Talk:Albert II, Prince of Monaco

Renamed

renamed to follow wikipedia naming conventions. FearÉIREANN 22:26 28 May 2003 (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: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. - 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)

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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Prince Albert II of Monaco at the Enthronement of Naruhito (1) fix.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Use of surname

An edit war has now begun to assert that "Grimaldi" should be added where the prince's full name is given. There is no reliable source for that and I will revert it again tomorrow unless a good reason is given here not to. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

This also affects other members of the House of Grimaldi, who had the removal of "Grimaldi" reverted. 2601:249:9301:D570:38CF:2358:328E:C8EF (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Britannica gives Prince Albert's full name including the surname. Векочел (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

His government does not. That, to me, is what we go by. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Except when it does. I do not think we should mislead readers into thinking that Albert and his family do not have a surname. Surtsicna (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

"illegitimate" children

The article currently has a header Relationships and illegitimate children. Referring to children as illegitimate is biased -- they are legitimately children -- and quite dated, as children born outside of wedlock are quite standard these days. (Just as an example: the first child on the list was born in the US, where 40% of children are born outside of wedlock.) There is absolutely no reason to be demeaning the children in this manner, for events that they had no control over. May I suggest Non-marital relationships and resulting children as a header instead? Or possibly simply Paternity claims? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. "There are no illegitimate children – only illegitimate parents". (Leon Rene Yankwich) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Without objection, I changed it to Paternity claims. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Well done! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC of interest

(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) 19:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Billionaire

I just had to eliminate one of the sources used to establish his US$1 billion + evaluation, as it was a WP:FORBESCON article and thus not usable on a WP:BLP. I do not have Forbes access, so I cannot tell which of the information in the statement is referenced there. However, this evaluation is a problem, as it is greater than a decade old and thus cannot be trusted for the current situation. (I did put a date on it.) This also brings into question his inclusion in Category:Monegasque billionaires, as even if the more-than-a-billion evaluation stands, it is possible for him not to be a Monegasque billionaires because Monaco is based not on the dollar but the more-valuable euro, and it is possible he is worth less than a billion euros. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I've not managed to catch the details on the new page before the paywall block popped up, and it evaluated him at a flat $1 billion. One might guess he gained money in the ensuing years, and thus qualify as a euro-billionaire, but guesses ain't factses. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)