Kingdom of Belgium Born!

On April 19, 1839 the Kingdom of Belgium was officially recognized by the European powers in Treaty of London. I find it a little funny to see sources indicate this as the "birthday" of Belgium or the day when the Kingdom of Belgium was "born" since Belgian independence had been asserted a decade before and SM King Leopold 1er had been reigning as King of the Belgians for almost as long already. However, this was the day in history that the status of the Kingdom of Belgium was firmly settled and established in the international community, because it was only in 1839 that the European powers finally pressured King Willem I of the Netherlands to recognize the fact of Belgian independence that had already existed. He had still been hoping that he would be able to re-conquer Belgium and force it back into the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. But Belgium resisted with ferocity and the other powers really did not want to see the Low Countries going into a long and ugly war so they finally stepped in and put the pressure on King Willem I to recognize that he would have to sleep in the bed he had made and recognize Belgian independence. So, hurrah for the Treaty of London then! At one time it seems that treaties gave national independence instead of taking it away .... or am I speaking impolitic? ;-)

Belgium, Britain and Monarchy

It is not good, I know, to compare one country with another, but sometimes I cannot resist it. Especially this is so for the countries of the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Belgium. The two are very different and also have very much in common. It is also my confession that I think of this more probably because I hear now so much criticism from British politicians directed toward the existence of Belgium as a “proper country”, which they say it is not. And yet, look at the similarities of these two countries. Both are constitutional monarchies, both even have the same family of royalty. Both are also diverse countries, not like all countries in Europe are diverse now, but the mixture of Flemish and Walloon in Belgium and the mixture of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon and Norman in Great Britain. Both have also been close allies since the British intervened in the First World War in reaction to the invasion of Belgium and for that the Belgians have never missed being grateful and honoring that sacrifice on our behalf. And yet, some British politicians still denigrate my country and publicly cheer for Belgium to be broken up and destroyed.

What inspired me to think of a new comparison was that some of these political figures, in their own country and policies relating to that, are quite correct. Time to name a name: Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party. I cannot be anything but opposed to this man because he constantly insults my country, my people and wishes for us to be broken up and destroyed. He is also very much against the European Union, which does not bother me so much as his being very much against the Kingdom of Belgium. Yet, I have at least one friend (who is pro-Belgian of course) who greatly likes Nigel Farage and has pointed out to me that Farage is a proud British monarchist who wants the UK and the Commonwealth countries to preserve their monarchy. That is good for them and I have no problem with that, I support that also, and if he would only keep his words about his own country and not mine I would maybe be able to like Farage also. But, he does not and so I cannot like him and must be opposed to him. But this made me think to compare the attitudes toward the British and the Belgian monarchies in each country.

My perspective may not be correct but anyone can leave a comment to tell me so. I never used to watch much news coverage from Britain. I did not watch much news at all when I was very small (I was watching cartoons!) but now I am in education exile I see occasionally the BBC while still trying to stay up to date with news from home. One thing I have noticed is that the British news does not seem to mention their Queen very much at all. Unless there is some major social event she is connected with, they do not, as I have seen, pay much attention at all to the Queen or the others royals of the family. This surprised me because, since the British monarchy is so grand and famous around the world, because of their past empire (and everyone must agree it is the most grand) I thought the BBC would have always some news about the Queen. But I have seen very little and that what I did see was always in reference to some occasion social. Not like Belgium at all. From my perspective, the news in Belgium mentions the King quite regularly and in terms political and governmental not social only. Even though in Belgium we are being a popular monarchy and have no grand ceremonies with the King wearing ermine robes and wearing a crown and surrounded by servants in antique costumes, it seems the monarchie in Belgium is more central while the monarchy in Britain the serious media (not the gossip mags) just more often ignore their Queen and royals.

Is my perception incorrect? I know British friends read this (they are my number three source of readers after the USA and Belgium) so they can tell me if my view is incomplete. Thinking about this, I thought it was logical because the monarchy is for Britain now very separated from politics and all political problems and solutions. In Belgium this might also be the case except that the divisions in the political parties* means that the King must have a more central role as keeping peace between the two sides and forcing him to be the “adult in the room” (and the politicians do often behave like children it looks like). This does not happen in the United Kingdom. I heard nothing about the Queen being involved when, after last elections, a power-sharing government had to be negotiated between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrat Party. I know in Britain there is also now regional governments in North Ireland, Scotland and maybe Wales (I am uncertain of that one, I thought they had an assembly their own but also I thought they were always a part of England so, I am not certain of that situation). Maybe this worked better for United Kingdom than Belgium, I do not know, since I never hear of the Queen must settle disputes between English, Irish and Scottish people. However, in Belgium, the monarchy may not be so grand but is very important because the King is the one person with no regional agenda.

The King of the Belgians must work very hard, especially when there is disagreement and discord (as we have seen very clearly in this extended time with no government) and although British and Belgians both have people that like to mock and make comedy ridicule of their monarchs, in Belgium, even those who are not supportive of the monarchy must accept that it is important and they cannot ignore it because it is the central, unifying institution of the country. The former Prime Minister was ridiculed by some for saying all that kept Belgium together was football, beer and the King. If that is so, the King is even more important than anyone thought because beer and football cannot take any action to bring about political compromise and encourage national unity. The King may not be every day in the news, but he cannot also be ignored and it cannot be denied his crucial part in the political process of the country.

*Another problem I have is Farage saying there are no national parties in Belgium. This is not true! Votez B.U.B.!

Belgium: Natural NOT Artificial

About a week or two ago someone sent me an article from the Brussels Journal about how Belgium is an “artificial state”, an “invented” state just put together for political reasons, doomed to failure and which never should have existed in the first place. Why this was sent to me? Maybe to see my reaction since going to school in Texas everyone at home thinks I’m becoming a far-right extremist. I don’t think so but my friend and native Texas the Mad Monarchist did worry me when he said that Texans were like the Klingons of the United States. Yikes. Anyway, everyone should probably know already my opinion on this and I feel like I have said it a hundred million times but the “artificial state” and “invented state” accusations just keep coming. I do not think that is true but additionally I do not understand how anyone else could think it is true. It goes against all of history, and that I have tried to talk about on this blog. Regardless, it is still repeated and it makes me depressed. Also I have been depressed by how many Belgians are so quick and calm to criticize their own country. A good friend of mine said when the burqa ban was passed that Belgium must be the most racist country. We really put down ourselves too much. Seriously, if Belgium was really so racist then I don’t think so many other races would want to come live in Belgium.

Back to the point, Belgium is not “artificial” or “invented”. How do people think this? I know, part is because of the quarreling between the French and Dutch speakers communities but do they really think these two were just put together in 1830? Do they think before that the space on the map was empty? The two regions had been together when we were part of the United Netherlands Kingdom, when we were the Austrian Netherlands before that, when we were in the larger Spanish Netherlands before that and when we were Burgundy before that. There had always been this area, not always an independent country, but always definitely not French, not German and not Dutch. Even in those days people still called the whole area “Belgium” and it was Belgium even all the way back in Roman times. So, why don’t people understand? No one “invented” Belgium! Belgium has always been here, right where it is today! There has always been Belgium, there have always been Belgians. This is not disputable, this is a fact of history.

Look at the brief period between the first effort for independence (United States of Belgium we talked about) and the country being taken over by France and Napoleon. That was when we were, again, the Austrian Netherlands but war was already about to happen with France so military forces had to be ready and they formed a unit, part of the Austrian Imperial Army, with green and yellow uniforms with cool crested helmets that had the big letters “LB” on them. What did that stood for? “Legion Belge” or the BELGIAN Legion. This was going back before 1814, so how could there be a Belgian Legion when these people keep saying Belgium was just invented in 1830 by a bunch of countries? Why do I have maps from back to the Renaissance period and the Roman Empire with a big area labeled “Belgium” on them if the country was only “invented” in 1830? So why do they keep saying that? It is ridiculous and I do not understand them!

The people always had different languages and different customs, not just in the regions, but town to town. However, in the past most everyone also had a common language if it was Latin or later French and everyone always had the same religion. Today it is more rigid and one area is for speaking Dutch, the other French and a little bit German and no changing! That has hardened feelings I think, not like the way it was in the past. In the past there were language issues also, no denying that, but there were also more things that all Belgians had in common in those days and today there is less of that. But artificial or invented we are not. The area of the country has been a distinct unit since hundreds of years and the people living there knew they were not French or Dutch or Germans, but Belgians!

Constitution of Belgium

The Belgian Constitution. It is a complicated subject. The Constitution in effect today actually is not much the same as the original version of 1831 other than the basic framework that Belgium is a popular monarchy and parliamentary democracy. From 1831 to 1970 the Kingdom of Belgium was a “unitary state” with one government for all people, elected by all the people. However, in 1970 the Belgian Constitution began going through many changes to make the kingdom essentially a federal state. This is not uncommon in the world but it is rather uncommon for a country as small as Belgium. Germany, Canada, the United States, for example, are all federal states. However, in Belgium, rather than states, there are “regions” and “communities” which are based on local differences, not importance. In other words, being a region or a community does not give any privilege over the other, both exist on the same level in terms of government organization.

Article 1 lays out the basic form of government. Article 2 distinguishes the three communities (Flemish, French and German) and Article 3 distinguishes the three regions (Flanders, Wallonie and the Brussels capital region). Article 4 determines what languages are exclusive to these parts of the country (Dutch for Flanders, French for Wallonie, both languages for Brussels and German for the German community). Each of these have their own political establishment and the linguistic borders can only be changed by majorities in the Chamber of Deputies for each region. The regions are then divided into provinces for the management of local issues. This is all part of Title I. Title II deals with the civil rights of all Belgian citizens. In some ways though this has been superseded by the European Convention on Human Rights. Then follows the qualifications for citizenship and the rights and obligations of citizenship. Also there is special provision to account for European Union and non-EU citizens, European voting laws.

There are many more provisions dealing with rights and freedoms, also the limitations of these. There is no death penalty, there is freedom of religion, there is freedom of speech, though some Americans have asked me about Holocaust denial laws in Belgium. I did not know until looking it up but yes, we have them and it is illegal to deny, diminish or sympathize with any of the actions of Nazi Germany. There is freedom of association, freedom of assembly and the usual rights most people today take for granted in the civilized world. The next part is the one probably most people will find confusing because it deals with the delegation of power through all the different levels. There is the European Union level, the federal level, the regional level and it all can be quite complicated to understand.

This is Title III and it is the largest part of the Constitution, very much larger than all the other parts even put together. On the highest level, dealing with European Union, treaties and government agreements handle that. On the federal level it is the King, the Senate and Chamber of Deputies (of course though the King is expected to sign whatever law the government presents to him). The King has, in name, the executive power but it is the federal government together that actually wields that power instead of the King. Finally, Articles 38 and 39 of Title III detail the powers that are held by the regions and the communities and these have naturally been the subject of the most argument and controversy over the years. One area not changing much is that dealing with the King, it is just not tolerated that he have as much influence as in the past. The biggest recent change was the abolition of Salic law so that older girls can take the throne instead of only boys.

I will try to explain this, but even for me it is complicated. The communities and regions each have their own governments with power over certain areas as put in the Constitution. There is the Flemish Parliament, the Parliament of the French Community and the Parliament of the German-Speaking Community. In Flanders, the Flemish Parliament represents both the region and the community. This is not always the case though as in Wallonie there are two different bodies, the Parliament of the French Community and also the Wallonie Parliament. Not everyone in the community parliament is a member of the regional parliament but every member of the regional parliament is a member of the community parliament (keeping up?). Members often serve in more than one so that French-speaking politicians from Brussels can serve in the Brussels capital parliament and also the French community parliament. But, except for senators, one cannot serve in a community or regional parliament at the same time as serving in the federal parliament in Brussels. These are all responsible for cultural and linguistic matters within their areas (outside federal institutions) but there have been long arguments recently over these bodies being given more control over taxes, income distribution and financial things.

Finally the Constitution establishes the judicial system (Constitutional, military, labor and law courts and that stuff) and finally the local governments, which are the provinces and cities to manage their administration. Also I should mention that the German-speaking community does not have quite the same privliges of the other major communities. Their powers can be changed at the federal level without a full majority and that would be pretty impossible since the German-speaking community is so small, consisting of areas formerly of Germany that Belgium was given as compensation after the World War One.

So, is that a sufficient summary of the Belgian Constitution? Many people are probably like me, when government issues of jurisdiction and these things come up I lose interest fast for it being so boring and complicated. When I have been told it is important to understand, I don’t think so because it always seems that all the time something is being changed or at least trying to be changed with one side or the other saying this or that change is just about to happen. So, I justify my laziness saying why learn all the details now when it will just be changing again anyway? I hope I have given some helpful information but I know I cannot explain everything because much of it I do not know or don’t remember from when I was taught. When I came to United States for some education, one of the things I noticed was people carrying the U.S. Constitution in their pocket! It was a little booklet in their pocket and this was a shock to me. As I explained, this we could not do in Belgium since the Constitution would probably be the size of an encyclopedia! That is a little exaggeration but it did make an impression on me, considering especially how big America is, how small Belgium is and how the U.S. government has been around for a century longer than the Belgian government of today.

Why Some "Monarchists" Hate Belgium?

Until making the acquaintance of a certain “mad man” I had no real contact with the community “monarchists”. Like most people I did not think too much about it, I always support my country, my monarchie and that is all. Since I have had more contact I have found being a Belgian royaliste can put you in a minority even for the monarchists. I found out myself that just because some one says they are a monarchist does not mean they support the Kingdom of Belgium. In fact, I heard many of the same arguments one hears often of the regionalist republican factions that Belgium is not “really” a country, it is an “invented state” or there is just “no reason” for Belgium to even exist. So, these “monarchists” would tell King Albert II and the Saxe-Coburgs (the last having a throne after the Queen in England) to pack their bags and go because there is no “reason” for there to be a Belgium anyway. This made me exceptionally angry I confess because I did not expect these same attacks on my country and my king from people who identify as supporters of monarchie in the world. I get angry enough of anyone attacking in words my king and my people, no matter the language they speak (I come from both).

Moderates voices seem to support Belgium, but not with very much enthusiasm. Rather they defend their own and not care too much if that of another is under attack. I admit my friend the Mad Monarchist is an exception to this since I have known him to strongly defend the monarchie of any country that was under attack as if it were the most important in the world, no matter where it is from. I know him and know he has very definite opinions and preferences but these are put aside for his position of being what he calls “pan-monarchist”. Not many are like that though. In my experience, I was surprised at who attacked the Belgian kingdom and who, if they would not defend it really, would not be attacking it. I was surprised to see monarchists British not joining in attacking Belgium. I should not really be but I have been so used to attacks and insults on Belgium coming from Great Britain but this should not be. Both countries have had the same royal family basically from the time of Prince Albert in Great Britain and King Leopold I in Belgium. Both countries have always been allies (even if not always trusting) and should continue I think.

I was surprised to see the most active attacks and insults coming from the direction of France (just to remind, I do not say this to cover everyone, only the experience of myself in dealing with monarchists slandering Belgium). One, perhaps, was more understandable, coming from a supporter of the House Bonaparte. I guess they would oppose any kingdom they think the French Empire should control. But for simply a French royaliste I do not understand the opposition to Belgium. The French kingdom was crucial in securing the independence of the modern Kingdom of Belgium, King Louis Philippe intervened to convince the Dutch not to make a fight against the independence movement. Also, we know, the first Queen of the Belgians was French! Louise d’Orléans, consort of King Leopold I, was daughter of the French king and a princesse of the Bourbon-Two Sicilies family branch. I could possibly understand the French Republic opposing to Belgium just because they might hate kings regardless, but it makes no sense for monarchist French to oppose Belgium when royal France supported the creation of modern Belgium, the first Queen was French and so the second King of the Belgians was half-French. I also could point out for those supporting Bonaparte that the Belgian and Bonaparte families are related now also.

The issue of Belgium being an “artificial” country also is one I have answered so many times it is exhausting. Belgium is not “artificial” or “invented” or anything like that. I have (tried) shown here many times that Belgian history is ancient, going back to Roman times. The regions of today have been unique but united since the days many centuries ago of Burgundy, Hapsburg Spain and Austria when the first union was formed. Belgium existed long before 1830, before the Dutch were given the area it was the Austrian Netherlands but many people even then still called the area Belgium and for a very long time called the people of that region Belgians even when there was no independent country named “Belgium”. Vlaanderen, Wallonie have been together for hundreds of years and it was not “artificial” pulling things out of the air in 1830 to put them together in their own independent kingdom. There had even already been a short period of independence before that, I have blogged about this, that was the United States of Belgium in 1788-90.

Some of the objection (I am told more than experiencing) is on religious grounds by ultra-conservative Catholics. This, I do not comprehend also and as I have said I am Catholic of course, not very religious, but I know the Catholic Church has always been important in Belgium. The area has always been Catholic, that was even another source of unity. The Protestants became the Netherlands but the Hapsburg-retained south, Dutch and French speaking, remained Catholic. The first King was not but his wife and children were and the Catholic clergy were very supportive of the independence of the Kingdom of Belgium. I understand they were reluctant toward this but the actions of the House Orange in supporting Protestants they finally decided the revolution was justified. It is true that Belgium is not an officially religious state but the monarchie especially has been more Catholic than most. The country then is not officially Catholic but the monarchie is (most people traditionally too but I address here the monarchie).

King Leopold I supported his daughter and Maximilian von Hapsburg in cooperation with the Catholic party in establishing the Mexican throne. King Leopold II supported Catholic missionaries to the Congo and the Belgian volunteers who went to Rome to fight for the Pope against the Italian unification powers. King Albert I was very religious and was the only Allied leader to answer the plea of the Pope for just and peaceful end to the Great War. King Leopold III also was a deeply religious man, keeping Catholic principles in mind in all of his conduct. We know how King Baudouin was very religious and risked political crisis to refuse a law the Catholic Church said was immoral. We know also King Albert II had protested against such laws the Church objected too also. Where else, I would like to know, is a monarchy still existing that has been so strongly Catholic as this even with no official state religion and total religious freedom (who thought some would even be around now who think that is a negative)? So, I have seen all of these objections, considered them and none of them make any sense to me at all. Anti-Belgian bigotry is common (and since blogging I have found in history this is not new) and since their arguments make no sense I can only assume this is the real reason for them. To all of those, I say, please, get past that. I have no prejudice against countries (even Germany that I am wary of considering) so please do not be prejudiced against mine.

Monarchie - Why?

I have answered this many times, but never here as I remember. I am often asked (by Americans) why I am a royaliste. If I have not much time, I say, "Why are you a republican". Naturally then they become very upset and tell me they are a Democrat! That must be an American "thing" of some kind. My point there though is the easy answer is the same as why Americans support the President. Their country is a republic, they love their country and they are then republicans. In the same way, my country is a kingdom, I love my country and so I support totally my king and Family Royal. There is, naturally, more to it than that because I think monarchie is usually better in other countries also, not Belgium only. When I have time, and am asked, I explain this. I think it is better to have a monarchie, maybe not for everyone (don't be frightened Americans) but for most of the time.

Sometimes I am asked why I think it is better to be a kingdom. I ask them why they think is better to be a republic. They usually answer because they have democracy, freedom and civil rights. I tell them naturally that Belgium (and the others in Europe) also have democracy, freedom and civil rights as well. Many people stick in the past thinking that to have freedom you must murder a king, but surely we can see today that is not true. In modern times, monarchies keep people free rather than oppressing them. When Germany banished the Kaiser this allowed Adolf Hitler to become a dictator. If the Kaiser had been around he could have easily dismissed Hitler from office (like the King of Italy did to Mussolini). Joseph Stalin could not have come to power if the Russian Emperor was still alive. Russia certainly did not become more free after killing their emperor. Spain would not be democratic at all today without their King. All the freedom they have is owed to the King. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg are the most free, liberal countries anywhere and all with monarchies.

Especially today when the nation-state seems to be going away, because not everyone is "Swedish" in Sweden or "Danish" in Denmark any more. Every country in western Europe today includes people with various different national origins, religions, cultures and histories from where they come from. The monarchie is something that provides something to unite people. Always in Belgium this has been important and I think we understand better than most just how important this aspect of a monarchie is. Saying that as I do then I am sometimes told that it must not be working because Belgium is not much united anymore right? That is true, in part, but that is not the fault of the King. The King is someone who can unite people if they want to be united. He cannot make people love each other, but through history the King has always been the one to unite and stay focused on the national issues and not regional ones. I think the King could still be a greater force for unity, possibly, but he is hindered by the self-interested politicians, the no-compromise regions, also I think is somewhat important: the lack of respect show for the King in society. When so many can make jokes of the King he is not going to be able to bring people together as easily if people do not treat him with respect.

Of course, I love my country best, any my monarchie best. I think the monarchie has been the most central thing in making Belgium to survive despite divisions over the history. Also I think Belgium has been very fortunate to have very good kings (and queens) over the history. It helps to be founded with a good, balanced government type so the King can always help but never harm. I like all of our kings, I think we have had a good history compared to others of good kings who have really been devoted to their countries and service to their people. Sometimes a mistake is made, but all the kings have done valuable service and I think the King today is doing probably more every day than any other monarch in service to his country because of the situation he has to deal with. I like monarchie, I think it is usually better and I think we have, for us, the best!

Indirect Irish Help to Belgium

From an outside tip I have been thinking again about the massive conflict known as the 'Eighty Years War'. Basically this decided the fate of the modern Low Countries, Dutch independence from Spain and the boundaries between Protestant and Catholic religions in the area. This was very much an international conflict or perhaps to say, in more modern terms, a proxy war on the part of the major Catholic and Protestant powers. The Dutch easily had the most allies and help. The German states that were mostly Protestant (Lutheran) sent their formidable troops to help and most importantly the English, recently Protestants again, sent major help with their powerful navy and tens of thousands of soldiers. The Spanish had almost no outside help. The French were fighting each other and even the Catholic Bourbons of France had usually seen as rivals the Catholic Hapsburgs who ruled Spain and Austria. The Austrians were naturally with Spain but they had the Turks to worry about and their own problems with Germany. The Dutch were also very good fighters, inventing many new tactics especially in siege warfare. They also had alot of money from their merchant capitalism and control of vital trade ports.

The Spanish had some advantages, the infantry Spanish tercios pikemen were world renowned and they had a very talented commander in the person of Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma (raised in Spain but born, married and later headquartered in Brussels) but he died in 1592. Although he had brought the Dutch almost to defeat, intervention by the English navy saved the Dutch Protestant cause from disaster. The English at this time were a dominant power. At the height of Queen Elizabeth I the English had a presence in Europe, aiding French Protestants and the Dutch, their navy asserted control of northern waters, they ruled Ireland and since bringing about the downfall of Mary Queen of Scots also dominated Scotland. The English were safe at home after beating the "Invincible" Armada and could resume their strategy of wearing down Spain by supporting rebelling Protestant forces in Europe. However, in 1594 traditional leaders of the native Catholic population in Ireland started a rebellion against English rule. This was to have an important indirect impact on the war in the United Provinces/Spanish Netherlands (Netherlands and Belgium and Luxembourg).

Ireland was often a problem for England but never too serious and this was at first not taken too seriously. However, when the Irish rebels won a major victory over the English at the battle of Yellow Ford the government in England realized they were facing a possible disaster. With just a little outside help (from Catholic powers like Spain) it seemed possible that the Irish might even be able to drive out the English and restore their independence. This fear caused the Queen of England to recall the majority of English forces from the Netherlands and send a great big army to Ireland under the Earl of Essex. However, he was not a good commander and after the Irish humiliated he was later put to death by the Queen. On the other hand, when Spain sent a small army to help the Irish (using the English strategy against them) they ended in failure also. This took the wind from the sails of the fighting powers in the Netherlands and soon a truce was arranged and though fighting resumed after that both sides had consolidated their positions and the Protestant-Catholic boundaries settled into their mostly continuous status.

This was ultimately very significant for Belgium, even the modern country of today. The Irish were finally defeated, their traditional leaders driven into exile and England started the policy of moving settlers to Northern Ireland to maintain their control. So, the rebellion did not work out very well for the Irish. However, their rebellion may have saved the life of Belgium. Keep in mind that one of the few things that have always been something in common of the Belgian people has been the Catholic Church. It might have been destroyed all those centuries ago. If the Irish had not went to rebellion the English could have kept their army in the Netherlands to fight the Spanish there and help the Dutch (who were doing pretty good already). Because of the Irish the English had to shift their attention and finally had many more troops in Ireland than in the Low Countries. If they had not had to do this it is probably very likely that the Dutch and allied Protestant forces could have totally defeated the Catholics, taken over the Spanish Netherlands and suppressed the Catholic Church from the whole region. Because of this, it can be seen that, indirectly, the Irish rebellion, even though it failed for them, their sacrifice allowed the Spanish Netherlands, later Catholic Belgium, to survive.

Flags of Belgium

The Austrian Netherlands

The Spanish Netherlands

The Brabant Revolution

The United States of Belgium

The Kingdom of the United Netherlands

The Belgian Revolution

The Kingdom of Belgium

Ancient Belgium

Nothing makes me angry more than the comments of people who say that Belgium is not a real/legitimate/proper country. That is simply untrue. Belgium has been around for a very long time. Just the modern Kingdom of Belgium has been around since 1830 which makes it older, in terms of the government and constitutional monarchy, than the united Germany, Italy, the modern Fifth French Republic, the Russian Federation and many others. However, like I have posted about before, even before there was the modern Kingdom of Belgium there was the United States of Belgium (though it did not last long) from which much of the inspiration for the 1830 Revolution originated. Before that there was still a distinct difference from what was called the Austrian Netherlands sometimes, also called Royal Belgium in contrast to Federal Belgium which was the Dutch United Provinces. But even long before any of that, in ancient times, there was the Belgae.

The Belgae were written about by the Roman conqueror Julius Caesar during his campaign in Gaul (France) when he recorded that the area was inhabited by the Aquitani, Galli and Belgae. During his wars in the region he was impressed particularly by the ferocity of the Belgae and described them as the bravest of his enemies. Julius Caesar thought the Belgae had originated in Germany but no one really knows what their origins were. The Belgae included, according to Caesar, the Eburones, Condrusi, Caerosi and Paemani tribes of the Belgae alliance were Germanic. Other tribes identified themselves in such a way but some Belgae were recorded as having Gaulish names and other evidence shows considerable Celtic influence so, in the end, no one can really say what exactly the ethnic group was. So you see, some things never change. Knowledge of these ancient roots were revived when modern Belgium became independent with the Belgic chieftain Ambiorix becoming a celebrated national figure for his resistance of Roman conquest.
The Romans later made Belgica one of their provinces and later a diocese, as Gallia Belgica. Emperor Diocletian divided the area into Belgica Prima and Belgica Secunda. The Roman province of Belgica was extremely large and at one point covered big portions of what is now France and Germany as well as all of the current low countries. When Roman power began to decline the provinces of Belgica were invaded by the Vandals and the Burgundians and later became the central area of the Carolingian empire established by the Franks. This is when the country was under the rule of King Clovis I and when the Belgians were first converted to Christianity, probably by Irish monks. This is interesting to note since it was the Irish rebellion against Queen Elizabeth I that helped Belgium remain Catholic in later centuries when the English and Dutch were at war with the Spanish and Belgians.

Regent of Belgium, Surlet de Chokier

Erasme Louis, Baron Surlet de Chokier was one of the "Founding Fathers" (as Americans would say) of the modern Belgium. He was a man on the 'cutting edge' of the new ideas and great changes that were sweeping Europe during the entire revolutionary era. He was born on 27 November 1769 in Liège and for the established elite he was basically trouble from the very start! In 1789, inspired by the French Revolution there was the Heureuse Révolution that Surlet de Chokier participated in with enthusiasm which drove away from power the last prince-bishop of Liège. He was a proud revolutionary soldier in this army which was acting independently of but in the same general time and trend of the revolution that birthed the United States of Belgium (again, inspired by the current events in France and the recent American Revolution also).

These revolutionaries joined in alliance with the Brabant rebels of the United Belgian States but, of course, they were soon defeated by the Imperial Austrian military at Hasselt and Zutendaal. This forced Surlet de Chokier to flee to Breda, since he had been a leader of the independence forces, and he was not able to come back to Gingelom in 1792. Now there is a little problem with the first Belgian head of state for his nationalist credentials. When the French revolutionary government absorbed Liège, Surlet de Chokier became an enthusiastic supporter of the French revolution and of an admirer of the dynamic new leader of France Napoleon Bonaparte. Leaving the revolutionary army (or being rather forced out of it that was destroyed) Surlet de Chokier decided to enter politics and in 1800 he was elected mayor of Gingelom and member of the départemental council of Meuse-Inférieure. In 1812 he became a member of the French parliament and is still remembered in France because of that. He gave Napoleon and the French Empire his full support as the new, driving force in Europe. But the old powers were not prepared to accept the rule of the French Emperor and united against him.

Napoleon was destroyed and the United Kingdom of the Netherlands created under the Dutch House of Oranje. Still devoted to his country, Surlet de Chokier remained in politics and was elected to the House of Representatives of the Staten-Generaal and soon became leader of the Southern (that is Belgian) opposition -so his rebellious nature had not been dampened. His resistence to the Dutch-dominated government was so strident that he was nicknamed Surlet de Choquant. As a peace gesture to the Belgians King Willem I made Surlet de Chokier a baron in 1816 but he caused the King so much political headaches that he used his royal powers to ensure that the baron was not reelected in 1828. But Belgian opposition and unhappiness was bigger than this one veteran revolutionary and getting rid of him did not solve the problems for the King of the Netherlands.

When the Belgian revolution came in 1830 was involved from the start and was chosen by the arrondissement Hasselt as a deputy to the National Congress and he was then elected Chairman of the Congress. In that capacity Surlet de Chokier played an important part in the creation of the Belgian Constitution. When looking for a liberty-loving monarch the Belgians first asked Louis Duc de Nemours, second son of "Citizen King" Louis-Philippe, but he refused that offer. While another candidate was sought out someone had to be in charge of things and so the esteemed patriot Baron Surlet de Chokier was appointed Regent of Belgium on 24 February 1831 and so was really the first Head of State of modern day Belgium in which capacity he served until Leopold I took the oath as King of the Belgians on 21 July 1831. Honored by his country he went finally to retire and in the years later died August 7, 1839 in Gingelom.

President Herbert Hoover

From what I have heard I think Herbert Hoover must be one of the most unpopular presidents the United States has ever had. This was somewhat surprising for me since Hoover is one name from American history I had at least heard before and I associated with positive feelings. If President Hoover is not popular in the United States he should still be popular in Belgium where he did considerable work to help the people (before he was elected president) during the most severe days of our history in the Great War. Some people think it was the reputation Hoover gained as an impartial, getting-things-done, humanitarian during this work was what helped put him into the position of becoming President of the United States. His accomplishments are impressive.

As soon as the world war began Herbert Hoover helped get 120,000 Americans (tourists, students, businessmen etc) out of Europe where they were in danger. He also organized 500 volunteers to bring food, clothes, tickets for overseas transportation and money to the refugees. While he was doing this Mr. Hoover was aghast by the plight of the poor Belgians. The kingdom had been overrun, the heroic army under King Albert only hanging on to a small corner of the territory national. Naturally the Germans took all the resources for themselves in the occupied zone and there was a terrible food shortage that caused very much suffering for the people of Belgium. Into this situation Mr. Hoover stepped in to help. He launched a civilian relief effort such as the world had never seen before under the organization of the Committee for Relief in Belgium or CRB.

The chairman of the CRB was Emile Francqui but Hoover was the real driving force of the effort as the chief of operations. Almost like a sovereign entity the CRB had its own flag, navy, factories, mills and railroads all geared to bringing help to the suffering Belgians. Their efforts combined with government grants and generous donations from people (mostly Americans) gave the CRB an amazing (for that time) budget of eleven million dollars a month! Mr. Hoover won fame around the world as he worked 14-hour days to see more than 2.5 million tons of food sent to 9 million Belgian victims of the war. He had to deal with numerous problems such as German submarines sinking his ships, but also the British blockade which proved to be a cause of great frustration as they wanted nothing to go to the continent that the Germans could possibly get their hands on. Hoover, working out of London, crossed the channel himself to meet with German leaders to persuade them to allow food shipments for the Belgians into the country.

When the United States entered World War I in 1917 the U.S. President Woodrow Wilson put Hoover in charge of the U.S. Food Administration where he helped save food at home so that what was needed could go to the brave soldiers of the American Expeditionary Force. After the war was over Hoover was put in charge of the American Relief Administration to send food to the millions of starving people in Central Europe, victims of both the overreaching needs of their own governments, the ravages of war and the British blockade of Europe. Once again Hoover clashed with the British allies as he wanted to send food to the starving people of Germany while the British blockade remained in effect even after the Germans had signed the armistice. Hoover saw the starving women and children and this, combined with the problems the British had given him in getting food to occupied Belgium, meant that Hoover never had a very cordial relationship with the British Empire. Nonetheless, he finally did send food to Germany as well as Russia which upset many people but Hoover said, “Twenty million people are starving. Whatever their politics, they shall be fed!”

I do not know about the politics of Hoover or what he did right or wrong as President of the United States but he certainly seems to me a great humanitarian and should be remembered fondly, particularly for the Belgians, because of all of his efforts to help the helpless, feed the hungry, even opposing his own allies if necessary because he saw no ethnicities, parties or flags when he saw suffering people. I think there is a park named after him somewhere but regardless of that, when today we so much talk about our problems with each other and the negative things maybe we should at least remember someone like President Hoover who did so much good for so many people and give some thanks for that, from one country to another.

Paper Promises Cannot Be Trusted

Sometimes people ask me why I so much support the military or even accuse me of being a warmonger. The real reason for this, at centre, is that knowing my history has taught me that paper promises is not real ensurance against foreign aggression. In 1839 the French, British and Prussians all signed a treaty that promised to respect Belgian neutrality. Yet, in 1914 the French had armies posted as far north as the fortress of Maubeuge and plans for the invasion of Belgium through the Ardennes in a war with Germany. The Germans, as we know, also had a plan to invade Belgium to outflank the primary French military concentration across from Alsace-Lorraine and this was the plan they put into action. In the same way, during the World War II the Germans also ignored the neutrality of Belgium to attack the country. When I point this out the usual answer is that there is now no danger from anyone because France and Germany are close friends and partners of Belgium because of the shared membership in the European Union and other organizations.

This forgets that after 1910 Germany became a greater partner in trade than France. Belgium was prospering, the government focused on domestic issues and wanted to spend nothing on the military because we were neutral and really had no need for a military at all. Why would there be any trouble with Germany? They signed a promised to respect Belgian neutrality and Germany was our biggest business partner. When war came everyone was surprised and the country was largely unprepared for such a disaster. The only reason Belgium was prepared at all was thanks to the foresight of King Leopold II and King Albert I. There was also the officers of the army who were almost alone in society as being pro-French when almost everyone else at the time was pro-German and refused to conisder the possible threat. Belgium was at least fortunate to have strong monarchs determined to defend their country even if the government was not supportive of them.

King Leopold II saw, after the war of 1870, that Germany was a new potential danger and he had built the line of fortresses along the Meuse which would be the backb0ne of the defense of Belgium in the future. He tried to have the regular army expanded but the government was totally uncooperative and finally, just before his death, voted some expansion but greatly restricted length of service which would mean that the soldiers would have little training or experience at any given time. Under King Albert I the military was given slightly more attention but even then, best estimates were that, in 1912, it would take until 1918 for the army to reach the strength generals thought the bare minimum needed to defend the country by means of the six field divisions and fortress garrisons defending Antwerp, Namur and Liege. The refusal of the government to spend on weapons meant that the Belgian army was woefully ill-armed. King Albert I tried to get his soldiers better modern weapons in 1913 but the place to get them, the German Krupp company, naturally delayed delivery because of the impending invasion.

Things were not helped by the way the military was unprepared with a working plan. France had Plan XVII and Germany had the Schlieffen Plan but Belgium had no plan at all. Army Chief of Staff De Selliers de Moranville wanted to focus the whole army on Antwerp, leaving the fortresses at Liege and Namur only as a delaying screen. Adjutant-General De Ryckel, on the other hand, wanted to defend all territory starting at the border with special attention on the fortress at Liege, to deal with the enemies as they appeared, fighting for every foot of ground and only falling back to Antwerp as a last resort. To almost the last minute there was no agreement until King Albert I stepped in and settled the dispute, concentrating the army on the left bank of the Meuse with a second defensive line along the Gette and the main reserve at Antwerp. This decision was finally made on August 2, 1914 when German forces were marching into Luxembourg.

No country, certainly not one in so strategic a location, can afford to ignore possible threats or think about the unthinkable. Paper promises are no protection from danger nor are trade agreements and economic cooperation. There must always be those who plan for how to deal with the worst scenarios and we must support the military and thank God for all the men and women who are willing to put their lives in danger to defend their people and country.

News, Important, Not Fun

S.M. King Albert II has met again with Elio Di Rupo, leader of the francophone Socialist Party about the government-building efforts. This was said on Friday. Di Rupo met the King at Laeken Castle for another report on the progress of the cabinet, trying to bring together Christian Democrats and Socialists. The idea that the Flemish secessionists could be included in any government is considered atrocious by most patriots. As one blogger put it, would you hand the keys to your house over to someone who said openly they wanted to loot and destroy it? Yet, the secessionists cannot be isolated. Their agenda has been helped all along the way by the immoral leaders of both language communities. They have been helped by the prejudice-fueled politics pushed in Flanders by politicians wanting power. They have been helped by ignorant politicians in Wallonie who hang on to failed policies and blame Flanders for the problems caused by their own failures in order to hang on to power. Anyone can see the similarities.

I have heard from people lately, good people, who are showing signs of resignation and discussing the possibilities of becoming Flanders and French-Belgium. That is sad because it should be unthinkable. Perhaps I read too much about the past but I cannot help but feel that if Belgians part company they do not understand others will not welcome them. I know there are some Dutch who think if Flanders leave Belgium they can annex them to realize the "Greater Netherlands" dream. However, I cannot believe that the secessionists of Flanders would be any happier in the Netherlands. Many of these secessionists just want to be the center of attention anyway, they want people bending over for them and they would not want to be in another country where they would not be treated as "special". In the same way I cannot forget all the history, because of those in Wallonie who think France will be a new home, that the French have often been unfriendly toward Belgium regardless of language.

It also seems so ridiculous that while the country is being overrun by immigrants of a completely alien nationalities, culture and religion the two peoples of Belgium continue to argue with each other while the country, the economy, is in crumbles. But, that is because of the same power seeking politicians who continue to try to win favor by being prejudiced to prove how "devoted" they are to their language community and who continue to try to gain power by blaming all problems on the "other" side. They just care about the next election and they do not even care about the consequences of their vitriol to spread division and possibly bring the ruin of the country by setting Belgians against their brothers. Some people are in poor spirits and I hope that improves like past trends. But I think it is clear this situation cannot go on. This nonsense has to stop!

The First Crusader

Today the Muslim population is exploding in Belgium (no joke) both because of laws, Belgian and EU, favoring immigration from Africa and Asia and also because they are just have many more babies than the native Belgians. This is already leading to big problems of assimiliation and social cohesian and we see this in the burqa ban and other laws. It is ironic that while politicians continue to try to encourage the divisions between the Flemish and Walloon populations, even endangering the country itself, they encourage acceptance of diversity and more immigration that means soon all Belgians, Dutch or French speaking, will be outnumbered by Muslims. This should not be allowed! Nothing could be more contrary to the history and culture of Belgium which is a country of Christian religion, love of life, love of liberty, and love of beauty. If there is a Muslim majority in the country the Kingdom of Belgium will not be one anyone will recognize any more from the country that has always been.

What makes this even more outrageous is that the first Crusader of history was the Belgian noble knight Godfrey de Bouillon. His example shows that the current viewpoint of the Christian armies that fought in the Middle East is totally wrong, that they were good men but like many good man they are attacked today for that basic reason. During the First Crusade there was no official leader but 2 or 3 gradually emerged and the greatest of these was Godfrey de Bouillon who led the knights from Lorraine, Belgium and other 'Low Countries' area. Even though they had every disadvantage the Catholic Crusaders, small armies of Christian warriors, captured Nicea in April 1097, Dorylaeum in July and Antioch the next year. In 1099 they moved to liberate Jerusalem from the Muslims and Godfrey de Bouillon led the attack, the final attack, in a siege tower that he had to support with his own back when a holding beam broke and fell!

Godfrey and his Belgian soldiers smashed through the Gate of St Stephen, as the shock troops of the army, so that the French knights of Raymond of Toulouse could charge in to take the city. Then there was the infamous "sack of Jerusalem" where some of the Christian knights got out of hand and killed some civilians and destroyed some parts of Jerusalem. However, Godfrey de Bouillon took no part in that action and condemned it for being behavior unworthy of the Catholic religion. He was such a great warrior and such a respected man of integrity that he became the first King of Jerusalem. Are modern people really that aware of this great historical hero?

If Godfrey de Bouillon could see Belgium today, what do you think he would say about the large and growing Muslim presence? If King Richard 'Heart of the Lion' could see England today what would he say? Religion used to be something that the large majority of Belgians had in common, even if not everyone carries it out the same way or to the same extent, but being a Catholic country was something that united the people because most everyone had that in common with each other. How can a growing Muslim population do anything but cause even more division to the country? How can such a population ever really fit in to a country that is so directly opposed to what they are all about? The culture of Belgium and the culture of Islam are opposed to each other and if things continue as they are one will have to win and one will have to lose, one will dominate and the other will be suppressed. I know which side I support! Vive le Belge!