In this document the King said no more about having "scrupulously" saved the fifteen millions. A great deal has been written about this, because elsewhere the King often declared in his most formal manner that not only had he used his own fortune, but also that of my aunt, the Empress Charlotte, in the Congo enterprise.
He might have lost all. If this had been the case, would Belgium have indemnified his children at his death? Certainly not! Fortunately Belgium has been the gainer.
Is it logical that the King's children should be objects of indifference to him?
To finish with the question of the fifteen millions, one fact remains which I cannot pass over, and which will suffice to invalidate the characteristic declaration of the King, if the discovery had not already been made at his death.
About this well-known fact everyone will guess beforehand what I could say....
It is not wise to enlarge on this subject. Age is excusable in its errors, and the disposal of sixty millions will find many willing helpers.
But, truly, whom does one deceive, and by whom is one deceived? Virtuous airs are strangely a matter of circumstance with certain people who lend themselves to an astonishing favouritism, to the detriment of the natural heirs of the King.
However, let us forget this. Let us only remember the material point, which was that the King wished to disinherit his daughters.
Was it right and moral of Belgium to associate herself with this inhuman error and this illegality?
Ought she not to have assumed another line of conduct on behalf of myself and my sisters?