Talk:Monarchy of Belgium

message: Whats the native language of the Belgian kings? --P
French. Erwin 08:58, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  History of Belgian Monarchy? 

message: Army -  official  BUT Administrative - non official
petition -> write : Peoples petition rather the parliament.--Ymulleneers 14:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polical involovment 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bias in "A hereditary and (theoretically) constitutional system" 

message: That section is incomplete. How does one edit it? GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Kings of the Belgians 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Not "truly" constitutional? 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Split proposal