the general strike paved the way for a left-wing revival of the Walloon Movement, eventually witnessed in the Belgian general strike of 1960–1961.[56]
The Lahaut assassination was not solved, and it remained contentious as the only political murder in Belgian history until the death of the socialist politician André Cools in 1991. Leopoldists were suspected, but no individual was prosecuted in the aftermath. An enquiry by historians Rudy Van Doorslaer and Etienne Verhoeyen named an alleged culprit.[57] A final report, commissioned by the Belgian government, was submitted in 2015.[58]
Notes and references
Footnotes
- ^ Leopold's first wife, Astrid, had been killed in a car accident in 1935 and remained hugely popular with the public. By contrast, Baels, who had no noble title and came from Flanders, was considered nouveau riche and her political influence over the king distrusted.[19]
- ^ Subsequent constitutional revisions have shifted the "inability to reign" clause, formerly Article 82, to its current position as Article 93 of the Constitution.[24] The clause itself remains unchanged and was again enforced for a 24-hour period in 1990 to allow a law legalising abortion to pass without the signature of King Baudouin.[25]
- 1949 general election was the first vote held in Belgium under truly universal suffrage following the extension of the vote to all Belgian women in March 1948.[35]
- ^ The Communist Party of Belgium saw its share of the vote fall from 12.68 per cent to just 7.48 in the 1949 elections. By 1954, it was gaining just 3.57 per cent of the vote and never recovered its earlier influence.[36]
- ^ The PSC–CVP bicameral majority produced by the election of 1950 was the last to be gained by any single party in Belgian political history.[42]
References
- ^ Mabille 2003, p. 38.
- ^ Witte, Craeybeckx & Meynen 2009, pp. 45–7.
- ^ Witte, Craeybeckx & Meynen 2009, p. 189.
- ^ Le Vif 2013.
- ^ Witte, Craeybeckx & Meynen 2009, p. 209.
- ^ Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2006, p. 17.
- ^ a b c d Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2006, p. 18.
- ^ a b Mabille 2003, p. 37.
- ^ Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2006, pp. 18–9.
- ^ a b Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2006, p. 19.
- ^ Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2006, p. 19, 103.
- ^ Dumoulin, Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2001, p. 197.
- ^ Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2006, pp. 19–20.
- ^ Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2006, pp. 26.
- ^ Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2006, pp. 26–7.
- ^ Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2006, p. 27.
- ^ Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2006, pp. 27–8.
- ^ a b Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2006, p. 28.
- ^ a b Conway 2012, p. 32.
- ^ a b c Mabille 2003, p. 39.
- ^ Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2006, pp. 28–9.
- ^ a b Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2006, p. 106.
- ^ Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2006, pp. 106–7.
- ^ a b c Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2006, p. 109.
- ^ Witte, Craeybeckx & Meynen 2009, p. 266.
- ^ Conway 2012, pp. 141–3.
- ^ The Independent 1996.
- ^ a b Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2006, p. 111.
- ^ Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2006, p. 112.
- ^ a b Conway 2012, p. 12.
- ^ a b c Witte, Craeybeckx & Meynen 2009, p. 240.
- ^ Conway 2012, p. 139.
- ^ a b c d Witte, Craeybeckx & Meynen 2009, p. 241.
- ^ Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2006, p. 125.
- ^ Mabille 2003, p. 43.
- ^ Conway 2012, p. 232-3.
- ^ Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2006, p. 139.
- ^ a b Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2006, p. 140.
- ^ a b Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2006, p. 141.
- ^ a b c Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2006, p. 142.
- ^ Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2006, pp. 142–3.
- ^ a b c d Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2006, p. 143.
- ^ a b Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2006, p. 144.
- ^ a b c d Witte, Craeybeckx & Meynen 2009, p. 242.
- ^ "Zaait nu zelfs de koning verdeeldheid tussen zijn onderdanen? Gesprekken van over de taalgrens". De Morgen. 30 October 1999. Retrieved 28 July 2019.
- ^ "Police kill 3, wound mayor in Liege riot". Bluefield Daily Telegraph. Associated Press. 31 July 1950. Retrieved 28 July 2019 – via Newspaperarchive.com.
- ^ Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2006, p. 145.
- ^ Van den Wijngaert & Dujardin 2006, pp. 145–6.
- ^ Mabille 2003, p. 41.
- ^ a b c Gérard-Libois & Lewin 1992, p. 148.
- ^ Gérard-Libois & Lewin 1992, p. 147.
- ^ Gérard-Libois & Lewin 1992, p. 173.
- ^ Mabille 2003, pp. 44–5.
- ^ Young 1965, p. 326.
- ^ Conway 2012, p. 253.
- ^ a b Conway 2012, p. 265.
- ^ Gérard-Libois & Lewin 1992, pp. 147–8.
- ^ RTBF 2015.
Bibliography
- Conway, Martin (2012). The Sorrows of Belgium: Liberation and Political Reconstruction, 1944–1947. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-969434-1.
- Crossland, John (4 January 1996). "Allies' dilemma over 'cowardice' of Belgian king". The Independent. Retrieved 23 October 2018.
- Dumoulin, Michel; Van den Wijngaert, Mark; Dujardin, Vincent (2001). Léopold III. Brussels: Complexe. ISBN 2-87027-878-0.
- Gérard-Libois, Jules; Lewin, Rosine (1992). La Belgique entre dans la guerre froide et l'Europe: 1947–1953. Brussels: Pol-His. ISBN 978-2-87311-008-6.
- Havaux, Pierre (29 March 2013). "Léopold III, l'impossible réhabilitation". Le Vif. Archived from the originalon 3 February 2014. Retrieved 8 September 2013.
- Mabille, Xavier (2003). La Belgique depuis la Seconde guerre mondiale. Brussels: Crisp. ISBN 2-87075-084-6.
- Van den Wijngaert, Mark; Dujardin, Vincent (2006). "La Belgique sans Roi, 1940–1950". Nouvelle histoire de Belgique. Brussels: Éd. Complexe. ISBN 2-8048-0078-4.
- Witte, Els; Craeybeckx, Jan; Meynen, Alain (2009). Political History of Belgium from 1830 Onwards (New ed.). Brussels: ASP. ISBN 978-90-5487-517-8.
- Vlassenbroeck, Julien (12 May 2015). "Julien Lahaut assassiné par un réseau soutenu par l'establishment belge". RTBF. Retrieved 29 December 2015.
- Young, Crawford (1965). Politics in the Congo: Decolonization and Independence. Princeton: Princeton University Press. OCLC 307971.
Further reading
- ISBN 978-2-87311-005-5.
- Moureux, Serge (2002). Léopold III: la tentation autoritaire. Brussels: Luc Pire. ISBN 978-2-87415-142-2.
- Ramón Arango, E. (1963). Leopold III and the Belgian Royal Question. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. OCLC 5357114.
- OCLC 644400689.
- ISBN 978-2-87386-567-2.
- Van Doorslaer, Rudi; Verhoeyen, Etienne (1987). L'Assassinat de Julien Lahaut: une histoire de l'anticommunisme en Belgique. Antwerp: EPO. OCLC 466179092.
- Velaers, Jan; Van Goethem, Herman (2001). Leopold III: De Koning, Het Land, De Oorlog (3rd ed.). Tielt: Lannoo. ISBN 978-90-209-4643-7.
External links
- Belgium says 'no' to Leopold (1950), newsreel on the British PathéYouTube Channel
- Feeding the Crocodile: Was Leopold Guilty? at The Churchill Centre