Talk:Monarchy of Belgium

Whats the native language of the Belgian kings? --P

French. Erwin 08:58, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

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)[reply]

Timeline

I changed the timeline so that the names of the monarchs are now set inside their respective bars. My reason for this: I initially misunderstood the representation. I wondered how Leopold II. could have reigned that late, checked on his page, and was wondering... then realized I had missed the small stubby bar for Erasme, and had attributed the names to the bars below instead of left of them. I think the way I changed it makes it clearer for a person that just glances at the timeline for a second or two. The colors are definitely a matter of taste, and I encourage people with better feeling for colors to change them if necessary -- I just chose what was a readable background for blue text, and still easily distinguishable between king and regent.

History of Belgian Monarchy?

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)[reply]

Polical involovment

Army - official BUT Administrative - non official

petition -> write : Peoples petition rather the parliament.--Ymulleneers 14:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it says that the powers of the King have been under public debate and that they have continued to lessen under each successive King. As well it says that there has been some debate over reducing the role of the King to a purely ceremonial role. This is all without citation, I have little doubt that this could be true, but if so citations shouldn't be difficult to find. A public bebate should have newspaper articles and the like arguing the issue, otherwise its just a pet theory and a POV. Colin 8 22:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons with other monarchies

The article is full of comparisons with the British monarchy. Is this necessary? The Belgian Monarchy can stand alone without being compared with its peers, and I'm sure that people can understand the article without constantly wondering "is that the same as the do it in the UK?". Unless there is a consensus for keeping these references, I'll take them out soon.

--Chrisfow 16:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. Surtsicna (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that. The Belgian monarchy had been modelled on the Bristih monarchy, a constitutional monarchy, but this Belgian monarchy, as Arango explained it, was nevertheless not truly a constitutionnal monarchy. The comparison with these other monarchies is very important. I recall that the title of this para is Its origins and about these origins, it is absolutely important to say (as Arango explained it but also Fusilier who made comparisons with the other monarchies), that this monarchy has not the same evolution as the other monarchies (in the Modernity). So, the Belgian monarchy was never an absolute monarchy, yes, ok, but this monarchy was not truly constitutionnal, having on this way some traits of an absolute monarchy even if it is closer the constitutionnal monarchies. There are relevant sources on these topics (mainly Arango and Fusilier), and there is a whole chapter of Arango explaining how Leopold IIi had a vision of the Belgian monarchy closer the absolute monarchies. The Belgian monarchy is (or was until 1950 but may be until Baudouin Ier died) very different from the other european monarchies. Perhaps in other words that I wrote. But I am going to put some elements coming from Arango, Fusilier, other authors... Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)( I agree with the fact the king was a kind of a referee, but sometimes yes, sometimes no).[reply]

Dear Buster, simply thank you for your help. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ik ben ook zeer gelukkig. Im a also very happy. But i am only able to speak ABN (and not very well even if - af een toe - I translate short texts from Flemish fiends). Hartelijk, José Fontaine (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Family Tree section

Anybody know how to fix tha section's appearance? GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]