King Leopold III of The Belgians (1901-1983)

[CyrilVladisla]

JR76, This is a picture I never saw. Thank you so much.
No Belgian member of the family , they were on exile in 1947 until 1950. It is strange that even Queen Astrid Children were not alowed to leave the Country.

Why were the Royal Children not allowed to leave Belgium?

 

[GitaDeK]

Free of copyrights, from Columbia encyclopedia:

Leopold III, king of the Belgians 1901–83, king of the Belgians (1934–51), son and successor of Albert I. In 1936, Leopold announced a fundamental change in foreign policy; Belgium abandoned its military alliance with France in favor of a return to neutrality. In May, 1940, Germany—which in 1937 had guaranteed Belgian neutrality—invaded the Low Countries. Leopold led the Belgian army in resisting the invaders. After the defense became hopeless, Leopold, over the opposition of his cabinet, surrendered unconditionally (May 28), thus provoking accusations of treason. A prisoner of war at his castle at Laken, Leopold refused to exercise an active rule under German tutelage. After his first wife, Astrid, was killed in an automobile accident while Leopold was at the wheel, he married (1941) a commoner, whom he later created princess of Réthy. Removed (1944) to Germany, Leopold was freed by Allied troops in 1945. His return to Belgium was a burning political issue. The Liberal and leftist parties accused him of cooperation with Nazi Germany and of fascist sympathies, and his main support came from the Catholic Conservatives. In 1945, Leopold was barred from returning without the permission of the parliament. He spent his exile mostly in Switzerland while his brother, Prince Charles, acted as regent. A referendum held in 1950 favored the king’s return by a slight majority. However, Leopold’s arrival in Belgium was followed by such unrest that he transferred the royal powers to his eldest son, Baudouin. In July, 1951, Leopold formally abdicated.

Treated very unfairly, I may add. A decent, good man.

 

[Mbruno]

Treated very unfairly, I may add. A decent, good man.

The issue with Leopold III was not so much surrendering to Germany per se, as Belgium's military position was indeed hopeless and nobody could realistically expect him to do what his father had done in World War I. His biggest fault was actually to surrender and remain in Belgium contrary to the advice of the government, which would be unconstitutional and, in my opinion, disqualified him from staying on the throne.

 

[maria-olivia]

You are right Mbrunu. How many travels the Belgian Ministers did to Switzerland and the answer was always "no" . Bad personal Advisers.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

King Leopold III took his son Prince Alexander for a motorcycle ride in 1954.
http://www.gettyimages.com/license/171268453

 

[maria-olivia]

Noblesse et Royautés wrote :
King Leopold III Bugatti 59 from 1934 is sold 10, 7 millions euros. A record !

 

[An Ard Ri]

I wonder who sold it?

 

[Myway]

Leopold III - car search

Leopold III was a car enthusiast who owned quite a lot of them, e.g. he had a deal with General Motors and was provided a Chevrolet Corvette every year. This is the reason for me to ask here for support. I own a '65 Corvette for which there are rumors to have once been his car. All my different routes to proof this have yielded nothing. I contacted Belgium DIV since I have a license plate that was registered on the Royal Palace as well as several pictures showing different Corvettes with this license plate. Unfortunately, the record at the DIV only lists one car for this license plate. So it appears to be incomplete. The Royal List doesn't have any information in this regard, too. My car - if it was his - is believed to have been driven around Villa Leopolda back then, too. There was once a TV documentation "Historie"on VHT about Leopold III and there is a footage contained showing Leopold III in a '65 Corvette accompanied by Lilian. I have attached picture excerpts of this footage. I would be very grateful for:

• any information when and where the footage was taken
• if and perhaps where I can search for color pictures taken there to identify the actual color of the car
• if there is an expert who might have detailed information on Leopold IIIs cars (the Belgium driver and author Paul Frere had collected such information before he deceased)
• any other 60ies pictures showing Leopold III in a sports car.
• anything else that might be helpful.

Thanks in advance.

Oliver

 

[maria-olivia]

That will help his daughter Marie Christine in money need.

After Queen Astrid passed away he was never seen at the Scandinavian Royal Events.
He saw Princess Ingeborg only at the Wedding of Josephine Charlotte.

 

[Blog Real]

King Leopold III reviews military parade in Brussels 1940.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Prince Leopold (King Leopold III) owned a 1928 Bugatti Type 43 car.
http://www.robbreport.com/motors/ca...company-passion-of-a-lifetime-auction-2941680

 

[Blog Real]

Coronation of King Leopold II (1934).

 

[CyrilVladisla]

King Leopold III and Queen Astrid attended a Charity Gala for Invalid Soldiers.
http://www.gettyimages.com/license/104422159

 

[rominet09]

King Leopold III and Queen Astrid attended a Charity Gala for Invalid Soldiers.
http://www.gettyimages.com/license/104422159

Lovely pic !

 

[Mbruno]

Lovely pic !

Princess Elisabeth wearing the Art Deco bandeau would look a lot like Queen Astrid.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Free of copyrights, from Columbia encyclopedia:

[...] Leopold led the Belgian army in resisting the invaders. After the defense became hopeless, Leopold, over the opposition of his cabinet, surrendered unconditionally (May 28), thus provoking accusations of treason. A prisoner of war at his castle at Laken, Leopold refused to exercise an active rule under German tutelage.

This is a very basic question, but could those who have an understanding of that period of Belgian history explain why King Leopold III was crucified for remaining on Belgian soil out of a wish to share the fate of his subjects, while his father King Albert I was applauded for the same course of action only a generation earlier?

 

[maria-olivia]

Yes King Leopold III did the same as his Father to stay on the Belgian Soil, but the conditions were absolutely not the same.

 

[Mbruno]

This is a very basic question, but could those who have an understanding of that period of Belgian history explain why King Leopold III was crucified for remaining on Belgian soil out of a wish to share the fate of his subjects, while his father King Albert I was applauded for the same course of action only a generation earlier?

I am not an expert in Belgian history, but I see two differences.


First, Albert I did not surrender. He was still fighting a war in occupied territory.


Second, the government advised Leopold III to leave Belgium and stay with his ministers in exile. As a constitutional monarch, he was bound to follow ministerial advice and chose not to do it.


If I am wrong, I ask the Belgian posters to kindly correct me.

 

[maria-olivia]

Yes you are right but for King Leopold III it was a long story !

 

[Prinsara]

This is a very basic question, but could those who have an understanding of that period of Belgian history explain why King Leopold III was crucified for remaining on Belgian soil out of a wish to share the fate of his subjects, while his father King Albert I was applauded for the same course of action only a generation earlier?

It's not that basic. It's quite complicated. First of all, the Belgians didn't prevail with the son in charge, obviously.

He asked the occupying Nazis to put him in a prisoner-of-war camp with his men. If they had done that, things might have been very different. However, they didn't, he got extremely depressed by himself in the Palace — and he married Lilian from a combination of that, loneliness, wartime carpe diem mentality, and probably being in love — but the sudden and secretive act was seen as very selfish, not sharing their fate, a betrayal of idolized Queen Astrid, and the Belgian people never forgave him.

This, combined with Leopold having a govt. in exile that hated him with the feeling being mutual, and the British and French governments needing a scapegoat for the disaster of May 1940...

Basically, any chance or action of his (or Lilian's after their marriage) was then used to paint him and her as Nazi sympathizers, despite the fact the Germans almost murdered them both and all four children, too.

It's very unfair. Leopold made mistakes, but he made more enemies, and one thing he was not was any kind of collaborator. (Just look at autocratic Christian X in Denmark, who stayed and is still a hero.)

Just to recap, people who hated Leopold:
- The Belgians
- The Belgian government
- The British and French governments
- His own brother, the eventual Regent (that one was lifelong)

Even if I'm missing someone, that's a lot to deal with. Roger Keyes made reference to "slings and arrows" for good reason.

 

[maria-olivia]

Not 100 % correct !

 

[Prinsara]

Then please feel free to elaborate. As you said yourself, it's a long story.

I think Leopold might have prevailed in the court of Belgian opinion and not been forced out if he had not married Lilian, or perhaps if he had married her in a more straightforward fashion, but it's questionable where he would have been emotionally.

As to why he put up with being so hated and slandered for the rest of his life along with the other unfortunate circumstances, I would guess that a) there wasn't much he could do about it. He did write his memoir for the record, that's all, and b) he never got over what happened to Astrid and probably felt completely fatalistic (sort of like his father, who was quite prone to depression) and like he deserved every other terrible thing.

 

[Marengo]

I imagine there would have been some difference between Flemish and Walloon attitudes. Among other reasons because the Walloon soldiers received a harder treatment and were much longer interred than the Flemish ones. The king had said he would follow their fate but he didn t, he played golf and got married while the Walloon prisoners of war could not. Socialists will have had more problems with the King than Christian democrats. Liberal democrats may have been more angry about the king ignoring the law and having his religious marriage before the civil one. His wish to become a strongman and is distaste for democracy were suspected. He often searched the border of what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional.

There were a lot of reasons to find fault with him by a lot of groups. And most of them were the results of is own behavior. His abdication was a blessing for Belgium and for the monarchy.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It's not that basic. It's quite complicated. First of all, the Belgians didn't prevail with the son in charge, obviously.

He asked the occupying Nazis to put him in a prisoner-of-war camp with his men. If they had done that, things might have been very different. However, they didn't, he got extremely depressed by himself in the Palace — and he married Lilian from a combination of that, loneliness, wartime carpe diem mentality, and probably being in love — but the sudden and secretive act was seen as very selfish, not sharing their fate, a betrayal of idolized Queen Astrid, and the Belgian people never forgave him.

This, combined with Leopold having a govt. in exile that hated him with the feeling being mutual, and the British and French governments needing a scapegoat for the disaster of May 1940...

Basically, any chance or action of his (or Lilian's after their marriage) was then used to paint him and her as Nazi sympathizers, despite the fact the Germans almost murdered them both and all four children, too.

It's very unfair. Leopold made mistakes, but he made more enemies, and one thing he was not was any kind of collaborator. (Just look at autocratic Christian X in Denmark, who stayed and is still a hero.)

Just to recap, people who hated Leopold:
- The Belgians
- The Belgian government
- The British and French governments
- His own brother, the eventual Regent (that one was lifelong)

Even if I'm missing someone, that's a lot to deal with. Roger Keyes made reference to "slings and arrows" for good reason.

Thank you for the comprehensive answer. The condemnation is much easier to understand if most or all of the players were already negatively disposed towards him for myriad reasons. I imagine then that the primary contrast with his father was that Albert I was not a king whom much of the political class and the general public already wanted to see the back of.

I imagine there would have been some difference between Flemish and Walloon attitudes. Among other reasons because the Walloon soldiers received a harder treatment and were much longer interred than the Flemish ones. The king had said he would follow their fate but he didn t, he played golf and got married while the Walloon prisoners of war could not. Socialists will have had more problems with the King than Christian democrats. Liberal democrats may have been more angry about the king ignoring the law and having his religious marriage before the civil one. His wish to become a strongman and is distaste for democracy were suspected. He often searched the border of what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional.

Thank you for explaining why some segments of the population had special reasons to have hardened feelings towards him.

I am not an expert in Belgian history, but I see two differences.

First, Albert I did not surrender. He was still fighting a war in occupied territory.

Second, the government advised Leopold III to leave Belgium and stay with his ministers in exile. As a constitutional monarch, he was bound to follow ministerial advice and chose not to do it.

If I am wrong, I ask the Belgian posters to kindly correct me.

Thank you, you make good points. My understanding was that resistance had become futile when Leopold was forced to surrender, but I suppose if he had gone into exile, that unpleasant job would have fallen to someone else.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I believe that Lilian had become pregnant with their son Alexandre, and that is what mandated a speedy and furtive wedding.

Also Leopold had refused to approve of a marriage between his brother Charles, Count of Flanders, and a commoner with whom he had fallen in love. When he then married his own commoner mistress Lilian Baels, it caused no end of hard feelings between them.

 

[Prinsara]

His wish to become a strongman and is distaste for democracy were suspected. He often searched the border of what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional.

There were a lot of reasons to find fault with him by a lot of groups. And most of them were the results of is own behavior. His abdication was a blessing for Belgium and for the monarchy.

By the time Leopold was forced out, he hadn't had a hand in governing Belgium for a decade. And he won the legal referendum. I'm not sure it was a blessing as much as an excuse for partisan rancor and the happy removal of such a political lightning rod.

I believe that Lilian had become pregnant with their son Alexandre, and that is what mandated a speedy and furtive wedding.

Also Leopold had refused to approve of a marriage between his brother Charles, Count of Flanders, and a commoner with whom he had fallen in love. When he then married his own commoner mistress Lilian Baels, it caused no end of hard feelings between them.

Lilian was not pregnant with Alexandre, who was born more than nine months after the wedding. She may have believed she was pregnant, but no one seems to have ever emerged to confirm this, and at this point you would think these things would be known.

When Charles accepted the offer of Leopold's throne, it caused no end of hard feelings between them. I think Charles would have hated Leopold no matter what, and his baker girlfriend and Lilian were just excuses. The iron went deep in him, and when he heard Leopold was finally coming back to Belgium despite Charles' best efforts, he made a despairing noise and ran away.

 

[maria-olivia]

May I have your sources for writing that about HM King Leopold III , HRH Charles our Regent, And the Princess of Rethy??

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I believe that Lilian had become pregnant with their son Alexandre, and that is what mandated a speedy and furtive wedding.

Lilian was not pregnant with Alexandre, who was born more than nine months after the wedding. She may have believed she was pregnant, but no one seems to have ever emerged to confirm this, and at this point you would think these things would be known.

Lilian gave birth to Alexandre (July 18, 1942) 32 weeks after the marriage (December 6, 1941), or a little more than seven months. (Unless the two of you were referring to their secret and illegal religious ceremony some months before.)

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I was referring to author Paul Belien's assertion that Lilian had become pregnant, which necessitated a speedy secret wedding.

When the Belgians became aware of both the secret commoner mistress and the wedding, they were not happy.

But Leopold III had no choice but to marry her once she became pregnant I guess.

Thanks for your research TM.

 

[Prinsara]

Lilian gave birth to Alexandre (July 18, 1942) 32 weeks after the marriage (December 6, 1941), or a little more than seven months. (Unless the two of you were referring to their secret and illegal religious ceremony some months before.)

Yes, I was referring to the original ceremony. There was no particular need to have any kind of marriage at all at that point unless Lilian believed she might be pregnant. (Or they were being particularly romantic and a bit foolish, who knows.)

At any rate, Leopold did not marry her initially because she was expecting a child. Alexandre came later — Lilian may well have thought she was and prompted the first wedding, though.

Paul Belien is also known to be rather viciously antimonarchist, last I heard.