Talk:Royal question/Archives/2015/December

Why this article is important
The most important events of the political history of Belgium. José Fontaine (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Ramon Arango vindicates my opinion (top): for him the royal question would focus "all the other issues over which there was a lack of harmony in Belgian society" (Ramon Arango, Leopold III and the Belgian Royal Question, The John Hopkins Press, Baltimore 1961, p. 213).José Fontaine (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Image
Does the "General Strike" image have anything whatever to do with the subject of this article? Was it current in Belgium at the time? Does it otherwise contribute anything of interest? -- Elphion (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, so I've culled it and replaced with a pic of Leopold III. --Brigade Piron (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Detailed result tables
What's the point of giving the results by individual district? Does it not suffice to give the overall numbers for Flanders and Wallonia? -- Elphion (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sincerely no that suffices not because there are some districts in Wallonia where there was a majority of YES and some dstricts in Fladers where the majprituy in favour of Leopold III was weaker. It is also intersting to have tis table because the best results for Leopold III were in the rural areas i Wallonia where the Catholic were stronger as Arlon, Neufchâteau and even Dinant or Verviers even if in Verviers there were many German speaking people in favour of Leopld III (rejected by the left but also by resitance activits). Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced. I got none of that out of the table because I (with most English readers) am not familiar with the local geography of Belgium.  You will get the point across far more effectively by summarizing the tables as you did above. -- Elphion (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be more suitable to have a map. There exists a map of the results but I don't know if it is possible to publish it on Wikipedia commons.I have copies ofthese maps but cannot put them (if it was allowed) on Wikipedia commons. I underline the differences between the districts because I think it is important to remain neutral. That is not only Wallonia against Flaanders but Industrial Wallonia against rural Flanders and rural Wallonia more or less against industrial Wallonia or again industrial Flanders against rural and catholic Flanders (and Brussels it is aslo important). For instance the port of Antwerp could no longer operate, even if it is the almost only place in Flanders where there are strikes. Some people were even saying that the Socialists ought not to launch strikes in Wallonia with so narrowmajority (58%). I think I reda in on en.Wp but I forgot where it is. I think of an other solution. It is possible to have a map as an external link. I am searching it. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Reorganization tag
I've waited a while for this article to settle into shape, but today I added the reorganization tag. The article is currently too scatter-shot to give an non-Belgian reader a clear notion of what the strike was about or why it came about. A section is needed giving the political background to explain why Leopold was so unpopular in Wallonia, and again why the ministers were not anxious to have him back, and to explain the reasons behind the various conditions that were suggested to Leopold as necessary for his return. The article mentions "the ethnic, linguistic, religious, and economic problems", but no hint is given why these should play against Leopold's return.

Arango's reflections on the lack of unity among Belgians hardly explains why Leopold fell into such difficulties: the same observations would apply to any of the kings. It was Leopold's own actions that brought him low.

I've taken a crack at fixing the Enlish wording (down to the section "Borinage and Mons"), but some sentences elude me. What is the point behind: "Indeed, the Belgian monarch is able (constitutionally or not) to intervene in the most important conflicts as for instance at the end of the Belgian general strike of 1893 when Otago Witness was supposing it"? Dropped into the article completely without context, this is not helpful. Indeed, the whole paragraph purporting to show the unusual powers of the monarch should be expanded into a separate section with more explanation of the incidents referenced.

It would be helpful to put the section on the various geographical locales as subsections under a more general section on strike activities, and to explain as an introduction to that section the significance of the various locations.

Too many people are introduced with no identification, and by surname only; non-Belgians will not know who they are or why they are significant.

"Immediately after World War II, Walloon national conscience was reinforced." By what? Why is this important?

"The term national even figured in the heading of a Congress": the significance of this is lost on the reader.

"After a vote in favour of reunification with France" -- Whose vote? When? Under what circumstances?

"a second vote was cast" -- what was wrong with the first one? why was a second vote taken?

"[Leopold] was looked upon as the King of the Flemings" -- why? why isn't this near the top of the article?

"Some within the Walloon Movement wanted to seize the 'Royal Question' in order to solve the 'Walloon Question'." What does this mean? At this point the reader doesn't really know what the "Royal Question" even is (except that for some reason Leopold was unpopular in Wallonia), and this is the first mention of the "Walloon Question".

"who was minister at that time" -- minister of what?

The quote from Chantal Kesteloot should be paraphrased and explained, rather than dumped in into the article verbatim.

"similar to the attacks of the Resistance against the Nazis, who had been hard on Wallonia" -- is this not part of the background that should be mentioned near the top? And why should the Walloons emulate the Nazis?

"and of the same manner as the French Resistance (on the military plan)" -- What does this mean?

As I said, I only got as far as "Borinage and Mons" on this first pass. I'll have to come back for the rest.

-- Elphion (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sincerely thank you. I am going to try to answer your remarks. Sometimes you are right. Sometimes, however it seems to me that some things are clear. For instance who was minister at that time. Jean Rey (politician) was in the government and it was a little strange he attended a Walloon Congress which was more or less against the government (and even in favour of a separated Wallonia). In the Belgian monarchy, the king is supposed to intervene to mediate but in 1950 that was impossible because the king was himself the conflict. I didn't say that directly in order to avoid the original research... I gave some examples of other king's interventions who are showing the Belgian Monarch may do that, as Otago witness guessed it even far from Belgium (in 1893), and also the conspiracy of Loppen when Albert I of Belgium intervened in order to institute the Universal suffrage even against the Belgian constitution (but of course with the agreement of all the political parties). In any case, it is not so esay to explain how the Belgian monarchy is working and even how a constitutional monarchy is working in general. I think I am able to understand  English but it is difficult for me to write it and that is the reason why I say  I need your help. So, again, simply thank you. José Fontaine (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you perceive my comments as constructive, as they are certainly meant that way. (Your comment at the top about this being one of the most important events in the history of Belgium is certainly on target.)  Regarding the phrase "who was minister at the time", I see now that you mean "who was *a* minister at the time", i.e., that he was a member of the government.  But even so, the current text does not tell the reader why this was significant -- what's missing is the clear statement that the congress was protesting the actions of the government.  I agree that examples of royal intervention are appropriate, but as I said above they currently are too elliptical for the reader to understand their significance -- this section needs to be expanded.  (For example, I have no idea what the event of 1893 was, or what "Otago witness" is, so its judgment is lost on me.) -- Elphion (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Dont' you think it is sufficient (I am speaking only about these two examples), to have a wikified title (where it is already clear that it was a general strike) and a footnote where you are able tou see what Otago Witness is (A weelkly magazine of New-Zealand)? And what do you think of my proposal below? I mean also a General strike is a well-kown phenomenon which is also defined on en.Wp. But I add for Universal suffrage and *a* minister. José Fontaine (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A proposal
I suggest to change the first para of the page so:

[version as of 20:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)]

'''King in exile. Fear of a general strike already in 1945'''

In 1944-1945, the Belgian public opinion and the politicians suspected the king (who was staying in occupied Belgium after Belgian army surrendered on 28 May 1940) of being a collaborationist of the nazis during Belgium's occupation. At least a soft kind of collaborationism, named in French attentisme i.e. a wait and profit attitude

In May 1945 the communists demanded that Leopold abdicate. The king had been liberated by the US Army from captivity in Strobl, Austria. Achille Van Acker's government met the king and negotiated conditions for his return: Leopold was requested to publicly praise the Allied forces, purge his entourage, and renew his commitment to parliamentary democracy. At first, an agreement remained out of reach. After Van Acker's return from Strobl, the split over the monarchy deepened and when negotiations resumed in June, the king's commitment to meet the conditions was no longer sufficient for an agreement. The government no longer wanted to take the responsibility for a royal return and offered to resign. Leopold did not succeed in replacing the government, and decided against returning before a referendum on the Royal Question had been held. He moved temporarily to Pregny-Chambésy in Switzerland.

The Belgian Socialist Party bureau and the socialist trade union came out against a return of the king in June 1945. Others resisted his return as well. Gillon, the President of the Belgian Senate, told the king that there was a threat of serious disorder: "If there are only ten or twenty people killed, the situation would become terrible for the King." The President of the Belgian Chamber of Representatives, the Catholic Frans Van Cauwelaert, a member of the Flemish movement, was concerned that there would be a General strike in Wallonia and revolt in Liège. He wrote, "The country is not able to put down the disorders because of the insufficient forces of the police and a lack of weapons."

Nevertheless there were different views of this king's political attitude during the war both in political parties and in the public opinions of each part of the country. The rightwing political parties dominating in Flanders (mainly the Catholics), became little a little more indulgent, the Flemish public opinion too. The leftwing political parties (mainly the Socialists), dominating in Wallonia and Brussels remained hostile to the king's return on the throne, the Walloon public opinion too. The Consultation populaire of March 1950 revealed these deep differences between the two parts of the country linked to all the Belgian political issues (ethnic, religious, linguistic and economic) : catholic, rightwing, Dutchspeaking and Flemish Flanders (in majority) against  secularised, leftwing, Frenchspeaking and Walloon Wallonia (in majority)., these two parts of the country having their minorities (e.g. Socialists in Flanders and Catholics in Wallonia).

José Fontaine (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a step in the right direction. But the following points need to be covered in order for the reader to understand what was going on:


 * Although Leopold and his wife Astrid were publicly popular before the war, Leopold's relationship with his ministers was often strained because he was far more brusque and authoritarian than his father was.


 * Leopold's decision to remain with his troops in Belgium after the inevitable surrender to the Germans left him in high esteem among the populace, but was already a severe breach of the constitution, since his ministers were unanimously opposed to it (fearing it would make him a tool of the Germans).


 * Leopold bitterly resented his ministers' opposition, and responded by refusing to deal with them after the surrender. This could not help but foster suspicions about his true intent, and rumors began to surface about collaboration with Hitler.  Even after the war, Leopold was looking for an apology from his ministers, who, however, felt that they had been acting well within their constitutional role.


 * Leopold's high popularity suffered a severe blow when his morganatic marriage to Lillian Baels was announced. It offended the entire country, who remembered the late Queen Astrid fondly.  It revealed that the king was not, after all, "sharing the fate" of his troops (who were mostly interned by the Germans).  The union of the king with a commoner was resented, and Baels was perceived as grasping for influence and position.  And the key point:  she was Flemish, and therefore instantly resented by the Walloons, particularly by the influential aristocracy (largely based in Wallonia), who feared loss of influence with the king.


 * For some reason, Leopold and his entourage were perceived after the war as reactionary, opposing the growing socialist movement among the unions in the industrialized south. [I would like to see this explained, as I have never seen a good description of how this came about.]  He was seen as anti-socialist, anti-union, anti-worker, and therefore anti-Walloon, and this is (part of the?) reason he was asked to "purge" his entourage.

Arguably these need not be covered in detail here (although they are not currently covered well in the main article either), but they need at least to be summarized here. The reader needs to understand why Leopold was perceived as acting unconstitutionally, why his ministers distrusted him, why the public in general was souring on him, and why his esteem particularly in Wallonia was so low. Without that, the strike makes no sense.

-- Elphion (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I propose, by the way, that we edit the text above directly, rather than keep adding subsequent copies. I've added the "version as of" line at the top; you can automatically insert the correct date/time by replacing the date/time with five tildes.

-- Elphion (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am going to make it but not following the way you propose because I an unable to do that. I will make it simply . José Fontaine (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I put before the above reply a message where I said you very sincerely how much I am astonished the way you know this topic, not far from perfect (but there is not a war edition but you were writng something in the same time as me). I think you read Arango, at least... José Fontaine (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, no: I can't find a copy of Arango -- though several things I've read do refer to him.  -- Elphion (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Better picture?
Wouldn't it be better to use a picture of Leopold that is not what he looked like 20 years before the events described in the article, and that doesn't picture him with his long dead by that point first wife? john k (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly, if you can find one! ---Brigade Piron (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"Near-minority"
The extensive reorganization of this article by is a major step forward for this important article. I have made only a few grammatical changes. I'm looking for feedback on one phrase: in the section "Political recovery and revival of the Royal Question", it says that "The Catholics gained ... a near-minority in the Chamber of Representatives". I presume this means "The Catholics gained ... nearly a majority in the Chamber of Representatives"? -- Elphion (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm not sure how to put this otherwise - they did indeed get a majority in the senate but did not get an overall majority in the Chamber, though were still the largest party. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * A plurality, then. -- Elphion (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)