Prince Charles, Count of Flanders (1903-1983)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Thanks for Sending this , more than 10 years later we lost Congo for ever.
(It was not Prince Charles fault ...)
 
Thanks for this never seen Picture. I do not think the person next to him is his Mother Queen Elisabeth.
It is known that Charles did not see his Mother from 1940 to 1945 when he became Regent The Queen had to attend his Oath at the Parlement , bus was dressed in black
 
maria-olivia, Is the lady a relative of Prince Charles?
 
No Royal Ladies during the War in Belgium except Queen Elisabeth !
I think the person next ro the Prince must be an ex prisoner ?
 
maria-olivia, Is the lady possibly a member of the Belgian aristocracy/nobility?
 
I don't think so , s too badly dressed next to the Prince who is in great Uniform.

To me it is a Prisoner , Prince Charles was a warm person;
 
Last edited:
I also don't think the woman next to Prince Charles is Q.Elisabeth, to me her nose seem to be different than for instance on this pic from 1939 http://opac.amsab.be/images/FO 008196.jpg
But that doesn't mean she didn't attend the Mass, she might have been seated somewhere else?
 
I agree She attend the Mass but seated somewhere else. I never saw this interesting picture. They are such few pictures during the period before Prince Charles was regent (1945)
 
maria-olivia, What prison might the lady have been a prisoner?
 
I really don't know because this in to me un unknown but very interesting picture because it is in 1944 .
 
On September 21st 1944 Prince Charles of Belgium, Count of Flanders, became Regent. So today it is exactly 75 years ago.

That Prince Charles became Regent was not an automatism. The Belgian Government was not obliged to appoint someone from the royal family. But in political circles many soon agreed that Prince Charles was the best candidate. Inside Belgium the only other relative of the King was his mother, Queen Elisabeth of the Belgians born Duchess in Bavaria. No one considered her as a Regentess. Queen Elisabeth enjoyed some respect but lacked insight in people and politics. As André de Staercke (Chef Cabinet of Prime Minister Hubert Pierlot) wrote: Queen Elisabeth was able to appoint someone Prime Minister, just because he was a good doctor or a gifted musician.

So it became Prince Charles. A man not really known to most Belgians and to most politicians. The Prince had the reputation of being an anglophile, a remnant of his military education in the British Royal Navy. It was also known that the Prince had a difficult relationship with his brother and his mother. There was an inferiority complex and Queen Elisabeth even labelled him an "enfant terrible". His mother, who adored Leopold, never took him au sérieux. She did not hide her discontent when she heard that Prince Charles, and not she, became Regent. (Much later Prince Charles would state that his mother never forgave him for taking up the regency).

Also in the Royal Household there was discontent. The courtiers, naturally on the hand of the King, were furious that Prince Charles "usurped the throne" and this with the help of Prime Minister Hubert Pierlot ("a despicable man" according Leopold). The King's secretary, Robert Capelle, wrote a letter to Prince Charles: accepting the regency would be "illegal". The secretary reminded the Prince to his brother's "Political Testament" which was very negative about the Cabinet Pierlot (which went to London against his will and without any word about the allied countries or the resistance). This letter was handed to Field Marshall Sir Bernard Law Montgomery himself by the Grand Marshall of the Court, count Louis Cornet d'Elzius de Ways Ruart. When Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill read the letter, he was outraged and ordered the British Ambassador in Brussels, Sir Hughe Knatchbull-Hugessen, to demand an explanation about "that dirty paper".

As a consequence of this incident, Prince Charles dismissed the Grand Marshall of the Court. This caused an uproar at the Court, not in the least with Queen Elisabeth, who remained firm behind her eldest son Leopold despite his very unwise "political testament". To make things worse in their eyes: the Prince did appoint André de Staercke (Chef Cabinet of Prime Minister Hubert Pierlot) as his secretary. To the dismay of the courtiers the Prince offered "a stronghold inside the Court" to a man they considered as "an intrigant and a puppet of Prime Minister Hubert Pierlot".

In the meantime Prince Charles showed that he completely supported the allied countries. In London he visited King George VI, Prime Minister Churchill and also Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands (offering financial support from his own purse for children hit by the gruesome Winter of Famine in the still occupied Netherlands).

When finally Nazi Germany capitulated in May 1945, King Leopold was freed from exile in Austria and thought he could go back to Brussels and resume his kingship. When his brother Charles told him there was no way he could simply return to the throne without an invitation by the Government, a feud broke out between the two brothers.

While the King was in exile in Switzerland, Prince Charles effectively was the head of state for 5 years. He again outraged his brother and the Court when he elevated former Prime Minister Hubert Pierlot into the Nobility with the title of Count. Not only was Pierlot an enemy of Leopold III, Charles had no right to bestow nobility, in the eyes of the leopoldists.

In general the Belgians were happy under Prince Charles. The country was booming and the Regent kept himself far from politics. Many saw Charles as an ideal King, but he himself considered his nephew Prince Baudouin as the constitutional successor to the King. His idea was to remain a Regent until Prince Baudouin could take over. This indeed happened in 1950.

After the end of his regency, Prince Charles withdrew from public, to live at his domain near Raversijde (Ostend). So now and then the Prince came in the news because of financial problems. Allegedly there were fortunes spent on maîtresses and fortunes disappeared because of shady "advisers" misusing the "Weltfremd" (naïve) Prince. The feud between the two brothers remained. Still in 1982 King Leopold wrote a letter to Prince Charles, blaming him for serious damage "because of your attitude to me, to the country, the dynasty, family..."

Charles himself stated that he had saved "de brol" ("the crap", the monarchy) but that he was never given any gratitude for it. By the way: the Prince blamed his brother that he was not allowed to marry a Belgian "commoner" (Jacqueline Wehrli) while he himself married Liliane Baels.

Link: https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/drafts/jan-ouvry/75-jaar-geleden-het-regentschap/
 
Last edited:
Duc_et_Pair said:
On September 21st 1944 Prince Charles of Belgium, Count of Flanders, became Regent. So today it is exactly 75 years ago.

That Prince Charles became Regent was not an automatism. The Belgian Government was not obliged to appoint someone from the royal family. But in political circles many soon agreed that Prince Charles was the best candidate. Inside Belgium the only other relative of the King was his mother, Queen Elisabeth of the Belgians born Duchess in Bavaria. No one considered her as a Regentess. Queen Elisabeth enjoyed some respect but lacked insight in people and politics. As André de Staercke (Chef Cabinet of Prime Minister Hubert Pierlot) wrote: Queen Elisabeth was able to appoint someone Prime Minister, just because he was a good doctor or a gifted musician.

So it became Prince Charles. A man not really known to most Belgians and to most politicians. The Prince had the reputation of being an anglophile, a remnant of his military education in the British Royal Navy. It was also known that the Prince had a difficult relationship with his brother and his mother. There was an inferiority complex and Queen Elisabeth even labelled him an "enfant terrible". His mother, who adored Leopold, never took him au sérieux. She did not hide her discontent when she heard that Prince Charles, and not she, became Regent. (Much later Prince Charles would state that his mother never forgave him for taking up the regency).

Also in the Royal Household there was discontent. The courtiers, naturally on the hand of the King, were furious that Prince Charles "usurped the throne" and this with the help of Prime Minister Hubert Pierlot ("a despicable man" according Leopold). The King's secretary, Robert Capelle, wrote a letter to Prince Charles: accepting the regency would be "illegal". The secretary reminded the Prince to his brother's "Political Testament" which was very negative about the Cabinet Pierlot (which went to London against his will and without any word about the allied countries or the resistance). This letter was handed to Field Marshall Sir Bernard Law Montgomery himself by the Grand Marshall of the Court, count Louis Cornet d'Elzius de Ways Ruart. When Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill read the letter, he was outraged and ordered the British Ambassador in Brussels, Sir Hughe Knatchbull-Hugessen, to demand an explanation about "that dirty paper".

As a consequence of this incident, Prince Charles dismissed the Grand Marshall of the Court. This caused an uproar at the Court, not in the least with Queen Elisabeth, who remained firm behind her eldest son Leopold despite his very unwise "political testament". To make things worse in their eyes: the Prince did appoint André de Staercke (Chef Cabinet of Prime Minister Hubert Pierlot) as his secretary. To the dismay of the courtiers the Prince offered "a stronghold inside the Court" to a man they considered as "an intrigant and a puppet of Prime Minister Hubert Pierlot".

In the meantime Prince Charles showed that he completely supported the allied countries. In London he visited King George VI, Prime Minister Churchill and also Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands (offering financial support from his own purse for children hit by the gruesome Winter of Famine in the still occupied Netherlands).

When finally Nazi Germany capitulated in May 1945, King Leopold was freed from exile in Austria and thought he could go back to Brussels and resume his kingship. When his brother Charles told him there was no way he could simply return to the throne without an invitation by the Government, a feud broke out between the two brothers.

While the King was in exile in Switzerland, Prince Charles effectively was the head of state for 5 years. He again outraged his brother and the Court when he elevated former Prime Minister Hubert Pierlot into the Nobility with the title of Count. Not only was Pierlot an enemy of Leopold III, Charles had no right to bestow nobility, in the eyes of the leopoldists.

In general the Belgians were happy under Prince Charles. The country was booming and the Regent kept himself far from politics. Many saw Charles as an ideal King, but he himself considered his nephew Prince Baudouin as the constitutional successor to the King. His idea was to remain a Regent until Prince Baudouin could take over. This indeed happened in 1950.

After the end of his regency, Prince Charles withdrew from public, to live at his domain near Raversijde (Ostend). So now and then the Prince came in the news because of financial problems. Allegedly there were fortunes spent on maîtresses and fortunes disappeared because of shady "advisers" misusing the "Weltfremd" (naïve) Prince. The feud between the two brothers remained. Still in 1982 King Leopold wrote a letter to Prince Charles, blaming him for serious damage "because of your attitude to me, to the country, the dynasty, family..."

Charles himself stated that he had saved "de brol" ("the crap", the monarchy) but that he was never given any gratitude for it. By the way: the Prince blamed his brother that he was not allowed to marry a Belgian "commoner" (Jacqueline Wehrli) while he himself married Liliane Baels.

Link: https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/drafts/jan-ouvry/75-jaar-geleden-het-regentschap/
Click to expand...

This is intriguing. Evidently, the family's private tensions were unleashed into the political moves and calculations in connection to the regency, and it sounds as if there may have been a strategic element to Prince Charles' apparent support of Pierlot.

I also hadn't realized that the Queen Elisabeth could have been a serious contender for regent (had her temperament been considered more suitable), given the Salic Law, but of course Belgians would have been acquainted with the history of the French monarchy, which had known many regencies by women in spite of Salic Law.
 
Queen Elisabeth as Regent of Belgium would have been interesting and possibly the only ever Female Regent of the kingdom.
 
The regency was considered a grave disloyalty by Leopold III, usurping the place that he thought rightfully belonged to him. Leopold was very bitter about it and must have influenced the views of his young children. In a post-abdication documentary in 2013/4 (?) King Albert II seemed to have reflected on the matter and changed: he recognized that the regent played a vital role in saving the monarchy during the crisis about Leopold III. The King put some emphasis on his words, as if he was saying something very revealing. But the surprise of the statement was lost on the interviewer. Historians have a rather positive view of Charles' regency and less so about Leopold III. Charles had indeed 'sauvé le brol'.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for highlighting this. This must be the reason why he also chose to leave the limelight other than just following his pursuits in arts.

Prince Charles deserves the love and adoration of King Leopold III's descendants.
 
An Ard Ri said:
Queen Elisabeth as Regent of Belgium would have been interesting and possibly the only ever Female Regent of the kingdom.
Click to expand...

It would most likely have meant the downfall of the monarchy as the Queen, blind for her eldest son's faults, always played the card "Leopold", was open to intrigants, was totally "Weltfremd" and failed to see the longer term goal (the survival of the monarchy) over the short term gain (her sweetie Leopold).
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
It would most likely have meant the downfall of the monarchy as the Queen, blind for her eldest son's faults, always played the card "Leopold", was open to intrigants, was totally "Weltfremd" and failed to see the longer term goal (the survival of the monarchy) over the short term gain (her sweetie Leopold).
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. I've read somewhere that around 1950's to 1960's she embarrassed the Belgian government with her trips to Poland, the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China.
 
Last edited:
Marengo said:
But now there was supposed to be a real marriage. Supposed, as no prove was ever given for it. On September 14th 1977 he might have been married a Jacquenline de Peyrebrune in Paris. He met her during the war in the resistance, he was Monsieur Richard, she Madame Schaak. Charles himself never said a word about the marriage, documents that would prove that a marriage had taken place disappeared and the Belgian court doesn´t say a word about this marriage: ´no comment´.
Click to expand...

Even though the Belgian court denies this marriage, how likely is it that this was legit, as they only had a religious marriage ceremony in Paris?

Jacqueline Peyrebrune died in 2014. Does anyone perhaps know the exact date of her death?
 
I read her book , this was not legit and no civil wedding.
He has a daughter who is still living Mme Wibo, very discret old Lady. I don't know her Mother ?
 
maria-olivia said:
I read her book , this was not legit and no civil wedding.
He has a daughter who is still living Mme Wibo, very discret old Lady. I don't know her Mother ?
Click to expand...

Does for this wedding of Charles with Jacqueline Peybrune apply the same as for Leopold I with Karoline Bauer, namely that it didn't take place and therefor has to be ignored?
 
The final word seems to be in L'Allemagne Dynastique, vol VII p 385 quoting Mme Schaack nee Peyrebrune herself and the statement issued after the blessing of her and Prince Charles. Here is my translation: "The religious marriage of Prince Charles does not appear in the Paris, Franceh registers of Saint Pierre de Mountrouge. However, Mme Schaack, nee Jacqueline Peyrebrune...has kindly informed us of the strictly private blessing happily given, eight months after the death of M Georges Schaack, on 14.9.1977 by Father Marcelino Carrera who has given the following attestation: The private blessing uniting before God Charles Theodore count of Flanders and Louise Marie Jacqueline Peyrebrune was given at Saint Peter's at the altar of the Sacred Heart on 14 September 1977. The mutual legal consent was received by your humble brother in Christ [Fr Carrera] in the presence of Father Keller and witnesses [comtesse Annie de Bergeret and Mme Marie Jeannette Aurelie Menahes]. The statement is also signed by the participants and witnesses. Similarly, Madame Jacqueline (de) Peyrebrune who published in 1991 through Editions Tarmeye her memoirs with the title Love in Shadow - the secret garden of Prince Charles of Belgium followed in 1993, by the same publisher, by Carnets intimes....It seems from the correspondence we have exchanged that she considers the union as strictly private and celebrated only devant Dieu. Also, it should be noted that a religious marriage cannot legally take place in French law unless it has been preceded by a civil one." There was no religious marriage and no civil one. So, technically, Prince Charles died unmarried. ...
Click to expand...

Source: Richard Thornton

I am not sure if this statement indicates a legally invalid religious wedding or a blessing which did not even qualify as a religious wedding (are there other, non-marital forms of union blessed by the Catholic Church?).


maria-olivia said:
I read her book , this was not legit and no civil wedding.
He has a daughter who is still living Mme Wibo, very discret old Lady. I don't know her Mother ?
Click to expand...

It was said on another forum that the mother was Jacqueline Wehrli, whose husband Arthur Wybo was the official father of Isabelle.
 
Yes , you are right Tatania and better informed than myself...
 
Thank you Tatiana, for shining a light on this matter, since this clearly shows it was a private matter between prince Charles and Jacqueline Peyrebrune.

Since you're so well informed, do you perhaps also know when Jacqueline died exactly? I know she died at Saint-Hilaire-de-la-Noaille in September 2014, but I don't know the exact day.
 
:previous: I'm afraid I am not particularly well informed. I have come across the date of September 15, 2014, regarding Mrs. Schaak, but I have no knowledge of what the source might be.
 
Prince Charles was in love with Jacqueline Wehrli but he could not marry bacause she was a Communor. So as she was pregnant , he asked Mr Wybo to marry her. Isabelle is not Mr Wybo daughter.

Later King Leopolg III married himself a Communor.
 
Last edited:
I know the polite term is eccentric, and yet I struggle to come up with a better term for my understanding of Charles than "weirdo".

I'm sure it must have been very hard not being the favorite and having your brother deny you a marriage, but it really seems as though he spent (the rest of) his life resenting Leopold and acting on that resentment.

(Also if you are a prince in the 1930s and you think you can marry whomever you want, that's your fault. Not your brother's. And if you don't understand that your brother the King paid hell for marrying whom he wanted and get even more resentful... that doesn't seem to be the right lesson. Just very immature.)

Certainly Charles was happy to play the good regent, and not so happy to offer any kind of support to his brother in exile. A proper regent acts on behalf of the monarch, no? It seems that in addition to taking his job, if Charles had been less willing to let Leopold be completely undermined, his brother might not have walked straight back into a riot.

He was with the Resistance when he disappeared during the war.
...but that's everyone's excuse. Where is the proof, and why wasn't he with them sooner?

And then there's that episode where he asked for help so he could pretend to be in England when he wasn't. That's just flat-out psychiatrically questionable.

Weird. Weird guy. He may have been a talented painter and someone who refused his apanage, but I don't get the sense he was very nice, or any sort of an admirable rebel. At least whoever leaves the flowers on his grave disagrees with me, I suppose...
 
I think there was a LOT of resentment from his part towards his family, esp. to his brother and parents. Leopold was always treated as the golden boy, while he was in his shadow. His mother clearly & from a young age had Leopold as her favorite.

Leopold III was livid about Charles taking up the regency, considered him an usurper who was giving in to socialists. Leopold's children of course were on his side. Albert II was interviewed a few years ago and finally acknowledged that the regent had actually done a good job and saved the monarchy. He said it as if it was still a controversial opinion, which it is not as historians all agree about Charles' role. AFAIK it was the first time a family member said something positive in public about the role of prince Charles as regent. He was ignored for 6 decades.

A good regent in a constitutional monarchy does whatever the government wants him to do. His role was not to help his brother. Leopold has made grave mistakes and was a disaster as King. He got away with it in the 30-ties but in the 50-ties neither the government not the public would have tolerated his constant interference with government decisions.

I don't think being eccentric is a bad thing perse btw, quite the opposite ;).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blog Real
Kings Ferdinand I, Francis I, Ferdinand II, Francis II & Kingdom of the Two Sicilies
Replies
3
Views
633
Blog Real
Blog Real
B
New Most Recent Common Ancestor of Reigning European Monarchs
Replies
17
Views
6K
tihkon2
tihkon2
Blog Real
History of the Monarchy and Monarchs of Luxembourg
Replies
7
Views
2K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
Blog Real
List of Monarchs of Italy
Replies
1
Views
2K
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
J
"Rebel Prince: The Power, Passion and Defiance of Prince Charles" by Tom Bower (2018)
2 3 4
Replies
103
Views
14K
Leopoldine
Leopoldine

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom