Our Great Kings, Part IV, Leopold III

King Leopold III may be the most unjustly criticized of all our kings and yet there was no one who did more to demonstrate that his selfless devotion to his people than King Leopold III. He is most often attacked because of his actions during World War II when the facts show that his every action was influenced by his love for his country and dedication to his people. King Leopold III was a veteran of the First World War when he fought for his country while still in his teens, he had toured the country and the Belgian Congo to see the issues his people faced so he could find ways to correct them, he was devoted to unifying his people and to hopefully keep Belgium out of World War II. That was not possible though since the Germans invaded anyway and King Leopold III did his duty and took command of the army to fight for Belgian independence. He led to the troops in a desperate struggle across the country for eighteen days with little support from the other powers who really let the Belgians sacrifice themselves to buy time for their own armies to retreat. Finally, cut off, outnumbered and outmatched, King Leopold III did the responsible thing and surrendered his army so they would not be needlessly slaughtered. It is disgusting that other Allied leaders blamed him for not fighting hard enough when it was his struggle that gave them the time to save their own armies.

It is also criticized today that Leopold III remained with his troops and became a prisoner, staying in Belgium, rather than fleeing to London to join the Belgian government-in-exile which directed the Free Belgian résistance. This is a charge ridiculous to make because, as a soldier, he would not abandon his brave men to save himself. King Christian X of Denmark did not leave his country and Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands did not want to either but had to be, basically, tricked into leaving by her own attendants. Leopold III knew it was his duty to stay in Belgium to endure the occupation with his people and not abandon them so he could try to shield them from the worst excesses of the Nazi conquerors. The politicians invented the lie that this somehow made Leopold III a collaborator because they had fought with him from the very beginning because the King was always a problem for them because he put the interests of Belgium as a whole first whereas the politicians always put themselves or their narrow interest group before the national good. During the occupation the fact is that Leopold III refused to collaborate with the Germans, refused to carry out their wishes and remained under house arrest as a prisoner of war. His only meeting with Hitler was an effort by King Leopold III to preserve the unity and independence of Belgium which the actual Nazi collaborators wanted to divide and subordinate to the Netherlands or Germany.

The Nazis forced the King and his family out of the country and put them in prison until they were liberated by American forces at the end of the war. However, by that time, the government-in-exile had returned and they were still being spiteful and refused to let the King return so he had to go to Switzerland. The people had always loved the King more than his ministers but anti-monarchy agitation was also being instigated by Marxist revolutionaries and those who wanted to divide and destroy the country. Because of the unrest, the issue was put to a referendum, asking if the King should come back or not. The result was a clear majority in favor of Leopold III returning but the enemies of the monarchy refused to accept the result and threatened violence, even civil war, if they did not get their way. Although it was very painful, King Leopold III decided he could not continue as king if it would risk the lives of his people so even though he won the vote he abdicated his throne to spare his country further suffering, leaving it to his son Baudouin to heal the wounds of Belgium. Leopold III was clearly a devoted patriot who always put his country and his people first. He was really a great king.

Leopold III Becomes King

Today in 1934 Leopold III became King of the Belgians. I don't say he or any other king was best because Belgium has had only a few kings and been fortunate that all have done very well. I do say that King Leopold III is one of the most misunderstood and wrongly criticized kings, really of any country in his era. He was a very good person, had best intentions, was very faithful to his duty and obligations and wanted the best for his  people. It was a gross injustice that he was obliged to abdicate but he did that to spare his people and more division and possible suffering because the radicals against him threatened violence. He was a great man.

Belgian Maneuvers 1939

Someone asked me, reading from a book they just had been given, about the Belgian maneuvers of 1939 and asked how this was not a betrayal of France just at the critical point when World War II is about to begin. This is completely untrue though and I do not understand how anyone could think such a thing. This is the context: Belgium had always been neutral since independence until Germany invaded in 1914. After that, Belgium was allied to France because both countries were of course worried about the Germans, seeing that they would have no hesitation to invade and threaten both countries (or especially to invade France and Belgium would be a useful corridor). So there was an alliance until 1939 when on September 3, after the invasion of Poland, King Leopold III declared neutrality again. The Belgian army was at that time called out and put through some exercises as a show of force, not particularly for Germany, but for France so that they would know that if they tried to violate Belgian territory to attack Germany they would have a difficult fight and Belgium would resist them just as they had strongly resisted the Germans in 1914. This was not a betrayal, this was a realistic view of the on-the-ground situation.

Consider for a moment that prior to this time Germany had gone back on one provision after another of the Versailles Treaty and France and Britain had done nothing. Britain even signed a naval treaty with Germany. Italy had been opposed to Germany at first but left the Allies to join the Germans when Britain or France would not stand beside Italy in stopping the takeover of Austria and then later scolded Italy for occupying Abyssinia. After the Rhineland and Czech occupations and the union with Austria the French had done nothing. This was a concern to Belgium as was the French war plans which many thought left Belgium on its own. Then when Germany invaded Poland the British and then French declared war on Germany. What was Belgium supposed to do? They could do nothing about Poland, even Britain and France could do nothing to save Poland but they had declared war anyway. The Germans had made no aggressive moves against the Low Countries, Britain or France at that time. But the British and French had declared war on Germany so Belgium was suddenly faced with the possibility of France doing the same thing the Kaiser had done in 1914, attacking Germany and marching through Belgium maybe as an easier way to go.

The Allies had, honestly, done a poor job of diplomacy and foreign relations prior to World War II. They had given in to Hitler time after time and then, finally, declared war on Germany on behalf of a country neither of them could defend and which was being occupied by the Soviets also. It was perfectly understandable for King Leopold III to again declare Belgian neutrality and hope that, unlike before, the country could be kept out of the conflict. Later the King joined with Queen Wilhelmina of The Netherlands to call for all the countries to get together and make peace. Today this seems ridiculous because Hitler was a lunatic who wanted to take over the world, but try to remember what the people knew then, not what we know now. All Hitler had done then was to invade Poland and the Soviets had joined in. France and Britain had declared war on him, even though he had not threatened their countries, but they had not declared war on the Soviets for taking part of Poland or for taking over the Baltic republics. All that had really happened by then was that Poland had been partitioned, which was unfortunate for the Poles, but not something new, they had been partitioned between Germany and Russia for years. So, it seemed not unreasonable to many at the time that the two sides could talk through their differences and make peace without another world war.

That did not happen, but it is not the fault of the King that he could not look into the future. He was only trying to do what was best for his country in the situation he was in. When the war came Belgium was as strong an ally as she had been before and fought as hard as possible for 18 days against the crushing Nazi blitzkrieg, in doing so saving the lives of many French and British troops. That is what should be remembered, the free countries fighting as allies against invaders and do not waste time on accusations that are pointless and only efforts to stir up bad feelings between people and nations. There is already enough of that.

Father to Son

On July 16, 1951 SM King Leopold III abdicated his throne in the face of leftist opposition lingering from World War II. The next day, yesterday in history, his son Baudouin became King of the Belgians. This time was controversial but I think it is offensive that it is so. The justification claimed by the enemies of the monarchie, whose face was King Leopold III, was his remaining with his army and staying in Belgium during the German occupation. Really, this was just a distraction. The King only did his duty and what happened in World War II was not the reason for the opposition to King Leopold. These people really hated the kingdom altogether. They were not really happy that Baudouin becoming king, they would rather have had no king at all and be a Marxist republic. It is also not much talked about that there was a vote on the future of King Leopold and the majority voted for him to remain king because he had done nothing wrong, he was the rightful monarch and that was only justice. Also interesting is that he had more support in Flanders than in Wallonie, but the radicals made such trouble that the King, and King Leopold was a compassionate man, did not want to risk any civil strife, perhaps even violence, by the radical minority in order to keep his throne and so he abdicated to give the throne for his son. I have shown before the video also of the leftist protest at the swearing-in of King Baudouin so it is obvious they were not having a reasonable position. They hated King Leopold no matter what he did and they hated King Baudouin before he even finished taking the oath to be king so he had not the chance to do anything to displease anyone. It was only unreasonable prejudice against the Belgian dynasty because of who they were.

I would be happy if this was only a sad page of history but we can see today it still continues as King Albert II  pleads with the politicians to put the good of the nation first and come to an agreement with each other but they do not listen, only their political power and personal prejudices mean anything to them.

Léopold III, mon père

KIng Leopold III of the Belgians

Truth Revealed of King Leopold III

Thanks to Daniel for pointing out this information of a recent book by British Lord Keyes showing the truth of how Winston Churchill (started by France) made King Leopold III the scapegoat for the British defeat at Dunkirk and how he was betrayed at the time of his return to Belgium. Listen to the interview with Lord Keyes about his book here.

Lilian, Princess of Réthy

Documentaire sur Léopold III le 25 février sur la RTBF

Le 25 février, la RTBF proposera "Léopold III, mon père", un documentaire de 90 minutes de Nicolas Delvaulx. La princesse Marie-Esméralda présente dans ce documentaire la vie de son père et de sa famille sur un éclairage nouveau et plus familial. Dépositaire de nombreux documents, photos, et témoignages ayant appartenu à la famille royale depuis le règne de Léopold Ier, la princesse en montrera certains pour la première fois à la télévision.

[plus]

The New Book of Princesse Marie-Esméralda

Après deux années d'études de droit à l'Université Saint-Louis, la princesse Marie-Esméralda de Belgique (demi-soeur et filleule de notre roi Albert II) a poursuivi son cursus en communication sociale section journalisme à l'Université Catholique de Louvain-la-Neuve. "Le rôle de la presse dans l'enlèvement du baron Empain" était son sujet de thèse. La princesse s'installe à Paris, et écrit pour des magazines français et italiens. En 1998, elle se marie avec le professeur Salvador Moncada (titré "Sir" en 2010 par la reine Elisabeth II) avec qui elle aura deux enfants Alexandra et Leopoldo. Ils vivent à Londres. Après des ouvrages sur Christian Dior et le roi Léopold III, elle sort, en décembre dernier, un nouveau livre intitulé "Terre! Agissons pour la planète, il n'est pas trop tard" (éditions Racine). (plus)

War Letters of Two Kings

The letters between King Albert I and his son future King Leopold III during the Great War. Directed by The Cross of Laeken.

The Children of King Leopold III

Princess Josephine-Charlotte was the first child of King Leopold III and Queen Astrid. She was born in Brussels in 1927 and was educated in the palace and at boarding school. During World War II she was taken with her family to Germany as prisoners at the end of the war. When it was over she studied in Switzerland then went home to Belgium to help those struggling with recovery and to encourage the arts. In 1953 she married Prince Jean, Hereditary Grand Duke of Luxembourg. In 1964 they became the Grand Duke and Duchess of Luxembourg. Josephine-Charlotte was very popular and the picture of refinement, style and charitable generosity in Luxembourg. Through her marriage she and Grand Duke Jean had five children; 3 sons and 2 daughters. She was very glamorous but loved nothing more than working in her garden or going hunting and fishing. A beloved daughter of Belgium she became a national treasure in Luxembourg, strengthening ties between the two countries. She died in 2005.

Baudouin, who would be the fifth King of the Belgians, was born to King Leopold III and Queen Astrid in 1930, close to the anniversary of Belgian independence and so the birth of an heir to the throne was particularly celebrated. However, family tragedies became rather routine in the early years of Prince Baudouin. Toward the end of World War II he had to endure horrible conditions with his family in German captivity which was followed by the “Royal Question” which troubled Prince Baudouin greatly who would rather have been a priest than become king. But, his father was going to abdicate and two abdications would potentially ruin the monarchy. At the age of 21 in 1951 he became King of the Belgians in a very traumatic and difficult atmosphere. The country was going through many social upheavals and agitation. The Belgian colonies in Africa were lost, the division of the country between Flanders and Wallonia occurred and King Baudouin was greatly troubled by the moral decline in society. He never had children and died in 1993.

Albert II, our esteemed reigning King of the Belgians, is the second son of King Leopold III, born in 1934. In 1940, with his siblings, they fled to France and then Spain from the Germans but came home later in the year. Like the rest he spent time in captivity by the Germans, then in exile in Switzerland only to see his father abdicate and his brother become King. In 1959 he married our Queen Paola from an Italian princely family and began work as an important trade official for Belgium. He also started a family, eventually having three children. He served as President of the Belgian Red Cross and set up his own foundation to also help in the area of trade and business. When his brother died in 1993 he became King Albert II of the Belgians. Since that time he has worked tirelessly to promote Belgian interests, unite the country and encourage the political parties to work together. Since the internal division of the country between the Flemish and Walloon the King has been forced to shoulder an ever greater burden in bringing the factions together to form coalitions for effective governments. He has always accepted the will of the people but has refused to deal with those who would see Belgium destroyed.

Prince Alexandre was the first son of King Leopold III and his second wife Princess Lilian who he married during the war (she was never queen). Alexandre was born during the war in 1942 and so was only a baby when the family was shuffled around to Germany, to Austria to Switzerland and finally able to return to Belgium. Because of political prejudice against the marriage of King Leopold to Princess Lilian their children together were not included in the succession to the throne but with two sons already this did not matter much but there was some distance between the two parts of the family. Prince Alexandre studied first medicine but then decided on business, looking to a career in trade. His mother raised him according to high standards thinking he would have official duties with the monarchy but this did not occur. He married in secret in 1991 because he feared there would be disapproval over his choice of wife; a twice divorced mother of two. Prince Alexandre died in 2009 of pulmonary embolism.

Princess Marie-Christine is the second child of King Leopold III and Princess Lilian. She was born in 1951 in Laeken and has been, much the pity, the “black sheep” of the children of Leopold III. She was given the best upbringing her parents could give but in the end she totally rebelled against them and really all of her background completely. This would have been only moderately bad if she had chosen to go and live her own life but she instead tried to actually harm her family while still enjoying the privileges of her status. She has spread the most horrid lies about her youth and her family (Princess Lilian especially) and mocked the monarchy while living the high society life. She has been married twice, once in Canada and once in the United States and tried to become a famous actress without success. She publicly denounced her half-brother King Baudouin and refused to attend his funeral or that of her full brother Alexandre. She has also expressed republican sympathies. I am sorry but she is a bad princess!

Princess Marie-Esmeralda, the youngest child of Leopold III and Princess Lilian, is thankfully a much better person than her sister. She was born in Laeken in 1956 and, like the others, did not have an especially easy time growing up, much of the tensions probably resulting from the politically imposed division between the family that made the children of Princess Lilian somewhat of “second class” royals. However, Marie-Esmeralda had a more mature attitude than her sister and remained attached to her parents through the good and not so good times. She has defended King Leopold III and Princess Lilian from the heavy unfair criticism they have faced, before and even after their deaths. Using the name Esméralda de Réthy she succeeded in becoming a journalist and in 1998 in London married a British Honduras pharmacologist. She has happily had two children; a daughter and a son both born in London and she enjoys her work as a journalist and a writer as well as trying to continue the good works of her parents. She described her character as like that of her mother, in the good and bad ways.

Birthday of King Leopold III

Today is the historic birthday anniversary of the great King Leopold III. The Cross of Laeken shares the sentiments of Queen Elisabeth and the royal house. He would go through many trials in his life, being the joy, the inspiration, the strong leader, protector and finally sacrifice of his country. He was first and always devoted to his duty: Belgium!

The Belgian Kings

Leopold I, the first King of the Belgians, came to the throne on July 21, 1831. His reign was a crucial period and by his wisdom and close relations with the royal houses of Europe ensured that Belgium started out on a firm foundation of stability and with the support of the European community. A veteran of the Russian Imperial Army and the Napoleonic Wars he had been married to the heiress to the British throne (who died) and then married Louise-Marie de Bourbon, daughter of SM Louis-Philippe, King of the French. His astute leadership won the respect of the people and brought the diverse Belgian population together. When revolutions swept Europe in 1848 Belgium remained a safe haven of peace and stability and progress because of the appreciation the people had for his leadership. He established ties of marriage by his children with the Houses of Hapsburg and Hohenzollern and he was one of the most widely respected statesmen of his time, known as the "Nestor of Europe".


Leopold II, son of Leopold I, became King on December 17, 1865 and was determined to make Belgium a magnificent and respected country. He had a great interest in geography and philanthropy. He employed the explorer Henry Stanley to explore the Congo basin and this in time developed into the creation of the Congo Free State of which Leopold II was Sovereign King. He organized an expedition to eradicate the Arab slave trade in central Africa and another to aid in suppressing extremists in Egypt. He also allowed volunteers to go defend the Papal States from Italian nationalists. Belgium became a colonial empire thanks to Leopold II but he is best remembered for the great buildings and monuments he left behind, many of which he paid for himself. He was a man of big ideas and big aspirations. He had even bigger visions of ways to build up the country that he never got to see completed. Unfortunately all of his success aroused alot of jealousy and he was not very popular with the rest of Europe.


Albert I, nephew of Leopold II, became King of the Belgians on December 23, 1909. He was a very humble and religious man and a man with strong convictions. He was very down-to-earth but devoted to duty. In 1914 he refused to sacrifice the neutrality or sovereignty of his country and led the tiny Belgian army to war against the invading Germans. He showed great courage and leadership in the most difficult circumstances, staying with the army and leading them throughout the war, becoming a respected Allied commander and leader of an army group. He was honored all over the world because of his heroic defiance and bold leadership. He wanted to end the war peacefully but this was not possible. After the war he was merciful to his enemies, pushed for universal suffrage and for the further development of Flanders (much of which had been ruined by the war). He took a great interest in every part of his country and was also a man who loved the outdoors. This sadly led to his death in a mountain climbing accident.


Leopold III, son of Albert I, became King unexpectedly on February 23, 1934. Like his father, Leopold III was very religious and very heroic. Even as a boy he had volunteered to fight in the trenches with the army as a regular soldier. He was a devoted father and a great patriot who wanted to keep his country united and neutral. When Nazi Germany invaded Belgium, like his father, he led the army in a heroic fight, holding off the Germans longer than any other of the Low Countries. Finally he was forced to surrender or see his men massacred but he did not abandon them and stayed in Belgium to endure the occupation with his people and to ease their suffering as much as possible. He hoped after such a disaster a new begining could be made with a stronger, more united Belgium with a more efficient and dutiful government. However, he was betrayed by the self-serving politicians he most opposed and he had to go to Switzerland. The people wanted him back but he would not risk conflict and abdicated the throne.


Baudouin, son of Leopold III, was thrust onto the Belgian throne on July 17, 1951 at a time of great turmoil and instability. In such a position it is no wonder King Baudouin would have rather been a priest. However, he was a dutiful king and soon won the respect of everyone by his calm and kind manner and his simple but deep religious faith. However, Belgium had changed and more changes came. King Baudouin went to Africa to give the Congo its independence, though he had misgivings about how prepared they were for total separation. The country also divided officially into Flanders and Wallonia with their own governments for each in addition to the national one. Society was also going through many changes that King Baudouin opposed and he had problems of conscience at times when doing his duty clashes with his traditional moral code. However, King Baudouin was very popular and widely respected around the world though he and his wife Queen Fabiola were sad that they could never have children.


Albert II, brother of King Baudouin, became King on August 9, 1993 and is probably the most active monarch in Europe today. As divisions in the country grew deeper the King has had to work harder and harder to hold the ship of state together. So frustrating has this become that many have said everyone is Flemish or Walloon and only the King is Belgian. Probably no other Belgian king has had to deal with what Albert II has had to deal with; social changes, growing demographic changes, the "War on Terrorism", constantly bickering parties that refuse to cooperate, the economic crisis and the growing position of the European Union. Probably no other King and Royal Family have been so heavily scrutinized in Belgian history as Albert II and his family or been so often asked to justify their position. However, through it all he has kept his good humor and continues to labor on to keep his dysfunctional family of subjects together as one country as he first swore to do.

The British and Leopold III

The Cross of Laeken relates an article defending the heroic actions of King Leopold III in the Second World War. I am glad to see the truth being told about King Leopold III who is very often attacked in the most despicable ways when he was probably the greatest monarch of the World War II period. This is a reason why I am sometimes troubled being nice with the British in particular but the French in some ways also. They seemed to often use Belgium and then blame Belgium. They used us to get into World War I (because I do not think it was purely to uphold the treaty of Belgian neutrality that drove the British government) and in World War II they used the Belgians as canon fodder while they were retreating from the continent and then blame the Belgians and the King of the Belgians for being forced to surrender after fighting with tough resistance for 18 days against the Germans. I know this was the government, not the people and I know there are those who are the opposite and who have been telling the truth and I am very glad for that and I also have alot of admiration for the British for the British Empire and all of their great success around the world in the past but it also does not help my opinion when it is so often British voices I hear today saying that Belgium is "not a proper country" and act gleeful at the idea of Belgium being destroyed. They also led the smear campaign against King Leopold II over the Congo which was, I will say carefully, slightly hypocritical for the largest colonial power in the world.

Is usually to cover up your own sin yes? Why else would a scape-goat be made of King Leopold III who was the most valiant leader of the war, the greatest monarch, taking responsibility for his country in the great crisis of invasion, leading his brother soldiers in the hopelss fight, doing all in his power and then accepting to join in the suffering of his people in occupation when forced to surrender so not to see his troops massacred? King Leopold III did everything the right way but he is blamed for everything. He is blamed for dropping the alliance with France and going back to neutrality. But France already had abandoned Belgium! The built their walls and left Belgium to face the Germans alone and every time Germany had made an aggressive move the French and British had looked the other way. How could anyone concerned of their people put trust in such governments? Then when their own policies lead to war and the occupation of western Europe, total defeat by the Germans, they blame King Leopold III for making peace just as they blamed his father as a "traitor" for trying to make peace in the first war. All covering up their own unspeakable actions.

King Leopold III, unlike the other national leaders, knew what war was like. He had been a real soldier in the first war, he had fought in the trenches with no special treatment or favors. He knew the misery, the suffering and the constant hovering death over you. He also knew from this how precious the national territorial integrity was and he would fight for it but he would not send men to certain death when the French and British were both giving up and running home. He did not abandon his people, he did not abandon his soldiers. He endured the war with them and he would endure the occupation with them. He was a great king, one of the greatest of modern times and all the slanders against him are being either ignorant or deceptive. He was a brave, thoughtful, noble and considerate king who would make the difficult decisions, not run away or make someone else responsible or blame others. His character was of a real King!

The "Politics" Controversy of Leopold III

In 1944, after a failed covert effort to contact King Leopold III (who was being kept a virtual prisoner by the Germans) by the government-in-exile in London the King wrote his "Political Testament" which has since caused some controversy. Why did this happen? Because people since have ruled it controversial and for no other reason. It is noteworthy since so many accuse King Leopold of collaboration that he wrote the document because of the fear that the Germans would remove him from Belgium when the Allies invaded -which was true and later happened as he predicted.

Some who cannot think of criticisms for the content of the Testament criticize the "style" of it, claiming the King "sounding" authoritarian and to be "talking down" to the readers. This should be instantly dismissed unless they are claiming to have psychic powers to read the mind and attitude of the King at the time. What is criticized of the content is that he used the term "occupation" to refer to the future Allied invasion rather than the term "liberation". That sounds bad (we are told) unless one considers that it was true! This is simply a matter of correct definition. Any time a country has military forces of another country or countries on their soil it is an "occupation". Since the time of independence Belgium had a policy of neutrality and it did not matter what country carried out the occupation -it would still be an occupation even if it would work out as liberation. That is a silly argument to pick on.

Also there was the King's writing of not recognizing the agreements, actions and policies enacted by the government-in-exile during the war. Again, here we have something being made complicated and controversial that is actually very simple. The King had trouble before the war with the politicians who wanted to obstruct him so there was probably some strained feelings there. However, the government of the country was, is and always has consisted of the King and his ministers. The government-in-exile did not recognize any decisions taken by the King during the war because without his ministers he could not be the sole voice of government on his own. However, by that same logic they show the King as correct since any policies they enacted without his approval would also not be valid -by their own standards!

They also complained that the King called for the exoneration of the ministers involved in the government crisis of 1940. Once again, this should not be controversial, this is part of his duty as King which is to be the source of unity for the country and if there is to be reconciliation of all the people after the war there would have to be a willingness to put the past behind them on the part of the government and move toward the future. This was all even more absurd considering the actions, not only of the King, but of the whole Belgian government and military in regard to the Allies during and after the war. For example, the Force Publique in the Congo played a very important part in the Allied invasion of Italian East Africa in cooperation with the British and after the war there was close cooperation with the United States and other powers in the establishment of NATO. King Leopold III was writing of the legal situation and not expressing any judgment on the Allied countries. He was being held like a prisoner by the Germans and expecting to be essentially kidnapped by them when he wrote the Testament so it is absurd to think that he was being anti-Allies or pro-German in writing this document.

It should also be remembered that this was an invented controversy. The government-in-exile never published the testament, they ignored it (partly because they did not want to offend radical leftist elements that were cooperating with the exile government) and so the document really had no practical use. This was brought out and exposed later simply so that those putting it out could twist the words and the spirit in which it was written to smear the reputation of King Leopold III. However, the fog of political spin should be put aside and look at the clear, basic facts of what was actually written and when that is done anyone can see that there was nothing outrageous or controversial in the Political Testament of S.M. Leopold III.

Princesse Lilian de Réthy

Second wife of King Leopold III, one of the more glamorous members of the Belgian Royal Family, just sadly never able to be Queen.

King Leopold and Queen Astrid (engagement)

A much happier occasion

Exit King Leopold III

King Leopold III was a great man in the history of the Belgian monarchie. But on July 16, 1951 he abdicated the throne which had been "empty" since the ending days of World War II when the King was taken away by the Germans and Prince Charles was named regent (they are seen here together). This can be seen as a confusing situation to many people and it was a confusing situation for Belgians as well. Leopold III has been misrepresented by every party since the Second Great War. He was accused by the Allies of surrendering too soon, but that is not true, he fought on until he was totally surrounded, saving the British army in the process. He was accused of treason by some politicians in exile, but that is not true, he always stood firmly for independence and the national sovereignty of Belgium. He was accused of collaboration with the Germans, but that is not true, he was their prisoner the entire time, even being taken by force out of Belgium at the end.

S.M. King Leopold III was a great man and, I believe, the country would have been much better off if he had simply taken affairs into his own hands to rule the country himself. However, this could only have happened if the Germans had remained victorious and the Germans showed little or no support for Belgium even existing if they had won the war. They were more inclined to support the breakup of Belgium since many collaborators in Flanders and Netherland supported the "Greater Netherlands" idea. Yet, when the sad day of abdication and the crisis called the "Royal Question" came up, most conclude that Leopold III had more support in Flanders than in Wallonia. None of it really makes any sense. The King was supported by most people after the war too, and I would have liked him to have returned and dealt with opposition firmly. But, the King was more kind than I and he abdicated because he put his country's peace and unity first and if it would cause discomfort for the country for him to remain as King, regardless of most supporting him, he would be obligated to abdicate his throne.

It was an unfair and terrible thing to do but the King was guided by compassion to do it, which action itself should show how untrue were the lies his enemies said about him being someone who wanted to be a dictator-royale. I think it would have been better for him to do just that! Let the purge happen if necessary, but, the King was a compassionate man who did not want to put his people through any more trauma. That is the great and special bond that exists in Belgium because of the monarchie populaire, the King is not the ruler of a government or a piece of land but King of a people and the people were the first concern of Leopold III. But this is exactly why his abdication and loss was so bad, for that same reason, that he was a man to do that proves that he was the monarch of that type who is most needed.

The politicians who were often in opposition to the King, even before the war to be truthful about it, encouraged the opposition against him just as they encouraged division in their country because they would do anything to increase and maintain their own hold on power. This proves, again, how vital the monarchie is. Just as Francis Balace said, "Face aux politiciens de plus en plus discrédités, le Roi a l'avantage d'être le seul dont l'homme de la rue puisse jurer que son intérêt personnel coïncide avec celui du pays".

Abdication du Roi Leopold III des Belges