Belgium’s royal rebel
QUESTION Why did King Baudouin of Belgium refuse to sign the country’s Abortion Act? What were the ramifications? King Baudouin (1930-93) and his Queen Fabiola were an enigma, rarely seen in public, giving few speeches and avoiding the pomp and ceremony enjoyed by many of Europe’s other royals.
Baudouin, a 6ft tall, gaunt aristocrat, appeared ill at ease in his role as king and generally sought to remove the monarchy as much as possible from political life. But he came into conflict with his government over his strong religious conviction (he had once harboured the desire to be a Trappist monk) when the abortion act went through parliament in 1990.
Belgium was one of the few remaining countries where abortion was illegal: the law liberalising abortion was enacted by parliament, despite objections by the Roman Catholic Church.
King Baudouin, being a Catholic, informed Prime Minister Wilfried Martens that his conscience wouldn’t allow him to sign the law. His refusal could have precipitated a constitutional crisis, pitting monarchy
Compiled by Charles Legge against the government, but this was averted by the Belgian government declaring that the king wasn’t competent to reign.
it assumed his powers and ratified the law. The decision was reversed on the following day, with the king re-instated.
Some authorities claimed Baudouin’s act was a strong moral stance, and the Vatican described it as a ‘noble and courageous choice’ dictated by a ‘very strong moral conscience’. others claimed it was little more than a populist gesture.
The clause in the Belgian constitution to which the government had resorted had been included to cover eventualities such as the monarch being incapacitated by illness or insanity. The only other time when the government had taken over the king’s powers was in 1940 when Baudouin’s father, Leopold iii, remained behind with the army in Belgium after the nazi occupation while the Cabinet fled to London.
Leopold, suspected of collaboration with the occupiers, was never permitted to return to the throne and gave way to his 20-year-old son in 1950 after a tumultuous referendum. David Albury, Edinburgh.
QUESTION Is it really true that India withdrew from the 1950 World Cup finals because FIFA refused to let their players play barefoot? BRITISH colonialists introduced football in india in the late 19th century, and it became very popular in Bengal, where the major indian football clubs of today were born: Mohun Bagan in 1889; Mohammedan Sporting in 1891 and East Bengal in 1924.
indian football had a distinctly indigenous element in that players chose to play barefoot. The national team played barefoot at the 1948 olympics in London, performing well, particularly against France to whom they lost only 2-1. in 1950, FiFa chose to offer one of the 16 places in the Brazilian World Cup to an asian team. indonesia, Philippines and Burma withdrew, leaving india as automatic qualifiers. at the draw in Rio de Janeiro in May 1950, india was placed in group C with italy, Sweden and Paraguay.
at this stage the all india Football Federation (aiFF) decided to pull out of the tournament. FiFa had made it clear to india that it would not be allowed to play barefoot, and this gave rise to the oftrepeated legend. The truth is, however, a little more prosaic.
in fact, the aiFF withdrew because it didn’t consider the World Cup an important competition. The trip to Brazil would have required substantial organisation and expenditure; France had already pulled out for this reason. But beyond the financial difficulties came the aiFF’s failure to appreciate the importance of competition.
The aiFF regarded the olympics as a much more prestigious competition. Sailen Manna, india’s most famous footballer, later stated in an interview: ‘We had no idea about the World Cup then. Had we been better informed, we would have taken the initiative ourselves. For us, the olympics was everything. There was nothing bigger.’
Manna also believed that the aiFF later used the barefoot legend to obscure their decision not to take part. With the rise of cricket, particularly following the 1983 Cricket World Cup victory, indian football has gone from bad to worse, their current FiFa ranking is an abysmal 154th.
Sam Cargill, Brentford, West London.