Talk:Albert II of Belgium

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

Untitled[edit]

Jtdirl removed the following:

(Redacted)

which had been added by User:195.144.90.46. Jtdirl stated on that user's talk page, "They are extremely serious allegations for which no evidence has ever been produced." Which is pretty much exactly what the contributor said in the first place! I am not replacing the statement myself, as I hadn't heard about this, but if there were such rumours, and if they were well-known, then they should be mentioned in the article. Articles should be as complete as possible. -- Oliver P. 03:30, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC) I do not see. not a single word. Why Roi Albert II of Belgium voluntarily resigned. Toist. Many associated with the board DFGHZHK their hopes. We are counting on the mercy of His protection and patronage. Toist. From our personal and independent. But especially .... Here. For example. The Queen Mother in the English kingdom ...195.244.180.59 (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

alteration of the law of succession in Belgium[edit]

... thanks to a 1991 alteration of the law of succession from eldest surviving child to eldest surviving son,

This should be the other way around: now any child, either male or female, can inherit the throne.

Agreed ,the 1991 Act of Succession ,does indeed say the eldest (surviving) child (regardless of gender) ,does ascend the Throne.

Actually, as you word it, should Philip die before his father, the eldest surviving child of the monarch would succeed. That would be Astrid. This is not true. If Philip predeceases then his daughter Elisabeth would become heir to the throne as eldest child of the predeceased crown prince and would become crown princess in her own right between her father's death and her grandfather's death. -- fdewaele 10:40 CET

Article name[edit]

Shouldn't this be at Albert II of the Belgians? Mackensen (talk) 14:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All the articles on "Kings of the Peoplefromcountry" are at "Name Ordinal of Country". john k 15:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Very good. Mackensen (talk) 15:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think that matters. His majesty's official title is "King of the Belgians", after it has been changed on purpose from "King of Belgium" somewhere during the last century, in an effort to make clear that the King should be there for his people, and not the other way around. Ignoring that here seems wrong to me Yoe 16:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I dunno what the hell you're talking about love, but the title has not been "changed on purpose" in the last century. Belgina Monarchs have NEVER been styled 'King of Belgium'. Since it's inception in 1830, the title has always been 'King of the Belgians'. Indisciplined (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is that Belgium is not a single entity, rather the sum of three linguistically-identified province groupings,, Francophone Wallonia, Neerlandophone Flanders and Germanophone Luxemburg (although not the Principality of that name), so defined in a 1968 referendum. The political machine is similarly aligned, fracturing the political landscape into many small parties which result in endless governmental coallitions. It is therefore far more rational to talk of the Belgians as an alliance held together by a Constitutional Monarchy rather than as a single Nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.50.39 (talk) 04:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overloading article[edit]

to Wilfried Derksen. You are overloading the article with frames which are either irrelevant or only slightly relevant at best. It doesn't make easy reading either. -- fdewaele 30 October 2005 16:43 (CET)

Albert II's photo[edit]

The current photo isn't very good at all. His eyes are closed and his mouth wide open. Surely someone can dig up a better one. --91.177.29.205 (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The article looked better with an image of the King. The coin just doesn't do the article justice. GoodDay 22:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALL pictures of the Belgian royal family are - according to Belgian law - in the public domain and need no reference whatsoever; so please someone put it back!

It is generally aknowledged that: Since the state pays ANY member of the Belgian royal family an annual sum of money IN ORDER TO FULLFILL THEIR PUBLIC FUNCTION all of their pictures are in the public domain as well.There has been a row recently over prince Laurent who wanted to sell some PRIVATE pictures of his family: He was publicly corrected by prime minister Verhofstadt! 81.245.170.52 15:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all pictures of the Belgian royal family are in the public domain. Most of them belong to news agencies.--Ganchelkas 10:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone change the picture? I don't find it appropriate that the king of Belgium is standing next to George Bush in the main picture.--Oliver92Tom 19:07, 1 April 2007 (CET)

Don't worry, I'm sure the President doesn't mind being seen standing next to such a person. It doesn't demean the President, it only enhances the King, if it helps you to look at it this way. Danthemankhan 05:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The picture should be changed. President Bush and the First Lady are not needed here, valuable as they are elsewhere. In fact it may not even be necessary to have a picture of the Queen on this article which is about Albert II. And I believe that we on Wikipedia can do better than the photo of the King on the article "Monarchy of Belgium".Marktunstill (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be more desirable to have a picture of just the King. The only reason I initially put this picture up is because I knew for sure that it was in the public domain. --Msl5046 (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a postage stamp of Albert II which is a rather dignified likeness. I will see if I can upload it to the article with a view to replacing the current picture. Marktunstill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.206.255 (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Belgian postage stamps are not in the public domain so I've put in a pic which is.Marktunstill (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have put the old picture back. Not because I am a fan of President Bush —although I do find it childish to delete the picture just because it has Mr Bush in it—, but because I doubt the person in the previous picture really is King Albert II. I think it is some look-alike pretending to be the Belgian King. King Albert II has a different hair-colour. Ivo von Rosenqvist (talk) 07:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have put the new picture back. Although I am interested in your opinion, "I think it is some look-alike...", you cite no authority in support. Mr Bush is very welcome in the appropriate circumstances as is Mrs Bush, as is the Queen; however this is an article about the King, not the group in the photo. If you would kindly try to find another pic of the King in the public domain for further discussion that would be constructive.Marktunstill (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You must agree that is rather difficult to find a decent written source that accurately describes the Belgian King's hair-colour. Nonetheless, how do you explain that the King's hair-colour is much lighter in the current picture than it is in this recent picture? Did he dye his hair? Ivo von Rosenqvist (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as to the dye only a hairdresser could tell and I cannot help as far as that is concerned. However, the current picture is outdoors and the [very dignified] one in this recent picture is indoors (in rather sombre surroundings). Why not ask the photographer who gave permission to use the current photo about it? Marktunstill (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the photographer. I also had a look at the other photographs he uploaded. Apart from the photograph of King Albert II, the contributor also uploaded a rather suspicious-looking photograph of Queen Paola, and a photograph of the Princess Marie-Esméralda. The latter is hardly a public figure in Belgium. On being asked, a majority of the Belgians would fail to recognize her. On this photograph however one can see the Princess Marie-Esméralda. She is the second person from the right. Do you see any resemblance between the two women?
I think the person who uploaded the photographs might be a prankster. Perhaps we could ask someone who knows anything about the Belgian army whether the King's uniform cap is authentic. Ivo von Rosenqvist (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, come to a consensus between you and stop the endless reverting of each other. Perhaps President and Mrs. Bush could be cropped out of the photo? Danthemankhan 15:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On further review it appears that wouldn't result in a very large picture. But I'm sure you guys can come to an amicable, mutually-agreeable solution. Danthemankhan 15:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is really odd is that we on Wikipedia don't seem able to obtain a good likeness of the King which is in the public domain! Any chance anyone can go and attend the King on a public occasion and take a snap for the article please? I'm 4,500 miles away from Belgium but if he comes here (FL) I'll have a go! Marktunstill (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contacting authorities[edit]

  • We may write the King's public relations secretary (or whoever is responsible for dealing with the public), and I am sure that they will be able to provide us with a decent portrait of the King in an official pose and attire.

We are unable to find a picture better than this disgraceful one because the official sources (such as the royal family webiste) have only tiny and quite outdated photos of the king (when posing alone). As for images from elsewhere - we basically don't even need non-public domain photos (i.e. from news agencies etc.), since they wouldn't represent the King in offical attire and pose - which is the only way to represent a monarch in an encyclopaedia. Those that do represent him in such manner are definitely in the PD, as perscribed by Belgian law. Such photographs can only be obtained, I think, from official royal or government sources by writing to them, as mentioned above. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albert II descends from the Sun King![edit]

It was a hot topic on the Dutch wikipedia but it is true : Albert II is a direct descendant of the Sun King!.

This is why:

Albert II of Belgium descends from Albert I of Belgium, son of Prince Philippe, Count of Flanders,son of Louise-Marie of France, daughter of the last French king : Louis-Philippe of France.

He is a son of Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans,son of Louis Philippe I, Duke of Orléans, son of Louis of Bourbon, Duke of Orléans. He is a son of "Francoise-Marie de Bourbon, Mademoiselle de Blois" (French Wikipedia article about her : [1]). She is a daughter of Louis XIV of France.

Evilbu 21:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but what's the extra informational value of this particular descend? Why is it exceptionally noteworthy? None methinks. After all, Albert descends from the Swedish monarchs, etcetera as well... After all, all European monarchs are related to each other and to renowned predecessors. Why not start mentioning all other renowned monarchs he's decended from? -- fdewaele, 27 October 2006, 20:00 CET
Yeah why not? We could make a "Trivia" section about it or something. It's just that the Sun King is pretty influential. And when it comes to monarchs, their ancestry is usually what they are about so... Evilbu 18:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So is just about every Catholic royal person in Europe, and a lot of the Protestant ones too..... It's not that special in those circles. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Political Info[edit]

Could someone add information about Albert as a king? This article as it stands now, shows only basic geneological information, which, while informative, doesn't really say anything about him as a king. Morhange 00:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such information, for a very good reason: the Belgian constitution explicitly excludes the King from any politics. His children, the princes and princesses, however, do have a right to sit in the Belgian Senate (Prince Philippe and his sister, Princess Astrid, are currently both doing so) Yoe 16:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not correct. The King DOES have a political role. He's head of state. The Belgian Constitution clearly describes it. In practice, however, the Belgian Government is acting as "The King" as described in the Constitution. I'm not a specialist but The King is still personally involved in politics for the following : LEGISLATIVE : 1. The King gives Royal assent to every law. When the King Baudouin refused to do so for the law legalising abortion, he abdicated for 2 days in order to let the law be signed by the Ministers only. 2. The Kings children have a seat in Belgian Parliament (the Senate). EXECUTIVE : 1. He appoints the "Formateur". This is the perosn in charge of creating a new Government after elections for PArliament have take place. 2. In some cases (when the creation of the Government is difficult - this is very possible in complicated country as Belgium), the King kan also appoint an "Informateur" who will later on assist the King to appoint a "Formateur" with more chances to get a new Government. 3. The Government is formally appointed by the King. In practice, though, it's an agreement between political parties. 4. The King co-signs every executive decision of the Governement JUDICIAL : 1. The King can pardon convicts. It seldom happens, but it does.

Anti-royalist "games".

























Russian special services.














































In particular . 

























Disrespectful statements by Russian diplomats.


























Separation of playing roles.


























Diplomats from the Federal Security Service.


























Outspoken anti-royalists.


























Diplomats from the Department of Defense.


























Quasi pro-pro - royalists.


























With their "bearish services".
So .




























What i said


























By the way .


























The King Albert Second.


























Retired ... Why?


























Student2345678 (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Health[edit]

Recently, Albert fell a broke his hip. Can someone add this to the article (with appropiate citation)? GoodDay 20:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

full name[edit]

Do we really have to give his full name in three nearly identical forms at the very beginning of the article before even saying who he is? Even having to include the Dutch and, especially, German forms at all seems essentially superfluous - the guy is a native French speaker, and his full name is never used by anyone anyway. But certainly having to include all three forms, none of which are ever used, as the first piece of information in the article is genuinely ridiculous. john k (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boel allegations[edit]

I have moved this paragraph to its own section near the bottom of the article, although even that might be too much emphasis for information from this patently unreliable source. (The real story was over the reaction to it, not the allegations themselves.) It does not belong in the "Marriage and family" section by any stretch, since -- even in the unlikely event it was true -- an unacknowledged illegitimate child is not part of the family. 192.31.106.34 (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Delphine Boël has claimed in an interview that she is indeed King Albert's daughter, this article is incorrect to state that she made no comment. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I look at pictures of her I think that she looks a lot like her grandmother Queen Astrid. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Godparents[edit]

Are his godparents so significant that they need to be mentioned in the opening paragraph ? Isn't that odd ? -- Beardo (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being godparents seems to be a big thing in those (royalty) circles. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saxe-Coburg & Gotha[edit]

I don't think the King and the Duke of Brabant are in line to the former throne of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha. During World War I King Albert I and his descendants were removed from the succession in that Duchy. 87.208.3.170 (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct-the 1917 House Law of the Ducal House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha specifically excluded those from succession to the (then existant) throne who had fought against the German Empire-so that would exclude both the Belgian and the British royal families, though not the Bulgarian or Portuguese or any of the other branches of the Ducal House.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is right. The Portuguese branch however is extinct now. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, but it wasn't in 1917.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. You are right about that, but the whole issue became moot just one year later when the Duchy was abolished. By the way, I have removed the Saxe-Coburg part from the succession box in the article since reading your comment. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have also removed the Belgians from the article about the succession in the Wettin monarchies. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-Yes; and it became doubly moot when the Portuguese branch became extinct in 1920.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed BLP violation[edit]

I have just removed a completely unsourced, massive BLP violation from the "marriage and family" section. Without clear and extremely specific direct sourcing for each fact in that paragraph (and by that I mean every fact must be referenced to a reliable source, and inline references must be given, and those references must be to specific pages of reliable books, newspapers, or websites and not just to the book or newspaper or website in general), this must not be re-added. Our rules for biographies of living persons are very clear in this: no matter how well-known editors think such "facts" are, they absolutely must not remain under any circumstance unless they are clearly sourced, with footnotes attached to the sentences in question, to reliable, disinterested third parties. --NellieBly (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdication[edit]

After the abdication King Albert II will keep the title King and will not revert to prince. (http://www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/binnenland/130702_troonswissel_interessanteweetjes and http://www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/videozone/reax%2Btroonsafstand%2BAlbert%2BII/MV_130703_TA_Orshoven but only available in Dutch) He will only not be king in the constitutional sense. Also, when the King's address was taped, there were four journalists (one for each of the four major networks) invited to attend it. According to them, as stated in the TV journals, the King offered a little drink afterwards and spoke with them after the taping and he himself confirmed to them that, with the example of his father Leopold III in mind, he will keep the title "King" because otherwise it would be too awkward. So no reverting to the lesser title as is for instance the custom in the Netherlands (Wilhelmina, Juliana and Beatrix)-- fdewaele, 3 July 2013, 20:17 (CET)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Albert II of Belgium. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Albert II of Belgium. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Albert II of Belgium. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Albert II of Belgium. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is she Albert II's daughter?[edit]

@Helsing90: argues that Delphine Boel is not Albert II's daughter. What say you all? GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have never say that! I said that Delphine Boel isn't legally Albert II's daughter, she is the biological daughter only. The legal father of Delphine Boël is still Jacques Boël, there is a trial in June to determine if Delphine Boël can legally be the daughter of Albert II. Indeed, the court have to decide if the prescription has not yet arrived. In Belgium, this is not the DNA who decide the filiation, it is the law. If you want the truth, you can go on the WP:FR and the website of de Belgian Monarchie. btw --Helsing90 (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She still belongs in the infobox with Albert II's other children, no matter what the court decision is. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay I see what Helsing90 tried to say, but in all honesty, it is a bit far fetched. I have updated it. So by law, she is not yet "his" daughter (he is not her "legal" father, but this is really far fetched. This has to do with legal issues such as an inheritance and so on. Biologically she is 100% sure his daughter. So she deserves to be on this page. In my opinion she deserves to be in the infobox, but with a note. The link Helsing90 gave about the monarchie: sorry, but common, that is a shitty link. The chances of that link ever include her are slim to none as she is born outside his official marriage and I doubt they are going to add her on that website.Garnhami (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The note is unhelpful. It does not clarify anything but merely marks her as illegitimate, which is wrong. The parameter says "issue", which, by definition, includes all biological children. If she is a biological daughter of Albert, she belongs there. Surtsicna (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surtsicna it is not that I do not agree she has to be there, she does, however it is a bit more complicated. I have added it to the text anyway. If you think a note is not in place, ok... however I do not agree on it. I also have no clue why the links you gave me should demonstrate that a not is not appropriateGarnhami (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reading @Helsing90:'s post at the talkpage of Delphine Boel, I'm beginning to get the impression that his opposition is mostly based on emotion. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay it is not about «emotion», it is about the truth! Delphine Boel has a good reputation in Belgium, so it is not the question. But the law is the law sorry! --Helsing90 (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is arguing that she's a royal or that she's in the line of succession. She belong in this article's infobox with Albert II's other children, legal or not. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection[edit]

In response to a request made at WP:RFPP, I've applied full protection for two days to allow a cooling-off period. It is doubtful this could be extended, however, so the next 48 hours should be constructively used by the involved parties at some serious effort at resolution such as opening a WP:RFC on the paternity question. Chetsford (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Full name[edit]

I don't see Albert's full name anywhere in the article. According to a google search, Britannica says his full name is: Albert Félix Humbert Théodore Christian Eugène Marie of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Usually on pages of royalty, at least, somewhere is told the person's full name any middle name(s) listed. 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:544F:E012:2320:EFE4 (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC of interest[edit]

(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albert_II_of_Belgium&oldid=1216970061"