AGEOD Forums

In honour of the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo, the government of Belgium announced plans to issue 2 euro coins celebrating the event. The government of France objected noting that the coin contained 'a negative symbol' for some Europeans and 'that the battle was an event with particular resonance in the European collective memory and went beyond being merely an instance of military conflict'. This objection left the Belgians in a bit of a problem as they had already minted 175,000 coins. They noted that the French sell commemorative coins at Waterloo. The Belgian government have now announced today that the coins would be issued as commemorative coins and are now worth 3 euros. Commemorative coins do not require any approvals from other countries. Last year France issued 2 euro coins celebrating the 70th anniversary of D-Day without any objections from Germany. The Germans apparently do not care about the change in their pockets.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31849506

Why would France be able to block use of the Lion Mount as a symbol? Wouldn't the same be true of the Arc de' Triomphe, built to commemorate the French victories under the Directorate and Napoleon? European Union laws seem rather strange.

As a European, I just find it really funny (and great) that 200 years ago the nations of Europe were fighting each other, 100 years ago they were fighting each other even more and now they are bickering about which coins are "inappropriate".

elxaime wrote:Why would France be able to block use of the Lion Mount as a symbol? Wouldn't the same be true of the Arc de' Triomphe, built to commemorate the French victories under the Directorate and Napoleon? European Union laws seem rather strange.

Individual countries within the Eurozone can propose designs for coins. Notes are dealt with on a federal level. The coin design proposals would still need approval from the European Council of Ministers. Belgium either felt that they did not have enough votes on the council or that it was not worth the effort. The 3 Euro coin is reserved for commemorative coins. You are probably correct about the Arc de Triomphe in that it probably would not be approved.

Cameron, for goodness sake get us out of this blasted political mess. In the referendum (so long ago) I voted for a trading union.

This thread reminds me of something...

[ATTACH]33123[/ATTACH]

Franciscus wrote:This thread reminds me of something...

[ATTACH]33123[/ATTACH]

Ha ! ha ! very good +1

I have visited Waterloo, it's very good to see a battlefield where nothing has change. I recommend Hougomont, Plancenoit et the Lion to everybody interested in history.
Our politics don't care about history and wargames, strategy.

Brilliant Belgium - 2 euro coins now cost 3 euro. Excellent business.

Belgium went several years without a government didn't it? - and with no ill effects.

FENRIS wrote:Ha ! ha ! very good +1

I have visited Waterloo, it's very good to see a battlefield where nothing has change. I recommend Hougomont, Plancenoit et the Lion to everybody interested in history.
Our politics don't care about history and wargames, strategy.

That is not quite true. The Lion Mound was built in 1826 with earth excavated from the battle site. The topography of the site has been changed significantly. When the Duke of Wellington visited the battlefield in 1828 he commented, "They have altered my field of battle". The mound was built by King William I of Belgium to mark the spot where his son, the Duke of Orange and future King William II, was wounded.

Le Ricain wrote:That is not quite true. The Lion Mound was built in 1826 with earth excavated from the battle site. The topography of the site has been changed significantly. When the Duke of Wellington visited the battlefield in 1828 he commented, "They have altered my field of battle". The mound was built by King William I of Belgium to mark the spot where his son, the Duke of Orange and future King William II, was wounded.

I wonder if there is any chance they could fix it. It's huge though, so probably
not. It would probably cost a great deal of money to restore the land to how it
really was. I don't like the mound myself. I don't like seeing any field of battle
changed. It dishonors the men who gave their lives there.

LOL the Brits are piling on, now they want to also commemorate 1415 and Agincourt...

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/English-victories-France-Battle-Agincourt/story-26195837-detail/story.html

Not to be outdone, the Turks are celebrating their successful naval defense of the Dardanelles in 1915

http://www.newsadvance.com/news/world/wire/turkey-marks-centenary-of-wwi-naval-victory-in-dardanelles/article_313e7ddf-f1ae-560f-88d7-058ac34b540c.html

I agree but there is Hougoumont, it's true you can't see the "chemin creux" and imagine the surprise for the french cavalry. But it's a nice place to visit.

and this year the historic reconstitution seems to be great. 2015 1815

Really don´t understand the French gov. bias here. I have been to Waterloo, French got a museum, British got a museum and the whole place is one great historic attraction with no bias to any nation. Real shame, that coin looks awesome.

Le Ricain wrote:The mound was built by King William I of Belgium to mark the spot where his son, the Duke of Orange and future King William II, was wounded.

Belgium was founded in 1830.

William was king of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, and Netherlands, or Low Countries was a name that originated during the Burgundy regime of an increasingly larger part of that whole area. (where the Upper parts were in Burgundy Proper).

Southern Netherlands (Spanish Netherlands, Austrian Netherlands) has been the common name of future Belgium, hence, United Kingdom of the Netherlands.

The name Belgium started to emerge during the revolution of the 1780's, when all kinds of new names were invented by patriots (the Northern Netherlands would become the Batavian Republic).

But the Belgians actually dismissed King William, although his son (the future William II) has tried to become King of a separate Belgium in an act of treason, but he was outmanoeuvred by blackmail about his homosexual relations.

All in true spirit of the perfide 19th century dynasties.

On one hand I sympathise with the Belgians, as Carinthia tried to block one of our coin designs for "historical" reasons. On the other hand, Waterloo is a divisive symbol, especially in the eyes of the French. With Belgium right next door, you the coins would quickly start circulating in France proper and with the political situation as it is, I imagine the French were none too pleased at the idea.

As far the legality of the issue, it is made quite clear that a Member State using the euro can raise an objection "if that draft design is likely to create adverse reactions among its citizens", with the voting being done by qualified majority. You can check the legislation in question here. Seeing how the Euro is a common currency, it is only right that such an issue is put to a vote. This is also why Euro coins are generally devoid of national symbols and why the bank notes focus on architecture, rather than individuals.