WI Belgian Royal Family is killed by Nazis in 1944?

In 1944, the Belgian royal family was deported to Nazi Germany, where they were kept, strictly guarded by 70 members of the SS, under harsh conditions. The family suffered from a deficient diet and lived with the fear that they would be massacred by their jailers, as an act of revenge on the part of the Nazis, angered at their defeat ( by now becoming increasingly certain ) by the Allies, or that they would be caught in the cross-fire between Allied forces and their captors, who might try to make a desperate last stand at the site of the royal family's internment. The family's fears were not unfounded. At one point, a Nazi official tried to give them cyanide, pretending it was a mixture of vitamins to compensate for the captives' poor diet during their imprisonment. Lilian and Leopold, however, were rightly suspicious and did not take the pills or give them to their children.
WI they had took the pills and the entire Royal family died? What happens then? Who gets the Belgian throne? How are things evolve if Leopold III and his children die? Any thoughts?
 
More probably there would be a republic after the war.

Wasnt a younger brother of Leopold III named Charles still living in 1944-1945? He was regent in Belgium in 1945 if i remember correctly... He could have become King Charles I of Belgium after the tragic death of the royal family...
 
Wasnt a younger brother of Leopold III named Charles still living in 1944-1945? He was regent in Belgium in 1945 if i remember correctly... He could have become King Charles I of Belgium after the tragic death of the royal family...

yes, though I think he was taken by the Nazis as well. if not you're right, If I'm right they had a sister Marie-José, the last Queen of Italy :eek:

under the male-only line of the Belgian kings (could be broken given the death of the closest heirs) the heir would be, Edward Duke of Windsor

(there are no male-line heirs of Leopold I if both Leopold III & Charles die, so I went to the line of his oldest brother, Ernest I, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, father of Albert, Prince Consort)
 
Wasnt a younger brother of Leopold III named Charles still living in 1944-1945? He was regent in Belgium in 1945 if i remember correctly... He could have become King Charles I of Belgium after the tragic death of the royal family...

Correct.

I'm not sure who would succeed him though, unless he married and had children. The idea that Belgium would become a republic when it didn't in the face of the return of an unpopular king is unlikely and the idea that Belgium would be divided between it's neighbours, something which would be opposed by politicians in Britain, America, France and The Netherlands, not to mention the Belgian government and people, is either sarcasm or arrant nonsense.
 
yes, though I think he was taken by the Nazis as well. if not you're right, If I'm right they had a sister Marie-José, the last Queen of Italy :eek:

under the male-only line of the Belgian kings (could be broken given the death of the closest heirs) the heir would be, Edward Duke of Windsor

(there are no male-line heirs of Leopold I if both Leopold III & Charles die, so I went to the line of his oldest brother, Ernest I, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, father of Albert, Prince Consort)

Edward Duke of Windsor died childless in 1972... Assuming that Charles still marries morganatically succession would have fall upon Elizabeth II... Or in male line the heir would be Richard 2nd Duke of Gloucester... Interesting...
 
Royals are allowed to adopt an heir - this is especially the case if there is no male representative of the entire line left.

You can see this with Bernadotte in Sweden, with various Indian monarchs throughout history until the British fucked them over it, and also with Maximilian in Mexico

IIRC it can also be done within dynasties, did it not happen in Rumania ?

Its a formal thing, but once done its as good as law

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Correct.

I'm not sure who would succeed him though, unless he married and had children. The idea that Belgium would become a republic when it didn't in the face of the return of an unpopular king is unlikely

Why?

OTL, with the royal familly living, there was a referendum on whether to becaome a repiblic or remain a kingdom in belgium. With the death of the royal familly, what makes you think a victory of the republican votes is unlikely?
 
some notes on belgium royal family
they from House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Germany)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha

during WW2 were next to Leopold III in the succession-line
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Succession_to_the_Belgian_Throne
woman no right on succeeded until 1991, were change the constitution

his sons Baudouin and Albert but they were childern
there Prince Alexander halfbrother of Baudouin and Albert
but there historical dispute of he had the right for the succession


next in line was Prince Charles (brother of Leopold III)
he life undercover in Belgium durnig WW2
he was Regent of Belgium after WW2 until 1950
wenn Baudouin was old enough for King.

if the Nazi had killt the family of Leopold III
the prince hab become King Charles the first.
IMHO he had be very good King
 
Why?

OTL, with the royal familly living, there was a referendum on whether to becaome a repiblic or remain a kingdom in belgium. With the death of the royal familly, what makes you think a victory of the republican votes is unlikely?

In the 1950 referendum 57% of Belgians voted to allow Leopold III, a man tainted by rumours of collabaration with the Germans, to keep the throne. In this scenario Leopold and his entire family, wife and children, have been murdered by the Nazis. The combination of post death sympathy for the victims and the desire for a period of renewal and stability are going to counter most arguements for a republic now the main focus of republican ire is dead.
 
Top