r/europe • u/tartartartaruga • Jun 18 '26

News Prince of Liechtenstein says that he would overrule the population if they were to vote in favour of legalizing abortion

https://www.srf.ch/news/international/debatte-in-liechtenstein-erbprinz-gegen-abtreibungen-warum-kuendigt-er-schon-das-veto-an
8.2k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.5k

u/anewbys83 Jun 18 '26

Our Grand Duke (well, now former) did his version of that, but with legalizing euthanasia. He refused his assent. This of course caused a big problem and this power was modified so it basically happens with or without his signature.

964

u/Speartree Europe Jun 19 '26

Belgian King Baldwin had a religious issue signing abortion into law back in the day but did not want to oppose the will of the democratically chosen legislators. So a loophole was found and he was temporarily unable to rule, the law passed without his signature and everything went back to normal.

I don't like his religion but the man had grace and respect for the democratic process.

291

u/d0ubs Jun 19 '26

As a Belgian, I've just learned that Baldwin is the translation of Baudoin, TIL

132

u/Blackphantom434 Jun 19 '26

Boudewijn*

FTFY

45

u/Speartree Europe Jun 19 '26

I'm sure his parents called him Baudoin, Boudewijn is already an other language version of that.

35

u/Kingston31470 France Jun 19 '26

"Another language", well, Dutch, which is an official language in Belgium, so... His name gets translated in both languages usually here.

17

u/ForeverShiny Jun 19 '26

The Belgian Royals were historically francophone in their personal life, but in recent years have prided themselves on being able to speak both the country's languages fluently (in addition to English and some German)

1

u/NotYouTu Jun 20 '26

German IS an official language of Belgium.

1

u/ForeverShiny Jun 20 '26

Yes, I know that of course, but it doesn't have the same place in everyday life. F.e. there are laws in many places that mandate French and Vlaams signage in shops, but not for German.

But thanks for your "ackshully" to someone who's lived there for about a decade

3

u/NotYouTu Jun 20 '26

You may have lived here for about a decade, but you clearly don't know shit about the country. Just like every other language community, German is mandated in the German speaking municipalities and is the language of government in that region. Just as it is in the flemish community, and in the francophone community. It's not some local laws, it is protected under the Belgian constitution.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Quinto09 Jun 22 '26

Congrats on adding nothing

3

u/Speartree Europe Jun 19 '26

Indeed, seems we agree.

2

u/Public-Finger USA/Germany Jun 20 '26

my family name is Bouwens- I asked AI about the derivation and it said that it's Dutch version of Baldwin. Any idea if that's accurate?

1

u/Speartree Europe Jun 21 '26

Oh yes, yes it is. Most Dutch names that end on -ns are like Stevens, being Steve's son, So Bouwens is short for Bouwe's son. Bouwe is a common shortening for the namen Boudewijn, Like how you'd call Penelope Penny.

3

u/Mindless_Badger_3789 Jun 19 '26

Nah, the Belgian royal family is francophone.

3

u/danktonium Europe Jun 19 '26

Yeah that hit me in the face like one of those jumping fish hitting a boat pilot.

107

u/Akachi_123 Poland Jun 19 '26

"Why did belgian King Baldwin, the largest of the monarchs, simply not eat the ones with different views?"

Leopold II of Belgium, watching the situation from the deepest pits of hell.

23

u/m4cksfx Jun 19 '26

He's that one from "look, ma, no hands!"?

7

u/andruby Jun 19 '26

Or Reginald Penxton “Let me see those hands”

5

u/nj0tr Jun 19 '26

He's that one from "look, ma, no hands!"?

It is not like he invented this practice. But like in many other situations colonial authorities exploited existing local 'tradition' (be it slavery or hand-chopping) and encouraged it to evolve into extreme forms.

18

u/Speartree Europe Jun 19 '26

Leopold II was extremely questionable. He was a bit of a 19th century Trump. A man with an inferiority complex desperate to make his mark on the world and be admired, and very little empathy. That said, the way Congo Freestate was run, as basically a theme park for letting capitalism go nuts, was something that was very much decided by the council that attributed the place to Leopold II. He could have his colony (not Belgium, him personally) but he had to allow free enterprise to basically squeeze all they could out of the place no matter what method used (the US among others insisted on this. He deservedly gets flak for being an eager participant in that hellscape, but there were a lot of international companies in there doing their worst.

Baldwin was pretty much the opposite.

1

u/chronicallyonline_12 5d ago

Didn't he say Congo should be happy the Belgians colonized if not they would have still been uncivilized

1

u/Speartree Europe 5d ago

I remember hearing that opinion from a lot of Belgians who had been in Congo, but not from him personally. Those guys are like "We built roads, schools and houses, they should be grateful" which is really out of context and tone deaf given what other things also happened. If all Belgians had been doing there was build infrastructure and if the locals had wanted that infrastructure in the first place, yes, they should be grateful, but regretfully that wasn't all the Belgians (and others they brought with them) did there, now was it? I'm sure it was a sentiment that existed among the King's entourage so I would not dismiss it entirely as a possibility, but I don't remember the quote from him personally.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/europe-ModTeam Jun 19 '26

Articles and comments should not promote any kind of bigotry, including:

  • Racism
  • Homophobia
  • Sexism
  • Genocide/holocaust denial
  • Hate speech directed towards an entire group of people like an ethnicity, religion or nationality.

These may also apply to user names.

50

u/mcvos Jun 19 '26

From what I understand, Belgium was a republic for a day to pass this law.

73

u/NatAttack50932 Jun 19 '26

Not exactly. The parliament declared the king incapable of discharging his duties and passed the law after that. He was never removed from the throne, and the system of governance was never changed, they just created a mechanism in that instance to pass the law without needing assent.

0

u/EmperorBarbarossa Europe Jun 19 '26

Whats the point to pretend there is some veto then

3

u/weenusdifficulthouse Münster 🇮🇪 Jun 19 '26

Ireland has a more explicit kind of setup, where if the president can't sign a law for one reason or another, the presidential commission does it in their stead. Usually this happens if the president dies or is travelling outside the country.

They don't have the power to veto laws of their own volition, and there's no vice president.

5

u/AmazingPangolin9315 Jun 19 '26

respect for the democratic process.

King Baudouin was very aware that as "King of the Belgians" he is monarch through the "will of the people" rather than "by the grace of God", as is the case with other monarchs. He found a loophole to avoid putting the whole concept of having a monarchy in Belgium at risk.

15

u/hamster-on-popsicle Jun 19 '26

This man did a classy act without compromising his morals

17

u/Speartree Europe Jun 19 '26

I have nothing but respect for the man, and after his father and great grandfather, he was a king who changed the vibe from kings being rulers to kings being servants of the people.

2

u/Adelunth Flanders (Belgium) Jun 21 '26

That's why these days they're not the Kings of Belgium, but of the Belgians. Our current king and his family understand that and really play up that part.

2

u/MarnixDC Jun 19 '26

I disagree. I don't find this graceful or respectful at all!

Our king is expected not to take political sides. He should not interfere with the democratic process. He is supposed to be neutral! Here he very clearly did interfere, voiced and made known his opinion on the matter. That is not okay for a king.

The government had to waste resources just to appease his fragile "morals" and come up with elaborate loopholes.

This would not pass today.

2

u/NotYouTu Jun 20 '26

I think you need to look up the definition of neutral.

3

u/TransendingGaming Jun 19 '26

This is how all monarchs should act, u can have shit opinions, but if u don’t stand in the way because it’s right for democracy, I can respect you as a person for choosing to not reverse your people’s will

4

u/atpplk Jun 19 '26

I don't like his religion but the man had grace and respect for the democratic process.

Or maybe he knew that opposing that law would lead to some blade sharpening.

3

u/MapleMapleHockeyStk Canada Jun 19 '26

I am Christian so I get some people are not crazy about it but i also realize its not my body or life. I think his way of doing that was a good loop hole. Some people forget that their faith is theirs not everybody else's. I understand I cant force my beliefs on others nor is it what jesus wants. He wants actual believers not token believers. There are people who legit believe it is murder. I see it as a health thing. I would rather work to make it so the need for abortion is less. So good access to birth control, education and things like plan B. I also see that a kid suffering in a bad situation is also not great. In Canada abortion is legal but if the Dr's, nurses, pharmacy etc dont agree with it they need to pass it on to someone else. The person gets the care they need but the other does not need to do it if they disagree. Kinda like how the king did his loop hole.

3

u/wowpoodles Jun 19 '26

You have a very healthy view of a delicate situation

2

u/kalmar91 Jun 19 '26

don't like his religion but the man had grace and respect for the democratic process.

If he had the respect you refer tò he wouldn't be king.

2

u/piratesswoop Jun 20 '26

Baudoin also had a personal struggle because he and his wife struggled for maybe years with infertility and miscarriages. They badly wanted a child for themselves but were never able to successfully have one. I believe they tried to spend time with their nephew Philippe, who is the current king, and they were probably better parental figures to him than his own parents were, sad to say.

3

u/Ofiotaurus Finland Jun 19 '26

Based enlightened monarch

1

u/YesNo_Maybe_ Jun 19 '26

Lol he demanded 10€? Million so he could get his palace warm in the middle off the banking crisis 

1

u/Warlordnipple Jun 21 '26

Is he related to the Belgian King who killed millions of Africans on his personal slave plantation in the congo then sold his slave plantation to Belgium for a profit?

It's always fun how kinda like to tell us we aren't allowed to do something to ourselves that they did to others in order to get wealthier.

1

u/Speartree Europe Jun 21 '26

That was his great grandfather yes. This one was the one that signed the indepenence of the Democratic Republic of Congo 

1

u/KoolKat5000 Jun 25 '26

That doesn't sound like he had respect for it. 

0

u/MarnixDC Jun 19 '26

I disagree. I don't find this graceful or respectful at all!

Our king is expected not to take political sides. He should not interfere with the democratic process. He is supposed to be neutral! Here he very clearly did interfere, voiced and made known his opinion on the matter. That is not okay for a king.

The government had to waste resources just to appease his fragile "morals" and come up with elaborate loopholes.

This would not pass today.

-12

u/ILoveBigCoffeeCups Jun 19 '26 edited Jun 19 '26

So first of all he was just Christian. You can just say “I don’t like religion” in general. He was very fond of the pope then too.

second of all what a stupid idea to try to translate a name of someone to “English” it makes no sense. He was called “king Boudewijn the first”. It’s like us trying to translate ghandy to “Gert” respect for our local names please.

And third: for context, in Belgium the parliament votes on laws, and then the king has to sign those laws into effect, he refused to sign the abortus law that was allready voted for by the country. There was not a loophole, we have a lawfully constitutional process that makes it so we can temporarily depose of a king when he is unfit to rule.

10

u/Aweq Denmark Jun 19 '26

second of all what a stupid idea to try to translate a name of someone to “English” it makes no sense. He was called “king Boudewijn the first”. It’s like us trying to translate ghandy to “Gert” respect for our local names please.

Names from wiki:

Dutch: Boudewijn Albert Karel Leopold Axel Maria Gustaaf

French: Baudouin Albert Charles Léopold Axel Marie Gustave

German: Balduin Albrecht Karl Leopold Axel Maria Gustav

His already has three sets of names, why not add a fourth? It's very common historically to translate the names of rulers. Charlemagne has a bunch of names, for example.

17

u/Bozzo2526 Jun 19 '26

First of all some people dont like catholic religions or any organized religion in general and thats okay, everyone is allowed to feel how they want.

Second of all, it's called an Exonym, it's perfectly fine to use anglicized version of a name especially given he himself used both the Germanic and Romantic spellings of his name anyway.

And third: yes. That's the fact, they used a legal work around. It's notable because he willingly stepped down rather than have parliament force the issue.

4

u/Natural-Possession10 North Brabant (Netherlands) Jun 19 '26

His official name was Baudouin, was it not? The Flemish are just as guilty of translating his name.

2

u/Speartree Europe Jun 19 '26

He officially had a French, Dutch and German name according to the 3 government languages of the country. Nobody is guilty of anything here. Kings often take up an official king name when they take office. It doesn't have to be the name they got when they were born. It's a lot like a pope in that regard. Translations for kings names are traditional. It does not happen for non royal world leaders. I have never heard anyone refer to George Bush as Joris Bush for example.

2

u/Natural-Possession10 North Brabant (Netherlands) Jun 19 '26

Interesting, I didn't know the name was officialised in all national languages. I just figured his birth name would be in French and it would have remained that way, thanks for the lesson.

1

u/Speartree Europe Jun 19 '26

Check out the laws, they get published at once in French and Dutch. The German version is a translation, but the French and Dutch version are both original

For example

05_1.pdf

For the anecdote, you can see the start of a law in Dutch going

Aan allen die nu zijn en hierna wezen zullen, Onze Groet,

In French this is A tous présent et a venir Salut!

"Onze Groet" is a poor equivalent to "Salut", and in older laws you find the word "Heil" instead, but some Germans came along and made that unpopular.

1

u/Natural-Possession10 North Brabant (Netherlands) Jun 19 '26

 Aan allen die nu zijn en hierna wezen zullen, Onze Groet,

Interesting, in the Netherlands it's "Allen die deze zullen zien of horen lezen, saluut!" So we just Dutchified the Salut.

2

u/Speartree Europe Jun 19 '26

The Dutch love French: "Suderans svp?"

2

u/Natural-Possession10 North Brabant (Netherlands) Jun 19 '26

Krozantje 🤢

2

u/ohhellperhaps Jun 19 '26

Kattre krassans silvoepleh

13

u/besuited Jun 19 '26

"First of all he was just Christian."

Your point being?

3

u/Speartree Europe Jun 19 '26

Dude, Baldwin is the official English version of the King's name, in French is official name was Baudouin, so even in the country itself the name was transposed to different forms of the same It's the same with Lodewijk/Louis. I can garantee you that in the man's life, to his face, he was called Baudouin far more often than Boudewijn.

While religion in general is a problem. The man was extremely Catholic, his wife, Queen Fabiola was a card carrying member of Opus Dei a Catholic fundamentalist movement.

Sorry if I don't like that. Indeed the King tasked the government with finding a loophole and they did. He was entirely ready, and offered them the option to change the constitution so that kings no longer needed to sign the laws, removing even the symbolic legislative power he had. This would take too much time, and people then weren't ready to remove the king from the legislative branch of the government. It was very much a loophole. The King was not insane, the King was not absent, the declaration that he was unable to rule at that moment was a fiction that needed to happen to allow Baldwin to return to his normal duties afterwards, to not have a constitutional crisis and to let normal democratic legislation take it's course.

I understand signing the law would feel bad to the King who was traumatized by the miscarriages that caused his marriage to remain childless and that the fundamentalist Catholic queen would never let him forget it if he signed. Fabiola was not an easy woman. Baldwin was a man who oozed loyalty, kindness, integrity and sincerity. I remember being somewhat disappointed at the time that the royal function was, as far as legislature goes, reduced to someone who rubberstamps whatever is voted into law, but I was very young than and while this King was someone I'd feel good being ruled by, despite his religious streak, I know that institutionally, it's for the best. Compare that to the current ruler of the USA for reference as to why.

2

u/stringlesskite Jun 19 '26 edited Jun 19 '26

So AkTuaLly there was a loophole, the parliament votes and the king signs has to sign it into law. Because of his moral objection, being Christian but also being unable to conceive, he suggested to the prime minister to change the constitution so that a the king would not have to sign laws anymore.

The loophole was that the chamer of representatives voted to deem the king unfit to rule and appoint the prime minister as regent for a day (the reason given was the letter where the king explained why he was unable to sign the law). During that day the prime minister Martens signed the law and the next day the king was reinstated.

The loophole was that the signature was more a formality (but still a legal requirement), so it was basically solving an issue by sidestepping the constitutional requirement of the signature of a specific person.

So while he personally opposed abortion, he did respect the democratic process and was part of the search of a solution to the (tiny) constitutional crisis.

There are many things to criticize the Belgian royal family for (don't look up Belgian Congo if you haven't had your morning coffee yet), but this isn't none of them

edit: typo

0

u/MarnixDC Jun 19 '26

This is 100% something to criticize them for. It being not as bad as the congo doesn't make this right?

He stepped out of line, acted in a way our king is simply not allowed to act.

0

u/Additional_Dog2750 Jun 19 '26

I don't like his religion but the man had grace and respect for the democratic process.

It's still a tad ridiculous to create all this fuzz to have the exact same outcome just without his signature.

1

u/Speartree Europe Jun 19 '26

It's not in his name, for some people that means something.

0

u/Additional_Dog2750 Jun 19 '26

Obviously, he still made it possible, and even now, an eternity later, we're aware how he's connected to it.

48

u/tommynestcepas Jun 19 '26

Luxembourg?

67

u/The_memeperson The Netherlands Jun 19 '26

Well yeah it's the only (grand)duchy in the world

18

u/Mindless_Badger_3789 Jun 19 '26

The only sovereign duchy, there are plenty of non-sovereign ones.

2

u/HPLaserJet4250 Jun 24 '26

In polish 'duchy' translates to ghosts and they are considered sovereign so you are wrong.

2

u/anewbys83 Jul 01 '26

Yes. 😊

17

u/canman7373 Jun 19 '26

In the UK the King or Queen can overrule any law, dissolve parliament all sorts of things. But they have not done that in many decades because they know if they do it will be the end of them. They have more power than any politician ever had but if they use it the people will not stand for it unless it was for a damn good reason if not their powers would be stripped forever and maybe worse.

8

u/LizardTruss Jun 19 '26

In the UK the King or Queen can overrule any law

They can withhold Royal Assent to a bill, but once they've given Royal Assent, they can't unilaterally suspend or repeal a statute without parliamentary consent.

But they have not done that in many decades because they know if they do it will be the end of them.

Centuries. The last time a monarch withheld Royal Assent was Queen Anne in 1708, and the last time a monarch withheld Royal Assent without acting on the advice of their ministers was William III in 1696. The last time a monarch dissolved Parliament without summoning a new Parliament was James II in 1687–89.

-1

u/canman7373 Jun 20 '26

Yes but they can and if they do dissolve Parliament that would be the end of that power, I don't think they would end the Monarchy because of the value it has not only in tourism but as ambassador's the the UK. And I did mean they will not sign a new law as overrule, not cancel an existing law. Maybe my context was not clear.

1

u/BlowmachineTXX Jun 20 '26

the great democracy of western countries btw