Germany Does Not Favour Belgian King

By GEORGE GLASGOW
PEW 'men surely have been so maligned as has King Leopold of the Belgians. The mere
fact that he stayed with his people to share their fate under German occupation, rather than accept a ready means of escape such as was not open to the meanest of his subjects, has exposed him to calumny. Even the fact that last year he took to himself a wife was chalked up against him : for did it not prove that he was happy and content to settle down under German tyranny? When, finally, it was known that his bride was a Flemish girl, the cup was full. Leopold was roundly added to the sum total of extant quislings: or was so added by the shallow commentators, outside of Belgium, who neither knew nor wanted to know the facts.
The main fact was that the German authorities planted as many quislings as they could in the King's entburage in the hope both that they might seduce the King, and that in any event they could spread stories about his proGerman sentiments.
Another of the relevant facts was that the Cardinal Archbishop Of Malines, the King's adviser, was'as firm as ever in his belief that Belgium would for a second time survive without stain the German attempt to obliterate her national individuality.
But the most curious fact of all, not noticed by those who slandered a courageous King, was that the German press had made no song about Leopold. as it assuredly would have if Leopold had given the slightest encouragement to the view that he had become " pro-German."
POSITIVE SIDE "s
It is now passible to add sramething positive to that negative piece of evidence. German newspapers that have now reached this country reveal the fact that the former silence about King Leopold has been broken. The King's pavane' festival fell due again on November 15, and therefore the German authorities had to decide what celebrations were to be allowed. Was King Leopold persona grata or not?
The German newspapers answer the question in the negative when they re
port that same regulations were issued alseur the 1942 festival as about the 1941 festival: namely, that manifestations and the hanging-out of flags were forbidden ; but that the holding of services and the singing of a Te Delon were allowed.
The interesting thing is that the Belgian people were forced to express their feelings for their King without the help of bunting and hands in the streets.
At Brussels the Te Deunr was duly sung in the Collegiate Church of Saints Michael and Gudula. The church was packed, among those present being 'the Secretaries-General, the Ministers of State, the Echevins and Burgomaster, and many judges. The newly-constituted Great Liege a few days earlier had held the first meeting of its Burgomaster and Echevins, who drew up a loyal address to the King, expressing their deep devotion, not only to the dynasty, but to its "present and worthy representative."
THE " GLOUCESTER SCHOOL "
A curious sort of controversy, however, broke over Liege after November 15. It should always be remembered that Belgian public opinion is partly formed by active pro-German propagandist bodies such as the so-called " Agra " (Amts du Grand Reich Allemand) and " De Vlag " (DultschVlaamsche Arbeirs Gemeenschap), which do exert a certain amount of influence, as does all propaganda in all countries. It happens that at Liege on November 15 the Te Deunt was not sung. Why not?
A violent conflict of speculation broke out in the press. It was officially explained that the Te Deunz had been omitted because the higher clergy of the diocese had been unwilling to admit the local judicial and municipal authorities to the cathedral in their official capacity. But the thinness of such a pretence was promptly exposed by one commentator who declared that in 1941 Mgr. Kerkhofs had welcomed the presence in church of such notorious freemasons as MM. Buisseret and Jennissen and could not, therefore, in 1942 be accused of squeamishness about whom to admit and whom not.
A quaint note of suspicion was introduced by a suggestion that the Bishop of Liege had become anti-Leopold, favoured a change of dynasty, and advocated the summoning of the British Duke of Gloucester to the Belgian throne.
What the truth is about Liege on November 15 cannot yet be known. By a coincidence, it happened that the Bishop of Tournai, Mgr. Rasneur, sent a circular to all the priests of his di& cese forbidding them to celebrate the King's patronal festival. Not a single Te Deutn was sung in that whole diocese, which includes Mons. An ironical, and enlighteningly mischievous, question was asked in one newspaper: namely, did the Bishop of Tournai deliberately want to convey to the faithful the news that the Occupying Power had forbidden prayers to be said for the King in the churches, or did he really belong to the Gloucester school?
What emerges plainly is that Leopold is no favourite of the Germans, that the Germans did all they could to damp down the patriotic demonstration of Belgian devotion to him, and that the King personally is as fully vindicated in 1942 as be was in 1940.