Monarchy of Belgium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Belgian Royal Family)
King of the Belgians
Great coat of arms of Belgium.svg
Coat of arms of Belgium
Incumbent
Koning Filip van Belgi.jpg
Philippe
since 21 July 2013
Details
Style His Majesty
Heir apparent

Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant

First monarch

Leopold I

Formation

21 July 1831

Website

The Belgian Monarchy

Belgium
State Coat of Arms of Belgium.svg
This article is part of a series on the
politics and government of
Belgium
Constitution
Monarchy[show]
Federal Parliament[show]
Federal Cabinet[show]
Federal Judiciary[show]
Recent elections[show]
Subdivisions[show]
Foreign relations
Other countries Atlas
Portal icon Politics portal
vte

The monarchy of Belgium is a constitutional, popular and hereditary monarchy

whose incumbent is titled the King or Queen of the Belgians (Dutch: Koning/in
der Belgen, French: Roi/Reine des Belges, German: Knig/in der Belgier) and
serves as the country's head of state. There have been seven Belgian monarchs
since independence in 1830.

The incumbent, Philippe, became monarch on 21 July 2013.

Contents [hide]
1 Origins
2 A hereditary and constitutional system
2.1 Leopold I, Leopold II and Albert I
2.2 Leopold III and Baudouin
2.3 Constitutional, political, and historical consequences
3 List of Kings of the Belgians
4 Title
5 Constitutional role
6 Inviolability
7 Royal Household
8 Members of the Belgian Royal Family
8.1 Other Members of the Royal Family
8.2 Other descendants of Leopold III
8.3 Family tree of members
9 Deceased members
10 Royal consorts
11 See also
12 References
13 External links
Origins[edit]
When Belgium became independent in 1830 the National Congress chose a
constitutional monarchy as the form of government. The Congress voted on the
question on 22 November 1830, supporting monarchy by 174 votes to 13. In
February 1831, the Congress nominated Louis, Duke of Nemours, the son of the
French king Louis-Philippe, but international considerations deterred LouisPhilippe from accepting the honour for his son.

Following this refusal, the National Congress appointed Erasme-Louis, Baron

Surlet de Chokier to be the Regent of Belgium on 25 February 1831. Leopold of
Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was designated as King of the Belgians by the National
Congress [1] and swore allegiance to the Belgian constitution in front of Saint
Jacob's Church at Coudenberg Palace in Brussels on 21 July. This day has since
become a national holiday for Belgium and its citizens.

A hereditary and constitutional system[edit]

As a hereditary constitutional monarchy system, the role and operation of
Belgium's monarchy is governed by the Constitution. The royal office of King is
designated solely for a descendent of the first King of the Belgians, Leopold I.

Since he is bound by the Constitution[2](above all other ideological and religious

considerations, political opinions and debates and economic interests) the King is
intended to act as an arbiter and guardian of Belgian national unity and
independence. Belgium's monarchs are inaugurated in a purely civil swearing-in
ceremony.

The Kingdom of Belgium was never an absolute monarchy. Nevertheless, in

1961, the historian Ramon Arango, wrote that the Belgian monarchy is not "truly
constitutional".[3][clarification needed]

Leopold I, Leopold II and Albert I[edit]

King Leopold I was head of Foreign Affairs "as an ancien rgime monarch", the
foreign ministers having the authority to act only as ministers of the king.[4]
Leopold I quickly became one of the most important shareholders of the Socit
Gnrale de Belgique [5]

Leopold's son, King Leopold II is chiefly remembered for the founding and
exploitation of the Congo Free State which caused global public outrage when
human rights abuses were made public. Millions of Congolese were killed as a
result of Leopold's policies in the Congo.[6]

On several occasions Leopold II publicly expressed disagreement with ruling

government (e.g. on 15 August 1887 and in 1905 against Prime Minister Auguste
Beernaert)[7] and was accused by Yvon Gouet of noncompliance with the
country's parliamentary system.[8] In a similar manner, Albert I of Belgium would
later state that he was in command of the Belgian army contrary to his Prime
Minister Charles de Broqueville, also against the Belgian Constitution.[9]

Leopold III and Baudouin[edit]

Louis Wodon (the chef de cabinet of Leopold III from 1934 to 1940), thought the
King's oath to the Constitution implied a royal position "over and above the
Constitution". He compared the King to a father, the head of a family, "Regarding
the moral mission of the king," said Arango, "it is permissible to point to a certain
analogy between his role and that of a father, or more generally, of parents in a
family. The family is, of course, a legal institution as is the state. But what would
a family be where everything was limited among those who compose it to simply
legal relationships? In a family when one considers only legal relationships one
comes very close to a breakdown in the moral ties founded on reciprocal
affection without which a family would be like any other fragile association"[10]
According to Arango, Leopold III of Belgium shared these views about the Belgian
monarchy.

In 1991, towards the end of the reign of Baudouin, Senator Yves de Wasseige, a
former member of the Belgian Constitutional Court, cited four points of
democracy which the Belgian Constitution lacks: 1. the King chooses the
ministers, 2. the King is able to influence the ministers when he speaks with
them about bills, projects and nominations, 3. the King promulgates bills, and, 4.
the King must agree to any change of the Constitution[11]

Constitutional, political, and historical consequences[edit]

The Belgian monarchy was from the beginning a constitutional monarchy,
patterned after that of the United Kingdom.[12] Raymond Fusilier wrote the
Belgian regime of 1830 was also inspired by the French Constitution of the
Kingdom of France (1791-1792), the United States Declaration of Independence
of 1776 and the old political traditions of both Walloon and Flemish provinces.
[13] "It should be observed that all monarchies have suffered periods of change
as a result of which the power of the sovereign was reduced, but for the most
part those periods occurred before the development of the system of
constitutionnal monarchy and were steps leading to its establishment."[14] The
characteristic evidence of this is in Great Britain where there was an evolution
from the time when kings ruled through the agency of ministers to that time
when ministers began to govern through the instrumentality of the Crown.

Unlike the British constitutional system, in Belgium "the monarchy underwent a

belated evolution" which came "after the establishment of the constitutional
monarchical system"[15] because, in 1830-1831, an independent state,
parliamentary system and monarchy were established simultaneously. Hans
Daalder, professor of political science at the Rijksuniversiteit Leiden wrote: "Did
such simultaneous developments not result in a possible failure to lay down the
limits of the royal prerogratives with some precision - which implied that the view
of the King as the Keeper of the Nation, with rights and duties of its own,
retained legitimacy?" [16]

For Raymond Fusilier, the Belgian monarchy had to be placed - at least in the
beginning - between the regimes where the king rules and those in which the
king does not rule but only reigns. The Belgian monarchy is closer to the
principle "the King does not rule" [17] But the Belgian kings were not only "at the
head of the dignified part of the Constitution".[18] The Belgian monarchy is not
merely symbolic, because it participates in directing affairs of state insofar as the
King's will coincides with that of the ministers, who alone bear responsibility for
the policy of government.[19] For Francis Delpre, to reign does not only mean
to preside over ceremonies but also to take a part in the running of the State.
[20] The Belgian historian Jean Stengers wrote that "some foreigners believe the
monarchy is indispensable to national unity. That is very naive. He is only a piece
on the chessboard, but a piece which matters.[21]