Some kings who are the first of their regnal name (including Juan Carlos I of Spain) list themselves with the regnal number I, but none of the Belgian monarchs (including King Philippe) have been listed with the number I before there was a second monarch with the name.
Was it a mere coincidence that Philippe, unlike Laurent, was given a royal name? At the time he was born no one would have expected him to reign as King of the Belgians.
Juan Carlos I is a special case like King Umberto I of Italy and Tsar Paul I of Russia whom all used the ordinal I during their reign.
When Philippe was born on April of 1960, it was his uncle Baudouin's 9th year reign and was set to marry the Spanish aristocrat Fabiola on December of that year.
Having been born to the Prince and Princess of Liège, it was unlikely for him to inherit the throne.
However, as to what you are pointing out, Philippe might be a royal name but only Kings Leopold II and Leopold III has a middle name Philippe. Laurent has a third name Baudouin and Astrid has second name Josephine-Charlotte.
Juan Carlos I is a special case like King Umberto I of Italy and Tsar Paul I of Russia whom all used the ordinal I during their reign.
When Philippe was born on April of 1960, it was his uncle Baudouin's 9th year reign and was set to marry the Spanish aristocrat Fabiola on December of that year.
Having been born to the Prince and Princess of Liège, it was unlikely for him to inherit the throne.
King Luis I used the ordinal I as well and there is speculation that Leonor will reign as Queen Leonor I.
True, but as the name of historical Belgian monarchs who reigned as Count of Flanders or Duke of Burgundy, the name of the brother of King Leopold II who in time became his heir, and the name of one of the family's patron saints, it is distinctly more of a Belgian royal name than Laurent's, and I wonder if he was given the name in case of an eventuality.
There are rumors that Fabiola's gynaecological problems were actually known before her marriage to King Baudouin and led her to break off a previous engagement to a Spanish nobleman. I don't know if that is true or just malicious gossip, but it is not entirely implausible.
Tatiana Maria said:their engagement was not formally announced until that autumn.
HRH Prince Charles, Count of Flanders who's Regency last from 1944 until 1950 was possibly the most dangerous era for the Belgian monarchy with the 1950 Referendum on the Monarchy.
Yes, but during his regency happened a lot of social, economical, political and international relations endeavors.
1 Benelux Customs Union Treaty signed in 1944 and was taken into effect in 1948.
2 Belgium became a member state of the UN on December 1945
3 Passage of Women's Suffrage of March 1948.
4 Belgium managed to jump-start its economy under the Marshall plan.
To name a few.
But there's one thing that I would have wanted him to do otherwise;
1 The bequest of The Leuchtenberg Fabergé Tiara to his younger sister Queen Marie José of Italy. (It might have another path if it was left in Belgium.)
And he seems to have held the kingdom together for his nephew Baudouin! Charles is possibly an underrated and largely forgotten figure.
King Albert II could have bought back the Fabergé tiara from the Savoys, but he chose to buy a yatch instead. Ironically, the tiara ended up in the United States (a most unlikely place).
Was there ever a consideration to have Prince Charles, Count of Flanders become the King?
More information: History | The Belgian MonarchyBelgium was recognised as an independent country in 1830 but the Monarchy was established in 1831. Leopold I, Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, took the constitutional oath on 21 July 1831 to become the first King of the Belgians.