Royal Question

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Royal Question (French: Question royale, Dutch: Koningskwestie) was a Belgian political crisis in 1950, surrounding the question of whether Leopold III could return to his position as King of the Belgians after he had surrendered to German forces during World War II. A referendum was organised, in which the majority voted in favour of his return (Flanders and the Ardennes mostly in favour; industrialised Wallonia mostly against). Leopold III of Belgium returned to the throne on 22 July 1950 after five years' exile in Switzerland and a few days later, on 26 July 1950, a general strike broke out against his return, mainly in Wallonia. Eventually, during the night from 31 July to 1 August, the king was forced by the Belgian government of Jean Duvieusart to offer to abdicate in favour of his son. A march to Brussels was announced for 2 August. In Liège leaders of the General Federation of Belgian Labour (including André Renard), of the Walloon Movement and of the Belgian Socialist Party threatened to form a provisional government in Wallonia that would declare Walloon independence.[1]

King in exile[edit]

Catholic Frans Van Cauwelaert was opposed to the king's return.

In 1944 and 1945, Belgian public opinion and its politicians suspected the king (who remained in occupied Belgium after the Belgian army surrendered on 28 May 1940 until June 1944, when the Germans took him to Germany as they did Philippe Pétain) of being a collaborationist of the Nazis during Belgium's occupation, or at least a soft kind of collaborationism, called in French attentisme (wait and profit) attitude.[2]

Fear of opposition to the king's return[edit]

In May 1945 the communists demanded that Leopold abdicate. The king had been liberated by the US Army from captivity in Strobl, Austria on 7 May 1945, the day before the Allies' victory. On 9 May 1945 Prince Charles, Leopold III's brother (who was appointed Regent when the German occupation of Belgium ended in September 1944) and Achille Van Acker's government were going immediately to Strobl. Prince Charles had a violent discussion with his brother on 9 May evening. Van Acker met the king on 10 May and 11 May 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.[3]

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. On 12 June Robert 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."[4] On the same day, President of the Belgian Chamber of Representatives Frans Van Cauwelaert, a Catholic and 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."[5]

Inability to Reign Bill[edit]

On 28 May 1940, the Belgian government stated that the king was unable to reign because of enemy action (the king was staying in Belgium while his government was gone to Paris and after to London.) On 19 September 1944 at its first meeting after the occupation the Parliament approved the Government's policy and ipso facto its declaration about the king's inability to reign. But after the king was liberated in Strobl, there was no more justification of this inability. On 19 July 1945, Parliament acted to interpret the article 82 [6] of the Belgian constitution about this inability to reign:

In the Belgian Chamber of Representatives, 137 voted yes, six voted no and 32 abstained. In the Senate, 78 senators voted yes, 58 voted no (mainly the Catholics) and 5 abstained. The majority in the Belgian Chambers of Representatives and in the Senate was a leftwing majority, i.e. an anti-Leopold majority. Some Catholics, even in the Senate, voted with this leftwing majority.

Towards a popular consultation[edit]

Nevertheless there were different views of the king's political attitude during the war, both in the political parties and in the public opinions of each part of the country. The right-wing political parties dominating in Flanders (mainly the Catholics), became bit by bit more indulgent to him, as was the Flemish public opinion. The left-wing political parties (mainly the Socialists), dominating in Wallonia and Brussels, remained hostile to the king's return to the throne, as was Walloon public opinion. The popular consultation 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, right-wing, Dutch-speaking and Flemish Flanders (in majority) against secularised, left-wing, French-speaking and Walloon Wallonia (in majority) - these two parts of the country having their minorities (e.g. Socialists in Flanders and Catholics in Wallonia).

The Catholics, who generally supported the king's return, won a majority in the Senate during the election of 26 June 1949. The Catholics formed a government with the Liberals. The date of the vote desired by the king was set by this government for 12 March 1950.

The Consultation populaire[edit]

The results[edit]

Socialist Paul-Henri Spaak was against a Consultation populaire.

Socialist Leader Paul-Henri Spaak opposed holding a referendum. He foresaw that the vote for Leopold might fall between 55% and 65%, giving no decisive mandate for the king's return, and that the King would carry Flanders and lose Wallonia. In that case, said Spaak, "the government would not only have on its hands the King's abdication or return, it would also have to appease the anger, acerbity and rancour of Flanders or Wallonia."[8] A majority voted in favour of his return (57.6%), but the 'yes' votes in Flanders were 72%, the 'no' votes in Wallonia 58%, with Brussels about evenly divided.[9]

Walloon Arrondissements[10] NO YES
Arlon - 66%
Neufchâteau - 65%
Dinant[11] - 60%
Verviers - 60%
Mons 69% -
Charleroi 67% -
Soignies 66% -
Liège 65% -
Nivelles[12] 62% -
Huy 58% -
Thuin 57% -
Tournai[13] 54% -
Namur 51% -
Flemish Arrondissements NO YES
Roeselare - 85%
Turnhout - 84%
Tongeren - 84%
Hasselt - 82%
Sint-Niklaas - 78%
Dendermonde - 78%
Ieper - 76%
Oostende - 73%
Brugge - 72%
Gent - 71%
Kortrijk - 70%
Aalst - 70%
Mechelen - 70%
Oudenaarde - 67%
Leuven - 66%
Antwerpen - 63%

Renardism[edit]

Main article: Renardism
The workers' army is rallying you (A.Renard)

Immediately after World War II, Walloon national conscience was reinforced. The term national even figured in the heading of a Congress: the Congrès national wallon (20–21 October 1945). After a vote in favour of reunification with France (among the 1048 voters, 486 were in favour of the reunification, 391 preferred federalism), a second vote was cast in favour of autonomy within the Belgian framework. The Walloon movement was unable to keep up this fervour: But the Royal Question brought about a new dynamic. Its very roots went back to the period of the German occupation when the Walloon Movement had been very critical of Leopold III, who was looked upon as the King of the Flemings. Some within the Walloon Movement wanted to seize the "Royal Question" in order to solve the "Walloon Question".

A special Congrès National Wallon gathered on 26 March 1950, after the referendum. Some important politicians attended, including Jean Rey (who was a minister at that time) and Fernand Dehousse. "For the first time", wrote Chantal Kesteloot, "an important rapprochement occurred between the Walloon Movement and the working class : in March 1950 André Renard, the Liégeois union leader, offered the Congrès the support of 85,000 steel workers. Still, this rapprochement was short-lived and existed only within the context of the 'Royal Question'. Indeed, from the end of July 1950 onwards, it became obvious that Renard's involvement focused on workers' solidarity rather than on the Walloon Movement itself - although, in all fairness, it should be pointed out that he was not any longer indifferent to the Walloon problem."[14]

Catholic vote[edit]

These Consultation populaire's results, as Paul-Henri Spaak said it before, were the most important political issue the Belgian politicians had to manage. Van den Dungen, the rector of the Université Libre de Bruxelles wrote to Leopold (already on 25 June 1945) about concerns for serious disorder in Wallonia, The question is not whether the accusations against you are right or not [but that ...] You are no longer a symbol of the Belgian unity.[15]

Before the results, on 26 January 1950, Jean Rey, member of the Government stated that the king would be allowed to return on the condition each region would pronounce in his favor.[16]

But when, as a result of the general elections on 4 June 1950, the Catholic Party received an absolute majority in seats in Parliament (both Senate and Chamber of the Representatives), this majority, according the bill of July 1945, voted, on 20 July 1950 that the impossibility to reign had come to an end. So the king was able to return. This majority did it also according to the results of the Consultation populaire, even if there was not a majority in Wallonia (and Brussels).

Why such an impasse?[edit]

Ramon Arango wrote of the unique character of the Belgian monarchy: "The Belgian monarchy is not truly constitutional (as is the British after which it was patterned but with which it had little in common except nomenclature). It is a hybrid designed to reconcile two concepts of monarchy, each of which answers a peculiar Belgian need: it is a constitutional monarchy whose sovereign is granted power disproportionate to that of a constitutional monarch in order that he accomplish an authoritative function, the maintenance of national unity."[17] Indeed, the Belgian monarch was sometimes supposed to intervene in the most important conflicts. That was the case when the civic guard of Mons killed seven workers at the end of the Belgian general strike of 1893 (ordered to gain the Universal suffrage), even according the Otago Witness a weekly magazine of New Zealand far from Belgium;[18] during Introduction of Universal Suffrage; during the 1960-1961 Winter General Strike, when André Renard took a part in socialists' attempts to negotiate (at the beginning of January 1961), a solution to the crisis with Baudouin I of Belgium, perhaps because Renard knew the king was afraid by a complete victory against the strikers i.e. Flanders against Wallonia[19]

Arango explores why the major antagonists would reach such an impasse by midsummer of 1950. He thought a modern constitutional monarch to be the embodiment of historical unity and national self-identification. But that he functions successfully in this capacity only if his subjects share a common tradition, and if the people are united. "The monarch, in other words, is the result, not the cause of homogeneity and consensus."[20] For Arango the royal question would focus "all the other issues over which there was a lack of harmony in Belgian society":[21] the ethnic, linguistic, religious, and economic problems. I;e., as already said above: 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). Arango wrote that Belgium did not, in fact, share a common tradition: throughout the centuries of the history of Belgium, the Flemings and the Walloons maintained separate identities. At the time of the Belgian revolution of 1830, they were still separate, living in separate territories from the beginning, "and even to the present", he added.[22]

Return of Leopold[edit]

First strikes and demonstrations[edit]

The king would came back on 22 July but before he came back, before the vote about the end of his impossibility to reign, there were important strikes, even in Flanders. On 10 July there were demonstrations in Antwerp. Between 10 July and 12 July the whole black country (the coal mining area centering on Charleroi was named in French le Pays noir), was paralized by strike. On 12 July 20,000 workers [23] were walking through Charleroi with banners with words such as We defy Leopold III to put a foot in Charleroi. These demonstrations have been called Journée de protestation wallonne and Arthur Gailly stated in the park of Charleroi: It is better to separate than to submit [24] But some trade unionists were again limited or partial strikes (as for instance in Liège and in the Borinage). They wanted only a strike when it would be clear that Leopold would came back. And then, they wanted a general strike.[25] On 14 July, there were 10,000 demonstrators in La Louvière with banners: Leopold to the gallows, Abdication!, Down with Leopold, Hang him, hang him! On the same day strikes broke out in Ghent, Namur, Mons, the Borinage, Verviers the Centre...[26]

Leo Collard's prediction[edit]

On 18 July 1950 Leo Collard, future Mayor of Mons and future president of the Belgian Socialist Party, stated in the Belgian Chamber of Representatives: An uncontrollable and irrational movement is threatening to break in Wallonia which will have a moral and psychological nature.[27]

The first bomb attack happened in Mons, against a secondary rail track, on 21 July morning.[28]

The king came back to Belgium on 22 July in the early morning accompanied by only a few civilians but 5,000 troops: Even in 1960, Belgians speak of the "cowardly" return in the early morning when there would be few people on the streets.[29]

Violent Response[edit]

A demonstration took place in the Town Square in Mons, where 10,000 sang the Marseillaise on 29 July 1950

Between 22 July and 26 July, attacks began against bridges, buildings, high-voltage lines and rail tracks.,[30] similar to the attacks of the Resistance against the Nazis, who had been harder on Wallonia than Flanders,[31] and of the same manner as the French Resistance (on the military plan). The General strike followed.

Borinage and Mons[edit]

La Dernière Heure wrote there was an atmosphere of civil war in Borinage.[32] The Borinage became similar to a fortified camp. Road traffic was prevented: the roads were cut off by barricades, for instance in Jemappes, Quaregnon, between Mons and Valenciennes, Mons and Ghlin.[33] There were also checkpoints halting vehicles, although some exceptions were made including doctors. In Mons, on 29 July, Leo Collard, alderman of the City, speaking from the balcony of the town hall, made a speech inviting 10,000 demonstrators to consider the Walloon Flag as the symbol of Wallonia's Resistance and to sing the Marseillaise.

Liège[edit]

As a leader of the General Federation of Belgian Labour (FGTB) in Liège, Renard made this statement for the trade union newspaper La Wallonie on 26 July, published two days later by Le Soir:

On 27 July, he repeated this statement in front of 1,200 activists and on the same day, the Liégeois Committee for strike confirmed this statement. Renard didn't only launch a major offensive against the economic and political organisation of the state, but also seized control over the city of Liège.[35] On 28 July the Minister of Labour Oscar Behogne wanted to negotiate with the trade union about the protection of industrial equipment. The FGTB replied that it did not refuse to discuss the issue, but could not assure that it would be taken care of. The minister replied that in this case there would be a crisis state.[36] The next day, on 29 July, Paul Finet, Secretary General of the FGTB, stated that if there would be a crisis state, the strikers would refuse to protect the equipment. On the same day, Renard wrote in La Wallonie that the working-class people, ensuring the country's prosperity since 1945 in favour of other people, were not concerned about these other people's wealth. They were fighting for liberty and democracy and it was not suitable to make concessions to an anti working-class regime.[37]

According to the Flemish newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws, the strikers were issuing laissez-passers in Liège: "In the center of the City, pickets are stopping the cars. If the drivers refuse, the cars are turned upside down... The state policemen tear off the laissez-passers stickers on the cars."[38]

Near Liège, in Grâce-Berleur (now as an ex-commune, a part of Grâce-Hollogne), on 30 July, three protesters were killed when the Gendarmerie opened fire on the protesters with automatic weapons.

The Belgian banners in Wallonia were being replaced by Walloon flags (in Liège and other municipalities of Wallonia[39]).

Charleroi[edit]

On 31 July 1950, some large municipalities of Wallonia replaced the Belgian flag with the Walloon flag.

In Charleroi, there were 60,000 demonstrators on the Ville Basse square. Arthur Gailly, the regional leader of the General Federation of Belgian Labour made a speech, the day after the Grâce-Berleur fusillade on 31 July 1950

.

Danger of revolt?[edit]

Had the Belgian government actual reasons to think Renard, Finet, Gailly... would have carried out their threats? This question is disputed. For some historians or witnesses they would have carried out their threats.[41][42] For Pierre Tilly, faced with such statements, and particularly the Renard's one, it is impossible for the authorities to remain indifferent[43] For other, it is impossible to answer or very difficult.[44] For other there are no evidences of that.

A possible Walloon provisional Government[edit]

According to the reports of the Belgian State Security Service, the Belgian Socialist Party and General Federation of Belgian Labour's plan against Leopold III was composed of five stages: 1. Parliamentary debates, 2. Strikes, 3. Sabotages, 4. Mass demonstrations and march on Brussels, 5. Walloon day or the constitution of a Walloon government.[45]

The reports underlined that this 5th stage was the last weapon the Socialists would have used against the king. If the constitution of such a government would have made it necessary, it would have had recourse to the civil war. Key figures of the Liberal Party and of the Christian Social Party would have been approached and would have agreed to take part in this government.[46]

Murder of Julian Lahaut[edit]

See also: Julien Lahaut

To avoid tearing the country apart, and to preserve the monarchy, Leopold decided on 1 August 1950 to withdraw in favour of his 20-year-old son Baudouin. Prince Baudouin took the constitutional oath before the United Chambers of the Belgian Parliament as Prince Royal on 11 August 1950. During this ceremony a communist deputy shouted "Vive la République!"[47] Julien Lahaut was said to have been the deputy who shouted this, and he was murdered one week later. This dramatic epilogue ended the Royal Question: the murder was never completely solved[48][49]

Leopold's abdication only took effect on 16 July 1951, though in reality the government had already forced the issue on 1 August 1950. In this postponed abdication[50] the king was, in effect, forced by the government of Jean Duvieusart to offer to abdicate in favour of his son.[51] Leopold and his wife continued to advise King Baudouin until the latter's marriage in 1960. Some Belgian historians, such as Vincent Delcorps, speak of there having been a "dyarchy" during this period.[52]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Page Gouvernement wallon de 1950 in Encyclopédie du mouvement wallon, Institut Jules Destrée, Namur, 2000, Tome 2000, pp. 740-752 ISBN 2-87035-019-8
  2. ^ Ramon Arango, Leopold III and the Belgian royal question, The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1961, p. 108.
  3. ^ Els Witte, Jan Craeybeckx, Alain Meynen, Political History of Belgium: From 1830 Onwards, Academic and Scientific Publishers, Brussels, 2009, p. 240. ISBN 978-90-5487-517-8 .
  4. ^ Dutch Al vielen er maar tien of twintig doden, de situatie van de koning zou vlug vreselijk worden Velaers en Van Goethem, Leopold III: De koning, het land, de oorlog, Lannoo, Tielt, 1994, p. 968. ISBN 9020923870.
  5. ^ Dutch Het land zou de ontlusten niet kunnen bedwingen wegens een ontoereikende politie macht een een tekort aan wapens. Velaers and Van Goethem, Leopold III, p. 969
  6. ^ Now the article 93
  7. ^ Textes exacts de la constitution belge, de la loi communale et de la loi provinciale, Guyot, Brussels, 1948, p. 82. Quoted and translated by Arango.
  8. ^ "Belgium up in the air", Time, Monday, 20 March 1950
  9. ^ Maps of the referendum's results Institut Destrée et Université de Liège
  10. ^ Paul Theunissen, 1950, Ontknoping van de koningskwestie, De Nederlandsche boekhandel, Anvers, Amsterdam, 1984, pp. 16-17. ISBN 90-289-0892-7 and La Revue Nouvelle, 15 avril 1950, pp. 379-385.
  11. ^ During this vote, this arrondissement included the Arrondissement of Philippeville
  12. ^ Walloon Brabant was at that time the old Arrondissement of Nivelles
  13. ^ During this vote, Tournai included the Arrondissement of Ath
  14. ^ Chantal Kesteloot Growth of the Walloon Movement, in (Has Deprez and Louis Vos, editors), Nationalism in Belgium, Macmilan Press, London, 1998, pp. 139–161, pp.149-150. ISBN 0-333-65737-3
  15. ^ Dutch Het is niet de vraag of de aantijgingen die tegen U werden ingebracht terecht zijn [maar dat...'] U niet langer een symbool is voor de Belgish eenheid. Velaers en Van Goethem Leopold III, p. 95.
  16. ^ Jacques Van Offelen, Les libéraux contre Léopold III, Didier hatier, Bruxelles, 1988, p. 285 ISBN 2-87088-625-X
  17. ^ R.Arango, Leopold III and the Belgian Royal Question, The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1961, p. 9.
  18. ^ Otago Witness, 20 April 1893, p. 17
  19. ^ French le Roi en est à craindre une victoire des modérés qui serait celle de la Flandre sur la Wallonie... Vincent Delcorps, La Couronne et la Rose, Baudouin et le monde socialiste, Le Cri, Bruxelles, 2010, p. 162 ISBN 978-2-87106-537-1
  20. ^ Ramon Arango, Leopold III and the Belgian Royal Question, p. 212.
  21. ^ Ramon Arango, Leopold III and the Belgian Royal Question, p. 213.
  22. ^ Leopold III and the Belgian Royal Question, p.13
  23. ^ 10,000 according the independent newspaper Le Soir
  24. ^ Paul Theunissen, 1950, Le dénouement de la question royale, p. 85.
  25. ^ Paul Theunissen, p. 85.
  26. ^ Ramon Arango, Leopold III and the Belgian Royal Question, pp. 200-201.
  27. ^ French la Wallonie est menacée d'un mouvement incontrôlable et irrationnel de nature morale et psychologique in Annales parlementaires, session chambres réunies, 18 July 1950 quoted by Paul Theunissen, 1950, le dénouement de la question royale, Complexe, Bruxelles, 1986, p. 88. ISBN 2-87027-182-4 (translated from the Dutch, Paul Theunissen, 1950, Ontknoping van de koningskwestie, De Nederlandsche boekhandel, Anvers, Amsterdam, 1984).
  28. ^ Reports of the Belgian State Security on the events of July, 1 September 1950, quoted by Jean Duvieusart, La question royale, CRISP, Bruxelles, 1975, pp. 208-209.
  29. ^ Ramon Arango, Leopold III and the Belgian Royal Question, The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1961, p. 9.
  30. ^ According to the reports of the Belgian State Security, quoted by Jean Duvieusart, La question royale. crise et dénouement, CRISP, Bruxelles, 1975: "136 acts of sabotage including 59 bomb attacks"
  31. ^ Sabotages in Wallonia and Flanders during the German occupation Institut Destrée et Université de Liège
  32. ^ La Dernière Heure, 1 August 1950.
  33. ^ Le Drapeau rouge, 1 August 1950.
  34. ^ French: "La grève sera générale, illimitée, totale. Aucun soin ne sera pris de l'outillage. Nous laisserons se noyer les charbonnages. Les hauts fourneaux n'ont pas été bouchés; les cockeries sont abandonnées. On ne nous a pas pris au sérieux. Tant pis! A partir d'aujourd'hui, les mots "révolution" et "insurrection" auront pour nous un sens pratique. Nous les emploierons dans notre vocabulaire de tous les jours. Nous irons jusqu'au bout et nous ne reculerons devant rien. Léopold III a voulu la bataille. Le voilà servi!" in Le Soir, 28 july 1950.
  35. ^ Erik Jones, Economic Adjustment and Political Transformation in Small States,Oxford Press, 2008, p. ISBN 121 978-0-19-920833-3
  36. ^ French une mobilisation civile et militaire
  37. ^ Quoted by P. Theunissen, 1950: Le dénouement de la question royale, pp. 111-112. French Aujourd'hui, les travailleurs ont assez prouvé, de 1945 à 1950, qu'ils étaient les principaux artisans de la prospérité nationale n'ont que faire d'entretenir des richesses pour le compte des autres. Quand la démocratie, la liberté et la justice sont menacées, il ne s'agit pas d'accorder à un régime, essentiellement anti-ouvrier, la moindre concession.
  38. ^ Dutch "In het centrum van de stad houden stakingspiketten de auoto's tegen. Indien de bestuurders weigeren hun bevelen uit te voeren, werden de auto's omgeklonken... Vrijgelieden worden door de rijkswacht van de auto's gerukt." in Het Laaste Nieuws, 28 July 1950, quoted by Paul Theunissen, in 1950: Ontknopping van e koningskwestie, p. 110.
  39. ^ Philippe Destatte, L'Identité wallonne, Institut Destrée, Charleroi, 1997, p.235 ISBN 2-87035-000-7
  40. ^ Robert Moreau, Combat syndical et conscience wallonne. Du syndicalisme clandestin au Mouvement populaire wallon, Institut Destrée, FAR, EVO, Bruxelles, Charleroi, Liège, 1984, p.65 ISBN 2-87003-186-6
  41. ^ Page Gouvernement wallon de 1950 in Encyclopédie du mouvement wallon, Institut Jules Destrée, Namur, 2000, Tome 2 pp. 740-752
  42. ^ Robert Moreau, Combat syndical et conscience wallonne. Du syndicalisme clandestin au Mouvement populaire wallon, Institut Destrée, FAR, EVO, Bruxelles, Charleroi, Liège, 1984
  43. ^ French De tels propos, venant du syndicaliste liégeois, à l'initiative ou à tout le moins l'un des protagonsites de la plupart des mouvements de grève survenus depuis la guerre, ne peuvent laisser indifférents les autorités du pays in Pierre Tilly, André Renard, Le Cri, Fondation André Renard, Bruxelles, 2005, p. 307. ISBN 2-87106-378-8
  44. ^ Paul Theunissen 1950, le dénouement de la question royale, Complexe, Bruxelles, 1986, pp. 112-113
  45. ^ Belgian State Security Service's report Written on 1 September 1950 and published by Jean Duvieusart in La question royale, crise et dénouement:juin,juillet, août 1950, CRISP, pp. 187-191 and (Walloon Day) p. 191.
  46. ^ French des personnalités libérales et même PSC auraient été pressenties et auraient donné leur accord in Jean Duvieusart, La question royale crise et dénouement, p. 191.
  47. ^ "> Dutch library pictures of 11 August 1950. At the beginning of the ceremony in the Parliament people can clearly hear a man shouting Vive la République when Baudouin I began to swear the oath. Written translation in French. Then a - possibly right... - reconstruction of the Lahaut's assassination on the Flemish television VRT 2, on 17 December 2007..
  48. ^ The chairman of the KPB, J.Lahaut was said to have called 'Vive la République' - Long live the republic! - during Baudouin's swearing-in ceremony. One week later he was shot dead in his home in Seraing. The murder was never completely solved. in Els Witte,Jan Craeybeckx,Alain Meynen, Political History of Belgium: From 1830 Onwards, Academic and Scentific Publishers, Brussels, 2009, p. 242. ISBN 978-90-5487-517-8
  49. ^ Rudy Van Doorslaer et Etienne Verhoeyen, L'assassinat de Julien Lahaut.Une histoire de l'anticommunisme en Belgique, EPO, Anvers, 1987, p. 8. D 2204-1987-10. Translated from the Dutch De Moord op Julien Lahaut Kritak, Leuven, 1987. This book's screenplay is rather similar to the Flemish television's one, several years later.
  50. ^ Jules Gérard-Libois, José Gotovitch, Leopold III, De l'an 40 à l'effacement, Pol-His, Bruxelles, 1991, pp. 304-306. ISBN 2-87311-005-8
  51. ^ Els Witte, Jan Craeybeckx, Alain Meynen, Political History of Belgium: From 1830 Onwards, spoke about a forced abdication, Academic and Scentific Publishers, Brussels, 2009, p. 244. ISBN 978-90-5487-517-8.
  52. ^ La Couronne et la rose, Baudouin et le monde socialiste 1950-1974, Le Cri, Brussels, 2010 ISBN 978-2-87106-537-1

External links[edit]

  • Réalisateur : Michel Vuillermet Film La Chute d'un roi 4/6 - French-speaking but rather comprehensible library pictures in the following order : 1. three strikers killed near Liège (30 July); 2. negotiations between the king and veterans (31 July 1950); 3. Allied nations' 'Victory in Brussels (May 1945); 4. Leopold III liberated by the US Army (May 1945); 5. the impossible return: negotiations in Strobl (May 1945); 6. Leopold III in Pregny (Switzerland) (May 1945); 7. support of a part of Flanders and of old collaborationists from both Wallonia and Flanders (1945–1950); 8. Attempts to take the king Belgium (e.g. from The Netherlands); 9. the referendum (Spaak's voice recommending to vote NO) (March 1950); 10. differences of the results between Wallonia, Brussels and Flanders; 11. Catholic victory at the general elections of June 1950, so that a pro-Leopold III majority was able to vote in the Parliament the end of the Leopold's impossibility to reign; 12. King's return; 13. riots in Wallonia and Brussels.
  • Réalisateur : Michel Vuillermet Film La Chute d'un roi 6/6 - In French: Arthur Gailly's speech in Charleroi in favour of an independent Wallonia and, the most of these library pictures, the catholic Prime Minister Jean Duvieusart's political attitude on 31 July 1950.