Talk:List of Belgian monarchs
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Sigur in topic Leopold III - length of reign.
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Leopold III - length of reign. edit
Leopold's reign of 17 years on the table is incorrect. He was declared "incompetent to reign" by the Belgian Government in Exile in May 1940 and only re-commenced it in August 1950... Can this be changed? ---Brigade Piron (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- That did not, however, end his reign as such. He remained constitutional king throughout the episode. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- No. The declaration of incompetence ended his role as king officially. The was, according to the government in exile, no king whatsoever between 1940 and 1944. Leopold himself was even in exile until 1950. That does not make him the constitutional king. ---Brigade Piron (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- The government in exile assumed the role of the monarch in an acting capacity because of his incompetence. Just like they did with Baudoin on the 4th of April 1990. In both cases the king was not deposed. They remained King and Head of state. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Actually no. They remained king, but not head of state. It was the Council of Ministers who collectively was head of state in these periods (just as was the regent, Prince Charles). So, as this is a "list of Belgian monarchs" it's justifiable to count the whole period. It's a question of rather arbitrary choice. There is a good article from a Belgian professor of constitutional law here about this. Sigur (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- The government in exile assumed the role of the monarch in an acting capacity because of his incompetence. Just like they did with Baudoin on the 4th of April 1990. In both cases the king was not deposed. They remained King and Head of state. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- No. The declaration of incompetence ended his role as king officially. The was, according to the government in exile, no king whatsoever between 1940 and 1944. Leopold himself was even in exile until 1950. That does not make him the constitutional king. ---Brigade Piron (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Erasme Louis Surlet de Chokier edit
Yes, Erasme Louis Surlet de Chokier was not King - but he was head of state (King is a constitutional title, after all) and as such deserves a place in the list as long as this distinction is made clear. Plus, he is certainly relevant to the scope of the article.Brigade Piron (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I fully agree with Brigade Piron. Oreo Priest talk 00:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Names edit
Does anyone know why 'Leopold' is in English, while 'Baudoin' and 'Philippe' are not? It seems quite inconsistent. Oreo Priest talk 05:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)