Talk:Albert II, Prince of Monaco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard.
Please see this page for help with dealing with issues in this article.
WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility / Sports and Games (Rated B-Class)
Crystal personal.svg
P vip.svg Biography portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Azure-Cross-Or-Heraldry.svg
 This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.
Soccerball.svg
 This article is supported by the sports and games work group.
WikiProject European Microstates / Monaco  (Rated B-Class)
Flag of European Microstates.svg
Map of European Microstates.svg Europe portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of European Microstates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Flag of Monaco.svg
 This article is supported by WikiProject Monaco.
WikiProject Olympics (Rated B-Class, High-importance)
OlympicsWP logo.svg
OlympicsWP logo.svg Olympics portal
Albert II, Prince of Monaco is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Version 1.0 Editorial Team     (Rated B-Class)
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
ButtonGreen.svg This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

renamed to follow wikipedia naming conventions. FearÉIREANN 22:26 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Albertii.gif

Nuvola apps important.svg

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_II,_Prince_of_Monaco"