Talk:Leopold I of Belgium/Archives/2015/March

Untitled
The people of Greece were forced to have a king by the Big Powers of the time. The article is inaccurate.

Was he really 'inaugurated' as king, as the article says? Usually monarchs 'accede to the throne', or are 'crowned'. Inaugurate sounds so Americocentric -- in that Wikipedia manner we all love and have come to expect ;) -- but maybe it's correct in the Belgian historical case, I don't know. - (unsigned, long ago)
 * Yes, Kings of the Belgians are inaugurated: they're sworn in. Most current monarchies do not have coronations, enthronements, or annointings: that you think otherwise is probably a sign of Britannocentrism. - Nunh-huh 05:31, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sir, I believe that previous Belgian sovereigns were coronated. --Anglius 20:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Belgium was the first modern style constitutional monarchy, with a written constitution.  My understanding is that no King of the Belgians has ever had a coronation - although old-styles dukes of Brabant, counts of Flanders, and so forth may have been. john k 20:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I thank you, Mr. Kenney. --Anglius 17:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It is unclear to me if Leopold acquired the British nationality in 1815 or as a result of his marriage to his first wife, Charlotte in 1816. Anyone who knows?

One genealogical tree I consulted mentions 2 unnamed children for Charlotte. Is there any confirmation for that?

G_from_B


 * It's not true. She married only the once and died the next year giving birth to her first child. -- isis 27 Aug 2002

Image
This additional image is availible. -- Infrogmation 05:24, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Leopold asked Napoleon for a position
I am currently reading the book a Throne in Brussels by Paul Belien where on the top of page 5 it reads that Leopold asked Napoleon for permission to serve as aide-de-camp but Napoleon refused. Leopold was quite a womanizer and Napoleon and his brother Louis did not want him around their women. The Wiki article as written has the story reversed. Which is the correct account of what happened?


 * I don't know about Leopold's womanizing, but I do know that Mr Beliën is a far-right Flemish nationalist and not a great fan of the Belgian monarchy. Karl Stas 12:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

L?opold
User:Hektor seems to insist on the é. Now this is nonsense. Firstly, because the name is written without accent in the language of the majority of the Belgian people (i.e. Dutch); secondly, because Leopold was a German prince; and thirdly, because this is an English encyclopedia. Karl Stas 12:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Dutch is the language of the majority of Belgium has no official value: both French and Dutch are official languages of this country and therefore there is no reason why the Dutch language would be treated better by wikipedia than French. Furthermore, Léopold was king at a time when the French language was the only one recognized in Belgium, therefore it is very unlikely that he wrote his name the Dutch way during any time of his reign.94.109.60.56 (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Religion
Can anyone tell me if Leopold had to convert to Catholicism to be able to accede to the throne? I assume as he was married to George IV's daughter he was a protestant at this point!


 * Yes, he converted. john k 15:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Religion: Protestant
Leopold did not convert to catholicism. He stayed protestant till his death. The fact that he was protestant is the main reason the protestant religion was one the first (together with catholicism) offical recognised religions in Belgium.

More on the matter here (in dutch): http://www.epbru.org/leopoldn.html (ok, the source is from a protestant website, but the historical facts remain)


 * Yes, I just realized my mistake. The ODNB confirms his remaining protestant.  He married a Catholic, however, and their children were raised as Catholics. john k 17:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Field Marshal
Gentlemen, other than England, what country was King Leopold I a field-marshal of? Anglius 05:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Has the rank of Field Marshal ever existed in the Royal Belgian Army? --Anglius 17:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The rank of Field Marshal was never used in the Belgian Army. The only function that I know of that uses the titel of marshal is the Greatmarshal of the Court (Grootmaarschalk van het Hof - in Dutch) and this is an administative office to the royal court. Dbamps
 * No field marshal rank has never existed in Belgium. Untill the 1990's the highest military rank of the Belgian military was lieutenant-general (vice-admiral for the navy). During the late 1990s an incident occured at a NATO meeting in which an American four star general almost caused a minor diplomatic incident by grandstanding on precedence over Albert II (who only had rank LTG but was a head of state and thus should have had precedence). After this incdent the rank of general and admiral (equivalent of 4 stars) were created for the Belgian military. -- fdewaele, 12 February 2007, 13:30.

Full Name
Should't the full name be Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha?

Ow, and by the way, in the article it is sometimes metioned as "and Gotha". IMHO thats not correct.

Dbamps


 * No. Leopold I of Belgium is most correct, as it was his highest and best known title.  If he had not been King of the Belgians, then it would either be Leopold Saxe-Coburg-Gotha or Leopold of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.  The house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha were the rulers of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (more specifically, Saxe-Coburg and Saxe-Gotha, shortened to Saxe-Coburg and Gotha).  It's one of those fun occasions where the title and the house are similar but not identical in how they're named. The Dark 16:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See the Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld and especially Saxe-Coburg-Gotha articles. While in England and married with Charlotte, it was Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld but in 1825/1826 the House of which he was still a member kept Saxe-Coburgh, lost Saalfeld and got Saxe-Gotha and the family line was named Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. It is indeed by the latter name that he came to the throne in Belgium in 1831 and that name was passed on to his successors. I mentioned it without going in details in the article, for even today Belgians learn that name for their kings — regardless a possible half-hearthed name change in 1920 of which I am not quite convinced as that might simply refer to the constitutional title 'King of the Belgians' becoming 'King of Belgium' (in the three official languages), and might be on his ID and be his signature. — SomeHuman 12 Dec2006 02:18 (UTC)

To clarify, his full titles were "Leopold I, King of the Belgians, Duke of Saxony, Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha". These can be found, for instance, in the Almanach de Gotha. john k 02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

odd use of preposition "in" as to Duke -- Saxony
Why is it despite the fact that any respected source of their titles reads "Duke of Saxony", there is someone who seems to change it to "in" repeatedly in this article. They are not Dukes -- Bavaria, and analogy does not come in picture in this question. At least, a proper source for actual use of "Duke in Saxony" as to this person is sorely needed to support the said edit, but even if such proper source exists (which I doubt), then we need to weigh usages in different soources and reach a consensus what is the best-used preposition. ObRoy 19:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In German, as I understand it, the title is "Herzog zu Sachsen." My understanding is that this would be translated "Duke of Saxony" (via the French "Duc de Saxe"). john k 05:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the literal translation of "Herzog zu "Sachsen" would be Duke to Saxony. The Germans have used "in" in titles.  The King of Prussia was intitially styled King in Prussia.  Becoming King of Prussia was a promotion of sort if one will allow the expression.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.40.62.82 (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Other potential monarchs
I've read that Daniel O'Connell, the Catholic Emancipator, was also considered. Bostoneire 18:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Greece
Soem sources say that Leopold I refused the crown of Greece? Is this true, it is neither on this page on Leopold I, nor on the page on the Greek kings.

Jan Willem Heemstra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.16.74 (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this statement is true. Leopold refused the crown of Greece because the Great Powers did not give enough army and money. After that, Otto of Wittelsbach was appointed as the king of Greece. Also Belgium was in a much better condition than Greece after the Greek revolution Dimboukas (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Dates
Quote: ''He was elected on 4 June and accepted and became "King of the Belgians" on 26 June 1831. He swore allegiance to the constitution in front of the Saint Jacob's Church at Coudenbergh Place in Brussels on 21 July 1831. This day became the Belgian national holiday.''


 * But the lede and the infobox say his reign started on 21 July. So, what was his actual status between 26 June and 21 July 1831?  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   08:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * King designate. According to the Belgian constitution, upon a vacancy of the throne (when the predecessor dies or abdicates) the successor only becomes King after having taken the constitutional oath. Between the moment that the vacancy occurs, and the moment the oath is taken, the throne is vacant and the powers of the monarch are either held by the regent (after he/she takes the oath) or by the government in council. In Leopold I's case there was a Regent (Surlet de Chokier) appointed, who held power until 21 July 1831. -- fdewaele, 11 August 2013.

"Uncle" of Queen Victoria
How does marrying Victoria's cousin make him her uncle? George IV was the brother of Victoria's father. Leopold married George IV's daughter who would be Victoria's cousin. Was he styled an uncle because he was a family relation and significantly older even though technically he was just the husband of a cousin (and a deceased one at that). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.40.62.82 (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Leopold I of Belgium was the brother of Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld... Queen Victoria's MOTHER.C.Kent87 (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahem
"After Leopold's death, each of the two sons was created Freiherr von Eppinghoven (in 1862), and in 1863 Arcadia was created Baronin von Eppinghoven.[3] On 10 December 1865, the King died in Laeken at the age of 74." Is someone going to correct this?

Issue / Children
There should be way more information about his four legitimate children. There's mention of his two sons by his mistress, and extended info on his marriage to Princess Charlotte in Britain, but next to nothing about his marriage and children with his second wife the queen of belgium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.185.85 (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This still hasn't been addressed! There is NO mention of his marriage to Louise-Marie, and their children! 68.183.50.8 (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Go for it...  Oreo Priest  talk 17:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is Caroline Bauer referred to as his "mistress"?. Leopold was a widower at the time and she was unmarried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.52.242 (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)