Talk:Grace Kelly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Grace Kelly was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
May 1, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Actors and Filmmakers / Royalty and Nobility (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.
 
WikiProject Pennsylvania (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philadelphia (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject European Microstates / Monaco  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Monaco.
 
WikiProject Women's History (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.

The Queen[edit]

"Queen Elizabeth II flatly refused to attend on the grounds of there being "too many movie stars."[citation needed]" This ought to be removed. It is unsourced, unencyclipedia and sounds rather unlikely. Elizabeth II will attend what her government advises her to attend!

Monaco[edit]

There was really little or small amount actual danger that Monaco would revert to France, though I don't doubt this was evinced as a reason for selecting a fecund bride. A childless prince of Monaco can adopt an heir, and has been able to do so from 1882 to 2002. In 2002 the treaties between France and Monaco were revised to make it clear that even in the event of the death of a prince without an heir, biological or adoptive, the principality would not revert to France, but would remain independent (though in all likelihood it would become a republic). -- Someone else 03:57 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

Would you please update the article to add that? You're right that it's no big deal, but isn't part of the purpose of any encyclopedia to convey some of the social context that makes history more than mere timelines? -- isis 04:47 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)
I'll give it my shot, please do polish it up! --Someone else 07:15 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

"The article is wrong in its claims about Ranier's inability to divorce a wife if she proved 'barren' or about the need to marry a catholic wife. Ranier's family (no, not the younger generation, his precedessors!) led notorious sex lives, regularly having affairs, extra-marital children, multiple divorces, etc. (I think I read somewhere that one of Ranier's parents or grandparents was illegitimate and 'legitimised', but I could be wrong. It was something I read nearly 15 years ago. Was it Ranier himself? ) So the idea that Ranier III had to marry a good catholic girl who could give him children is poppycock. If she couldn't, then as a head of state he could request a Roman Catholic Church annulment or even a Pauline et Petrine Papal Divorce. If it is to enable a catholic monarch to get an heir, the Catholic Church has a long history of bending, twisting and breaking its own rules to help that happen. (They'd have given Henry VIIII his requested annulment if it wasn't for the fact that his Queen didn't want the marriage annulled, her nephew the Holy Emperor made sure His Holiness new that, and that nasty things might happen to His said Holiness if he allowed the Emperor's aunt to be dumped. So the pope promptly changed his mind, say No way, Henry, Henry made a rude gesture back, seized then monasteries, broke from Rome . . . and the rest his history).

As to Someone Else's comment about in the event of their being no heir, Monaco would become a republic, that is exceptionally unlikely. They would be 99.9% certain to keep a monarchy, even if they had to put an add in the Wall Street Journal - 'Wanted, Prince of Monaco. Good Pay. Nice Palace. (Pink). Must be willing to be called Grimaldi. Willingness to marry Brittany Spears a bonus.' For a president would be useless to them. A royal would get them acres of international coverage, bring in rich businessmen to invest and rub shoulders with royalty, etc. Monaco's royals regularly get into newspapers, magazines, onto TV, etc. A President of Monaco would be hardpressed to get to page 40 (three lines mention) in the New York Times and never get them onto Fox, the BBC or MTV. In those situations, monarchy counts in getting you coverage far beyond your own actual status. Monaco without a royal would be pointless, a Switzerland by the sea. They might as well merge with France as become an irrelevant republic. Or maybe invite the Comte de Paris to become their prince. JTD 06:52 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

Monaco doesn't have Salic law, and never had it. It had primogeniture with preference for males, just like the UK, Denmark and Spain. There were fears that the dynasty would become extinct, not because a lack of males, but a lack of children - until a constitutional change in 2002, only direct descendants of the reigning prince could succeed to the throne, siblings and their descendants were excluded. Hence my correction of this page. Erwin 14:36, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Gay icon?[edit]

User TheCustomOfLife is helt-bent on categorizing Grace as a gay icon? What sources may he have for this? Rienzo 19:21, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have no particular problem with her being included in such a category, but it would do wonders in overcoming objections if the content of the article actually said something about her being a gay icon, and explained why. --Michael Snow 17:31, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more! If Grace Kelly should be labeled a gay icon, I and others with me demand an explanation for this. As yet we have no proof at all. It is NOT NPOV to label celebrities arbitrarily! This means that if I in my twisted way FEEL that George W. Bush is my private gay icon for all times, then I will label him as such! Rienzo 22:29, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't know whether Kelly is beloved enough by a segment of the gay community to be considered an icon -- she's not the first actress to spring to mind. But we do all realize that a "gay icon" is someone beloved by a segment of the gay community, rather than someone who is gay and also an icon, right? Grace Kelly may be a gay icon without being gay. Many people are/were. -- Scarequotes 23:59, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
Dammit guys, this is the stupidest edit war I've ever seen. If you have some evidence for why Grace Kelly should be categorized a "Gay Icon" why don't you put it here on the talk page instead of just obnoxiously returning it to the article over and over? I searched google for "Grace Kelly" and "Gay Icon" and every single page is about Judy Garland or Ethel Merman or someone else and only mentions Kelly tangentially. --Chinasaur 04:46, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hear, hear! Rienzo 05:01, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I first categorized her as such, and I tend to agree. I was asked if there was any proof, and I only had an opinion as such. I've been at peace with removing her as a gay icon days, if not weeks, ago. Mike H 01:47, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for piping up Mike H. How many people do you know of who see her as a gay icon? I would've thought it would show up on Google somewhere if it were really a widely held view. I notice you referred people to your talk page sometime earlier in this argument, but I didn't see anything there that would clear this up? --Chinasaur 03:51, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
User:Arkady Rose wanted to let us know: "Grace Kelly is a gay icon, whether you like it or not." I think we all agree that it doesn't matter whether we "like it or not". It matters whether anybody is going to produce any evidence for this being a widely held view. I've never heard of it and I live on the edge of the Castro. I'm sorry if this is condescending, but so far I don't see much reason to give people on the gay icon side of things the benefit of the doubt. I got to this argument late, but from my perspective it appears pretty clear that the anti-icon people have asked repeatedly for some intelligent discussion of this point and the pro-icon people have repeatedly refused to engage in anything more intelligent than an edit war (Mike H aside). --Chinasaur 03:51, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your words! I have asked e.g. David Gerard repeatedly for his reasons to label Grace as a gay icon, but he just reverts my edits arbitrarily. This shows that he hasn't got any proof at all that Grace is a gay icon! David Gerard endorses POV in Wikipedia! Rienzo 10:10, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry,but she is NOT a gay icon. Its always Garland or Merman or Bette Davis or Joan Crawford. And Rienzo,who the heck are you to "demand" anything?--72.154.223.249 (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the significance of........?[edit]

In the middle of the fourth paragraph there appears the following, (Donna Reed won for her role in From Here to Eternity.) Doesn't make sense, and also lacks obvious relevancy to the article. Shall I delete it, or can someone make it grammatical and relevant? Moriori 00:10, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

I believe the point is that the quality of the performance in From Here to Eternity somewhat excuses Kelly's failure to win on her Oscar nomination.--Chinasaur 07:19, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Nope, that's NOT what it says. Furthermore, what does a reference to Donna Reed have to do with an article about Grace Kelly? The text does not establish a connection.Moriori 08:35, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
I know it's not what it SAYS. But wouldn't you agree that's probably the point? Change it for more clarity if you would like, or cut it. Either way seems fine to me. Normally people don't make excuses about only getting an Oscar nomination, so I don't think it's necessary to mention who actually won the award that Grace didn't. On the other hand, I can imagine someone asking "only a nomination? why didn't she win?", in which case the answer is in the article. --Chinasaur 17:46, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Go ahead and cut it. I think I originally stuck it in there, mostly because the text said that Kelly won the Oscar, which was incorrect. The explanation may be overkill and a little vague, but I admit I don't see how it's ungrammatical. -- Scarequotes 21:53, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
Okay (to both of you). Points taken. However I think there is a clearer way of conveying the intention of the message, so I have done a little edit. (I'll know you didn't consider it an improvement, if it's rv'd). Cheers Moriori 22:49, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

Strange compromise[edit]

Some people see Grace Kelly as a gay icon, but there is no proof of her actually being one.
That's an odd statement to have in an article. It shouldn't be terribly hard to figure out if someone's an "icon" or not, because being an icon would tend to imply some adoring fansites, message boards, and other such. If we can't prove it, wouldn't that mean she isn't much of a gay icon? And if it's not true, why is it worth mentioning in the article? Isomorphic 01:45, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, that text added by Rienzo doesn't belong in an article. But I think Rienzo's subsequent removal of the gay icon category tag with the blatantly false edit summary correcting spelling error is a more serious offense. Still, I don't see how the people who are adding this tag can keep doing so when 1) the article doesn't explain what would make Grace Kelly a gay icon, and 2) people have requested evidence to support the claim here on the talk page, and none has been provided. My own attempts to explore the question have reached pretty much the same conclusions as Chinasaur above. --Michael Snow 16:52, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just to note - sometimes one goes into editing an article to fix a spelling error, marks the edit summary, and then discovers that, say, a category you don't think should be there is there again, and remove it too, and forget about the edit summary you already wrote. That is, assuming that a spelling mistake was also corrected. At any rate, until anyone can provide support for the gay icon status besides that she was "fabulous," it shouldn't be in the article. john k 18:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more! Grace Kelly is NOT a gay icon, and she will NEVER be one! Rienzo 01:10, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh yes she is.

Oh no she is not.--72.154.223.249 (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

She is actually, and always has been. (92.7.3.110 (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC))

She had a gay uncle, a gay brother and a gay son. Does that make her a gay icon ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.237.211.38 (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Death of GK[edit]

Regarding the urban legend of Grace Kelly having died on the same stretch of highway in Monaco that had been featured in To Catch a Thief, see this blog post

On a similar subject, I've removed the following sentence: "In the now famous speedy picnic drive, dressed in a peach and white dress, with her trademark white gloves, Kelly's real life fear of driving and her inability to properly operate an automobile, are captured on film."
Leaving aside the detail that a driving scene cannot possibly wear a peach and white dress, the claim about her driving is wholly fanciful. The scene was filmed using back projection, as may be verified by anyone who watches it. Her driving shots were filmed in the studio and the road was projected onto the background. Moreover, her character exhibits no fear of or incompetence in driving - the character is portrayed as a most modern woman of the world who drives with confident skill and speed to evade the chasing policemen. --79.97.244.168 (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project[edit]

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 21:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yawn 115.87.70.183 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC).

Her style[edit]

I have changed several times, the opening style from Grace Patricia Kelly to Her Serene Highness Princess Grace of Monaco, as she predeceased her husband it should be HSH princess Grace of Monaco, it should not be opened under her maiden name. [unsigned]

It is standard procedure here and elsewhere for deceased consorts to be named under their pre-marital name and style (if any). Please do not change this article from the agreed format. FearÉIREANNCoat of arms of Ireland.svg\(caint) 20:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Jtdirl, please do not misrepresent the agreed procedures: (1) Here, deceased consorts of kings and emperors revert IN HEADINGS to their pre-marital name without title. The case of monarchs lower than king is debatable: we have Princess Alice of the United Kingdom although she was consort of a monarch, Grand Duke of Hesse, and thus could be Alice of the United Kingdom. The first line is still under discussion, and no such definite agreement exists that Jtdirl here tries to say. (Although I prefer "Grace Patricia" here, honesty requires that I say that the issue is still debatable.) (2) First line should not include the pre-marital style, as Jtdirl learned when Alexandra Fyodorovna's first line was under debate. Thus, whatever the decision re style, the pre-marital one would not be the best one. (I prefer that styles are left out from first lines, such issues can be explained in some later subsection of the article.) 217.140.193.123 20:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not mispresenting anything. I was one of the people who wrote the MoS and NC pages on the issue. It was widely debated on the WL and on TP. It is policy whether you like it or not. FearÉIREANNCoat of arms of Ireland.svg\(caint) 21:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, Jtdirl, it is so bad that you are not able to read (although you claim you have participated in writing them): Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) do not contain precisely such instructions you claim above.

So sorry to need to remind you. 217.140.193.123 23:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Another point irrelevant to the above: on a recent visit to this page, she was styled as HSH Princess Grace of Monaco, Duchess of Valentinos, marquise de Baux, etc...She was just Princess Grace of Monaco.She did not automatically inherit Prince Rainier's numerous titles. He was not Marquis de baux at the time of their marriage either as he was the sovereign prince.

Princess ?[edit]

As she was not born a princess, was she not technically Princess Rainier ?

  • I don't think so. I believe that in Monaco, they just use "Princess Christianname" for wives of Princes of Monaco. Princess Caroline's children were born in Centre Hospitalier Princesse Grace in Monaco. So I think she was correctly titled "Princess Grace of Monaco", but I could be wrong. We will have to wait and see what Albert's wife is titled as, if he ever marries.Prsgoddess187 13:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised she wasn't known as The Sovereign Princess of Monaco, or The Princess of Monaco - does anyone know if she was? Her husband formally was The Sovereign Prince of Monaco, so didn't her title follow suit? I would have thought that Princess Grace of Monaco was what a daughter of a reigning prince would be called (eg Princesses Stephanie & Caroline) -- are you sure we're not referring to her as Princess Grace of Monaco because we're talking from a foreign point of view? (in that Princesses of Wales were somtimes referred to as e.g. Princess Diana of Wales when she was actually The Princess of Wales).

  • That is a good point. As the Prince is titled The Sovereign Prince of Monaco officially, she might have been The Princess of Monaco. Hopefully, Albert will marry soon, or will will have to wait for Andrea to marry, and then we will be able to find out. Prsgoddess187 21:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well she would not have been Princess Rainier, as this is mostly a British manor of style (although I believe the Greek Royals used it as well) most monarchies, Monaco included, style a Princess with her own Christianname. I think that Grace was probably officially The Princess of Monaco, however Monaco has never been big on "official things", and I believe she was almost always styled as Princess Grace. Although like Annamarie said we will have to wait until the next Prince marries, wheather it be Albert or Andrea. As for the Princess of Wales comparison, it is not rally a valid one as in recent times most Princesses of Wales (with the exception of Diana) were born Princesses therefore entitled to "Princess Christianname" by birth. Diana was never offically styled as Princess Diana, this was just the way the media styled her. Mac Domhnaill 21:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

True... a better example would be Princess Alexandra of Denmark then - yes she was a princess, but it must surely have been only Britain that called her Princess Alexandra of Denmark, in her native land no-one would have added the Denmark suffix (we don't call Princess Anne "Princess Anne of the United Kingdom, do we?). I do wonder at the Princess of Monaco title though - it was probably official but her style was different, since there's nothing to distinguish a sovereign prince/ss from the other princes/ses unless you actually use the word "Sovereign" in colloquial speech or their christian name... What was Prince Rainier styled as in his lifetime? "Prince Rainier" or "The Sovereign Prince"? I wonder if "Princess Grace" is equivalent to our "Princess Diana" and "Prince Charles" errors, in that she was commonly styled it but not titled so. Especially since we're foreigners, it would be easy to make that mistake... we talk of Princess Victoria of Sweden when she is The Crown Princess in her native land. Any follow up on this?

She was most certainly styled as "The Princess of Monaco" during her marriage. She was not, however, ever styled as "The Sovereign Princess of Monaco." This would indicate that it were she and not Rainier who were ruling Monaco...she was the consort not the Sovereign.

There was a press release issued prior to her marriage that stated that she would be known as HSH The Princess Grace of Monaco after her marriage. Note the use of the definative article. She was also correctly referred to as HSH The Princess of Monaco as the consort of the Sovereign. Prince Rainier was born as HSH Prince Rainier of Monaco and became HSH The Prince of Monaco upon the death of his grandfather. He did not cease being "Prince Rainier" when he became The Prince of Monaco. He may be correctly referred to as Prince Rainier or The Prince of Monaco.

It's my understanding that Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden is addressed as "Crown Princess Victoria" within Sweden and as "Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden" outside of her native land. She should always be Crown Princess and not just Princess.

Prince Charles was born HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh and became HRH The Prince Charles upon his Mother's ascension. He also became the Duke of Cornwall, et al, and the Duke of Rothesay, et al. He was created The Prince of Wales, et al, later. By benefit of being the child of a monarch he is HRH The Prince Charles and by creation he is HRH The Prince of Wales. While it isn't technically incorrect to use "Prince Charles" he is offically styled as HRH The Prince of Wales in England, Wales and internationally. He is offically styled as HRH The Duke of Cornwall within the Duchy of Cornwall and as HRH The Duke of Rothesay in Scotland.

Grace Kelly immediatley became HSH The Princess of Monaco upon her civil wedding to HSH The Prince of Monaco - this should not be in doubt. Additionally, Rainier issued the statement that indicated that she could be addressed as HSH Princess Grace of Monaco. Neither would be incorrect. However, when referring to her as the wife of a head of state or on an offical visit she would always be The Princess of Monaco and never Princess Grace.

One didn't need to refer to Rainier as "Sovereign" to distinguish him from other Princes of Monaco. Rainier in his status as head of state is addressed as HSH The Prince of Monaco while his heir was HSH The Hereditary Prince of Monaco any other male members would have been merely HSH Prince HisName of Monaco with no alternative styling. I should point out that there was only two other members of his family to hold the title Prince after his ascension and the distinction between the three was clear. Albert who was styled as HSH The Hereditary Prince of Monaco, Marquis de Baux and his father Prince Pierre.

The former Princess Alexandra of Denmark wouldn't have been addressed as "of Denmark" while in Denmark. I should point out that those who hold succession rights to the throne of Denmark are actually styled "to Denmark" not 'of.' E.g. Frederick should be correctly styled as HRH The Crown Prince to Denmark while Mary is HRH The Crown Princess of Denmark.

Picture of her as Princess added[edit]

I added a picture of her from the French Wiki during her time as Princess Grace of Monaco to the artile. Before there were only pictures of her from the time when she was still the actress Grace Kelly. --Nikostar 12:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Prince ?[edit]

"until the next prince marries".....Andrea Casiraghi is NOT a PRINCE.

But Prince Albert is. And if Albert never marries, and Caroline becomes Sovereign Princess, she could create her sons and daughter as Princes/Princesses of Monaco. Once again, we wil have to wait and see...Prsgoddess187 00:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

we know hes not a Prince....but if u were well informed you would see, that it appears that there is a very likely chance that he will become a Prince. Mac Domhnaill 03:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I am quite well enough informed that Andrea Casiraghi is not a Prince. Your comment was "until the next Prince marries whether it be Albert of Andrea " - implies that he is currently a Prince. The Casiraghi children take their rank from their father who was not a Prince either. You should also note that there is also a very likely chance that Albert will produce a legitimate heir and a very likely chance that Caroline or Andrea will not succeed at all.

Silk scarf[edit]

The classic head-cover of a silk scarf crossed under the chin and knotted at the side or nape of the neck is universally known as the "Grace Kelly."

It would be nice to get a photo of this in the article. —Viriditas | Talk 23:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Early life[edit]

The early life section seems to be more about her family than her early life. Maybe the section name should be changed? —Effika 04:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked?[edit]

I seem unable to change this page. Why? If you can, at least move the succession box to the bottom. They are currently in a wrong position. --Attilios 11:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There were four copies of the article with only the last one being displayed. Since you were not editing the last copy, your changes were hidden. --PhantomS 22:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Cultural references[edit]

At this rate the section's going to overwhelm the article. Gwen Gale 17:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead photo[edit]

I think I recognize that fountain as being in Beverly Hills (Santa Monica Blvd if memory serves). Can anyone confirm this? Gwen Gale 15:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Gene Tierney[edit]

An anon has added this:

Kelly replaced Gene Tierney in Mogambo (1953) due to Tierney's mental health problems.

Could we have a citation to support it please? Gwen Gale 13:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations added!74.73.176.161 (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Meeting Prince Rainier[edit]

How did she and Rainier meet? The article doesn't say (and it really should; it's not often that an American film star marries European royalty). Funnyhat 06:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

They met while she was filming To Catch a Thief (film) in Monaco with Alfred Hitchcock and Cary Grant. Note that Monaco has long been a kind of playground and mixing ground for both the affluent and European aristocracy, think of it as a high end tax haven/Las Vegas, more or less. Gwen Gale 11:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Then we have an inconsistency. The article is stating that they met when she was invited to a photo shoot in Monaco, which took place because she was in Cannes, France for the Film Festival. The version noted by Gwen above is the one I had known too, but the article is saying something else. We need to confirm which one is it.
And I'd take the opportunity to note something we might want to look into: I saw a biography on her a while back, I believe it was from the Discovery Channel, and in it they kind of implied that her acceptance of the Prince's proposal represented what I'd describe as opting for the best suitor. They didn't actually spell it out, but it was very much clear that they meant that Kelly had not had romantic feelings for Rainier, and obviously, that there had been no previous courtship. What I understood from it was: they met, they kept in touch, although not really representing an involvement, and a little later, Rainier proposed and Kelly accepted because, well, he was a monarch and that would represent the best, most secure future for her. In fact, the documentary explicitly informed that at the time of the proposal she was in a on-and-off relationship with Oleg Cassini, and that she effectivelly called him, or wrote him, I don't remember which, to tell him "I'm sorry, but I've decided to accept Prince Rainier's proposal". This indicates further a choice for who she perceived as the best suitor, but not necessarily the one she loved at the time. The documentary says what it says, but we would need to word it so as to affirm only what was stated by this source. But I was actually wondering if anyone else knows a little more about this, so that we can improve the article in that regard. Redux 22:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic?[edit]

I suggest removing this sentence:

Her "fairy tale" life made Grace one of the most popular and beloved celebrities of the 20th century.

I tried improving it, but on reflection decided that there's nothing there worth saving. The scare quotes don't belong in an encyclopedia article. What's a "fairy tale life" anyway? Also, it's non-verifiable and possibly false; who knows what made her "popular" or "beloved" (both words charged with point of view)? Maybe it wasn't her "fairy tale life" but her good looks, her acting ability, her humanitarian efforts, her whatever.--BillFlis 10:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Born in East Falls?[edit]

Actually, I read somewhere she was born in Hahnemann Hospital (center city Philadelphia). She grew up in the Kelly mansion in East Falls.--BillFlis 10:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I re-phrased it myself to reflect this.--BillFlis 01:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Vehicle she died in?[edit]

It is clear that there is a mistake here which needs correcting. Princess Grace died in a Rover P5B. A vehicle preferred by many government officails in the uk around that time. The cited link to C4 cannot be used as the text of that link states she died in a Rover P4 (which was far too old to be correct)AND the picture shows a Rover P6 which Princess Grace would not have been seen out in! It would be a good idea for a moderator to contact possible the Rover P5 Auto club to clarify this. Thanks

She did not die in a vehicle. She died in a hospital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.21.128.99 (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The reference we have to support which car she crashed in is wrong. It links to a Channel 4 program (from 2001) that says a Rover 3500 P4 but there is no 3500 P4 AFAIK and we say a P6. It probably was a 3500 P6 so the Channel 4 program reference is wrong. I have contacted them to get it confirmed/changed. Ttiotsw (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gracerear.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Gracerear.jpg 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gracekellystamp.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Gracekellystamp.jpg 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, deleted!--BillFlis 01:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Grace Kelly.JPG[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Grace Kelly.JPG 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Confusing passage[edit]

The following passage is confusing: "Kelly's curiosity was soon piqued after she began receiving a bouquet of red roses every day. Cassini's persistence paid off when Kelly accepted his invitation to lunch, with the provision that she bring her sister Peggy along. The two became engaged within the first month of meeting." WHO are "the two". The natural reading is Peggy and Cassini. But reading on, that surely was not intended. 150.203.226.175 02:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment[edit]

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

GA fail[edit]

I'm sorry to inform you that this article cannot currently pass the GA process. Here are some things to work on before renomination:

  • The lead needs to be about four full paragraphs summarizing all the main points of the article. See WP:LEAD for more info.
  • The article is almost entirely unreferenced. Please site all information in the article.
  • At least one of the images has a disputed fair-use rationale.
  • The trivia needs to be merged or deleted per WP:TRIVIA.

Death logical flaw[edit]

Her husband's death is listed as taking place in 2005, but Princess Diana of Wales was listed as attending. This is a logical flaw, as she had already died at that point in time.Chiefsci (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

  • The book sources need page numbers for verification purposes.

Good luck! Nikki311 13:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Abortion[edit]

The mention of an abortion should be removed according to Wikipeddia's own guidelines. I site the file on Carolyn Bessette Kennedy, where even with the person with direct knowledge (her lover) of her 2 abortions, this was considered a "rumor". The proof for Princess Grace is so weak, that it is an insult to anyone with a concern for truth. It was not even clearly stated by the informant, Mr.Cassini. Wikipedia must have equal guidelines and proof for biographical data. The abortion comment should be removed. Of all the numerous books written, this was the only one where it is mentioned.Factcorrect12 (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad writing[edit]

Cassini, who was raised in Florence, having an abundance of charm and courtliness and whose ex-wife was actress Gene Tierney,(whose was the original choice for the role of Linda Nordley in Mogambo) became just as captivated by Kelly in person as he had previously watching her in the film. The article could do with a good grammatical and stylistic going-over, preferably by someone who knows the subject as well. Koro Neil (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

BLP issue[edit]

I removed a section stating that there are "rumors" that Princess Stephanie, a living person, was "involved" in her mother's death. I've removed per BLP, the prohibition against republication of rumors such as this, and that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. Please do not reinstate. Stetsonharry (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC).

There have been rumours for years and very well sourced around the time. The reason for the possible cover up is said to be that the darling of Hollywood had to be seen to have had an "honourable death" and not one in which she allowed her daughter to drive. (Compere cover up of macho man Rock Hudson who everyone in the business knew was queer. His story only broke because he died of AIDS which they could not cover up.

In most encylopedias and books of Kelly's life it mentions these rumours. People like you will be the death of WIKI, if we can only every have "official" versions even when rumours persist then Wiki can only ever be a "happy version" of every story. The truth is we will NEVER know one way or another. Stephanie has of course never admitted it and is unlikely to. But in a bio of her life then these rumours should be at least mentioned. If it is mentioned and Stephanie "comes clean" at least people who read Wiki will have been forewarned about the possibility.

You do not own the Internet or Wiki and you have no right to have your version over mine. Furthermore you have no right to tell me what I can or can't do. However, that said, I choose not to reinstate until I find better sourcing.

Grace Kelly saxophonist[edit]

There is now an saxophonist by the same name, so perhaps we can create a disambiguation page for name Grace Kelly, with Grace Kelly being forwarded to this page, perhaps retitled Gracy Kelly, princess or actress and then have a line directing people to disambiugation page. --RossF18 (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Kelly and the Shah[edit]

An editor removed this material:

  • Kelly and the Shah of Iran became acquainted near the end of 1949 at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel during the Shah's official visit to America. Kelly's childhood friend (and later, her bridesmaid) Maree Frisby Rambo said in an interview with biographer Wendy Leigh that Kelly and the Shah had gone on at least six dates. The Shah had been the ruler of Iran since 1941, and was thirty years old at the time. The Shah besieged Kelly with vast amounts of jewelry including: a gold birdcage housing a diamond sapphire bird, a gold vanity case with a clasp set with thirty-two diamonds, and a gold bracelet with an intricate pearl and diamond face. Kelly, however, had no intentions of marrying the Shah, and immediately sent the gifts back. She decided to keep the jewels and later presented the pieces to her bridesmaids as keepsakes on the eve of her wedding.[1] Despite the brutality of the Shah's regime, Kelly fiercely defended him until his death.[2]

The edit summary said:

  • I deleted the references made by Marie Rambo because she made them while living in a shelter to earn some money. James Spada is not a reliable resource either having worked for the National Enquirer! [1]

The primary source is a biography by Wendy Leigh, and the relevant pages are online.[2] It is clearly attributed to Rambo. This assertion doesn't appear to be remarkable or eztraordinary. The book was published by Macmillan, a highly regarded publisher. Should the material be restored or rewritten?   Will Beback  talk  04:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed this because the woman making the accusations, was living in a shelter and suffering from battered wife syndrome as well as alcoholism. This is accounted for in the biography 'The Bridesmaids' by Judy Quine, who, unlike Ms. Rambo, remained Grace Kelly's life long friend. Princess Grace did not meet the Shaw of Iran until 1972 in Theran.
As for James Spada and his sensationalized biography 'Grace, The Secrets Lives Of A Princess', his credibility must be taken into question due to, among other things, the fact that he states that he read Grace Kelly's private medical records. Those records are located, along with her original birth certificate and all other material related to her, in the vaults of the Palace in Monaco. Under no circumstances has he, or any other author, ever seen Grace Kelly's medical records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacart (talkcontribs) 05:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Taking the last first, I don't see where Spada comes into this. Regardless, for all we know he has seen the records, one way or another. It isnt unprecendented for a writer to pay money to a staffer to make copies of private records. The mere fact that he says he's seen them does not automatically discredit everything he says.
As for Kelly and the Shah, it would appear that we have one biography which says the Shah courted her in the 1940s, giving her lavish presents of jewelery, and another biography that says they didn't meet until the 1970s. We don't have any way of proving or disproving either. The simplest thing, and the most consistent with Wikipedia policy, is to report both. We can keep the Leigh report and add a statement like, "Another biographer, written by one of Kelly's bridesmaids, said that Kelly didn't meet the Shah until the 1970s." There are some issues that we aren't in a position to settle.   Will Beback  talk  06:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
PS: Ah, I see you deleted material that mentions Spada too. However that material doesn't appear to be based on him viewing the medical records, but rather on an interview with "Sue Carol".   Will Beback  talk  06:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I object generally to the amount of text devoted to her affairs. It's just tabloid tittle-tattle, no matter how reputable the publisher, and we have the principle that "Wikipedia is not a tabloid." However, if the consensus that it's OK for so much of her bio to be devoted to her bedroom activity, then I don't see why the Shah shouldn't be in there. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree with that general point. These could all be summarized in a line or two. Something like, "various biographers have suggested Kelly was courted by or had affairs with X, Y, and Z."   Will Beback  talk  22:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that would be suitable. We can't very well ignore her numerous affairs, as they come up in every biography. But we don't have to go into much detail, fun as it may be to read. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Monaco hospital is not in Monte-Carlo, but in Monaco[edit]

Thus, she died in Monaco, not Monte-Carlo (which is another district of the principality of Monaco) Gallagher06 (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Roads[edit]

It should be possible to ascertain if the road where the car crashed and the road in the film were the same or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.71.244 (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC) See "Death of GK" above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.71.244 (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC) The two roads seem to be about two miles apart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.36.65 (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Maiden name as princess?[edit]

A user removes the last name which was in the infobox since 2008. Another editor disagrees. Therefore, the editor who made the change needs to achieve a compromise before reverting, not the other way around.

Her maiden name is already used as her movie star name in an infobox further down in the article. I believe it is not approprite - too confusing - to mix her maiden name, which she did not use as a princess, in the article's main info box at the top where her princely title is given qith her portrait as Princess, not as the movie star. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The maiden name is almost always used in infoboxes in articles about royal consorts. Anne Boleyn did not use that name as queen, but that's the name in the infobox. Same with Catherine de' Medici, Elisabeth Farnese, etc. I don't see what's confusing; she was Grace Kelly and she was Princess of Monaco. If we are going to be nitpicky by claiming that she was Princess of Monaco as Grace and not as Grace Kelly, we'd better stop referring to her children as children of Grace Kelly - she was not a Kelly when she gave birth to them, was she? Of course, we wouldn't be able to say that Grace Kelly was the wife of Rainier III of Monaco for the same reason. Surtsicna (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, I'd appreciate if you could read Wikipedia:Consensus. Those who should discuss before reverting are those who wish to change something that's been in the article for two years. Furthermore, I should warn you that you have broken the three revert rule. Anyway, would you mind responding to my questions? If referring to her as Grace Kelly in the infobox is confusing, is it confusing to refer to Albert II of Monaco as the son of Grace Kelly? Surtsicna (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion We can look at similar cases to see how this is normally handled. Surtsicna has mentioned some historical examples above, but a more modern instance would be Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. This is a Featured Article, and it uses the maiden name in the Infobox. Like Princess Grace, the late Queen Mother did not use her maiden name after her marriage, but it is her maiden name that is given in the Infobox. This also matches the name in the article title, which seems a good principle to follow in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary. The same standard is also applied in Mary of Teck, also a Featured Article - again, note that she did not use the 'of Teck' surname/title after her marriage.

The argument has been made that since the photograph shows Kelly as a princess, and is captioned with her name at that time, the title for the infobox should match that. I find this unconvincing, since the same argument could be made of the two Featured Articles I have mentioned above. That there is a second infobox later on in the article also does not seem to me to be adequate reason not to follow the standard practice. The article Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark does appear to follow the principle suggested by SergeWoodzing, but I note that it is not a Featured Article, that the infobox title does match the title of the article in this instance, and that other articles on recent Danish consorts (for example, Ingrid of Sweden) do not follow this principle.

In short, I see no compelling reason not to follow what appears to be the standard practice in acknowledged high-quality WP articles, and to use the name "Grace Kelly". My opinion is non-binding, and you are, as always, free to seek wider discussion via a Request for Comment, if you feel it has not proved helpful. Anaxial (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I see both sides to this debate. There is only one infobox, as there should be. The infobox being used is for her status as royalty, not for her career. I don't think using Grace Kelly is confusing. However, I do think that using only her first name is inappropriate. How about simply Princess Grace, as that was what she was known by as royalty? In addition, that would look less redundant than Grace Kelly, as the latter is used in the title.  dmyersturnbull talk 05:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to add some clarification on my opinion: I think that Grace Kelly is preferable to Grace. If Princess Grace is not acceptable for some reason, I think Grace Kelly should be used.  dmyersturnbull talk 05:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe that Grace Kelly is better than Princess Grace and that Grace alone is better than Princess Grace. Why? Because Princess Grace is redundant; the succession parameter in the infobox already refers to her as Princess consort of Monaco. However, I still believe that we should stick to Grace Kelly, for the reasons listed above and confirmed by Anaxial and Dmyersturnbull. Can we now restore the last name? Surtsicna (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
"Grace Kelly" seems an obvious name for the infobox. First, that's what the article calls her (if "Grace" is required for the infobox, the article should be "Grace"). Second, Wikipedia uses the name that is commonly used, and merely specifies appropriate titles without using them in an article, other than as an illustration. In Elizabeth II the infobox is "Elizabeth II" because that is the common name and not due to deference. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't notice that her title is listed below as "Princess consort of Monaco" (it sort of blended into the picture for me). Given that, Grace Kelly makes by far the most sense.  dmyersturnbull talk 17:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I concede to consensus in this case, as ever. But Dmyersturnbull, I am curious. Why do you feel her maiden name, which she dropped at her wedding, "makes by far the most sense" for use with the title she never used with her maiden name (and a photo that is not of Grace Kelly)? Looks contradictory to me. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
What does not make sense at all is claiming that the woman on the photograph "is not" Grace Kelly. Isn't that a bit cavilling? Surtsicna (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
No, not if you know what the very unusual English verb cavil means. Photos taken of this woman prior to her wedding were of Grace Kelley. All the ones taken of her from the monent she got married are of Grace, Princess of Monaco. Perhaps you need to have gone through name changes yourself to understand the importance of such thing. If anyone would have published a photo of my mother or sister under their maiden names, taken after they got married, that person would not have gotten off scot free.
Still hoping that Dmyersturnbull (hoping for no one else) will answer my question directed to h. above. I'm a bit tired of arguing at every turn with Surtsicna with not much in the way of essentials being achieved. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I am a bit tired of SergeWoodzing shutting me up. I care about this article and will take part in any discussion related to it if I wish so. If the "very unusual verb" means what Meriam-Webster says it means, then I can once again say that you are cavilling. Saying that Grace Kelly was not the mother of Albert II of Monaco, that Grace Kelly was not the wife of Rainier III of Monaco, that Grace Kelly is not buried in Monaco Cathedral (etc) is cavilling. I can still hardly believe that we're having this discussion because she dropped her last name when she got married. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, wouldn't it? Surtsicna (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Date of death[edit]

Quote: On September 14, 1982, while driving with her daughter Stéphanie to Monaco from their country home, Princess Grace suffered a stroke, which caused her to drive her 1980 Rover SD1 (3500V8)[16] off the serpentine road down a mountainside. Grace was pulled alive from the wreckage, but had suffered serious injuries and was unconscious. She died the following day at the Monaco Hospital ...

So, if the above is correct, her date of death should appear as September 15, 1982. But if she really did die on September 14, then there's something seriously wrong with the quoted text. Either her stroke occurred on September 13, or she died the same day, not the following day. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)



Grace KellyGrace of Monaco – or Grace, Princess of Monaco - Her name was not, and she was not known as Grace Kelly after her marriage. Using Grace Kelly as the article name in this particular case is more confusing than beneficial and makes WP look rather silly. I can see (though not necessarily agree with) the idea where a Princess of X who married a King of Y, still might be called Z of X (not Y) when royals marry, to make a point about original nationalty which motivated the marriage and effected dynastic issues, but taking that principle into cases like this one is carrying a (questionable) idea much too far, in my opinion. We should be more flexible than that, so that our name choices make sense to people who are not familiar with WP's often too stringent naming rules. Those people, after all, make up the vast majority of WP readers. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose The move request is badly formatted because it is not clear what you are proposing we move it to. Her formal title was "The Princess of Monaco" and I think she was usually colloquially known as "Princess Grace of Monaco". She was far better known as a film star than a princess, how many other minor European royals can you name? Also, royal consorts are often know by their maiden name on Wikipedia e.g. Anne Boleyn. PatGallacher (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the above given reason. Furthermore, it would be a bad habit to start making exceptions to a general rule when it is not necessary to do so. She is simply more known under the name Grace Kelly. --Aciram (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Concerns about "our name choices make[ing] sense to people who are not familiar with WP's... naming rules" are better served by using the name under which she became famous, rather than switching to one of several possible royal styles. Powers T 23:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The WP:COMMONNAME rule was written precisely for those who are not familiar with Wikipedia. Article titles should preferably be the term most typically used in reliable sources. And as others have stated, she is more known as a film star and her "Grace Kelly" name. I fail to understand how using the most common name used by people can be confusing. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose nominator is wrong. She is commonly and frequently known as "Grace Kelly" after her marriage. WP:OFFICIALNAME, WP:JARGON, WP:UCN 65.94.77.11 (talk) 04:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Please name one other encyclopedia that lists her as Grace Kelly. I am looking for delicious recipes for my hat, in case you do. SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Encyclopædia Britannica. --Kusunose 08:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Also the New Oxford American Dictionary and the Encyclopedia of World Biography. Vol. 19. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2004. (Both behind paywalls).   Will Beback  talk  10:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I am surprised and disappointed (and not particularly hungry for hat). How does one withdraw a move request? Oh, well, no need to really. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Common name.   Will Beback  talk  10:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unique American[edit]

This must be one of the very few American woman in history whom encyclopedias do not list by her biographically significant married name. Because, as I understand it, WP considers her work as a movie star (1952-1956) much more important than her position as a princess and wife of a head of state (1956-1982). I have conceded the fact, but still find it extremely strange. SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

That could be, but I'm doubtful. I think that it's more likely that most women who achieve notability while single are best known by their birth name. In fact, I'd guess that it's rare for notable women to change their names upon marriage. Offhand, Roseanne Barr might be one example, as she called herself "Roseanne Arnold" durig her marriage, but a poor one since she changed her name back after her divorce.   Will Beback  talk  04:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, but you missed this part of what I wrote: "list by her biographically significant married name": Reasonably, I could even add list by her biographically extremely significant married name to make the point clearer. You also missed the 4 years as a movie star versus the 26 years as a princess and wife of a head of state. Without those determinative factors for it, of course I wouldn't have tried to make this point. Two more details: Grace did change her name in 1956 (but WP doesn't care), and I fail to see how somebody else's divorce enters into this discussion. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
PS Please note that, as always, I do accept WP consensus in this matter. That doesnt mean, though, that I'm not allowed to find it very very weird in this case, does it? SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that Grace Kelly is a bit of an anomaly because we normally get a bunch of editors who are very keen to enforce WP:NCROY in these types of discussions – one of the few guidelines that is often at odds with COMMONNAME, but still has wide support. Personally, I'm a supporter of COMMONNAME and generally ask myself 'what do people in general conversation refer to the subject as?' In this case, I think the answer is generally Grace Kelly. I don't think that you should take this as Wikipedia saying her film career is more significant, we are simply following sources and general usage. Another example is Wallis Simpson who was Duchess of Windsor for far longer than she was legally known as "Simpson", but she is generally called Wallis Simpson, so that's where the article is. Jenks24 (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! It would be very interesting to find out, if possible, how often Grace has been mentioned in the press and other publications since 1950 in either name, same with Wallis, but I guess that's wishful thinking. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
PS I live in Europe and am certain that the vast majority of English-speaking Europeans stopped referring to Grace as Kelly as soon as she married the prince and called her Grace of Monaco (or similar), her married name, for the rest of her life. Could this be a pro-American thing (misguided in my opinion)? SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is what you wanted, but have a look at this ngram. It shows the usage of "Grace Kelly", "Princess Grace" and "Grace of Monaco" in books from 1950–2008. You could be right about the pro-American thing (i.e. that "Grace Kelly" is used much more often in the States than in Europe), but I will note that I'm from Australia and would generally refer to her as "Grace Kelly" or perhaps "Princess Grace". Jenks24 (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Shirley Temple. Powers T 14:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Jane Wyman.--BillFlis (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
So Mr. Black and then B-actor Reagan (3rd husband) are to be considered as biographically significant to those two ladies as the Sovereign Prince of Monaco was to Grace, who dedicated her life exclusively to her married position? SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not for us to decide that one name is more deserving than another. En.Wikipedia articles are named based on common usage, not on logic. Even if we all agree with you that the subject's career as a wife and princess was more important than her time as a maiden and actress, that would not change the correct title of this article. What would be needed are statistics showing that her married name was more commonly used in English, and statistics have already been provided to show the opposite.   Will Beback  talk  09:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
It's got nothing to do with to whom they were married, but rather what their names were when they came to prominence and performed their most significant work. It's as if you're trying to identify these three ladies by the men to whom they were married. (N.B.: I tried to move Shirley Temple to Shirley Temple Black primarily because it's the name she's used for decades and continues to use today, but I feel that for long-deceased figures that consideration is less important.) Powers T 12:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Interesting discussion, in any case. Thank you! Grace came to prominence and performed her most significant work as Princess if Monaco. I'm glad my opinion was taken serously. Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, there's some debate about that. It's a bit unbecoming to assume your own correctness. Powers T 16:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I believe I am correct, and that belief is my right. You have the same right re: your beliefs. I would never find that unbecoming to you. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Grace Kelly, Overweight at Death?[edit]

Was she *really*? This photograph was taken in late 1980 or early 1981: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/AmyPantz/gracealamy.jpg. She died on 1982. She definitely doesn't look overweight to me. She gained weight very slowly throughout her lifetime. Is there a citation for this claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.181.13 (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You are quite right that we should not have this claim in the article without a citation, so I have removed it. That said, if anyone can reference the claim with a reliable source then they should feel free to add it back. Jenks24 (talk) 09:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

File:High noon.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:High noon.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 12 April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:High noon.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal Life[edit]

The section on personal life should be significantly condensed, if it remains at all. It amounts to gossip, using words like "rumored," "exaggerated," "probably" and "alleged." The idea that Halliwell's Who's Who in the Movies (2006) is listed as a source is laughable. We must remember that Wikipedia is not a place to put down anything someone said about another; it is for relevant information from reliable sources. A breathy article in Vanity Fair twenty eight years after her death doesn't seem to fit this standard.Catherinejarvis (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Three days seems enough time for an editor to comment on the thoughts above, so under WP:BOLD I am going to trim the personal life section. It is unsubstantiated gossip - for example, the phrase "it is rumored that person X probably seduced person Y" would be unacceptable in any article about anyone.Catherinejarvis (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with this deletion and ask that you revert it. Yes, it is unsubstantiated that the various romances occurred, but it is substantiated that there was gossip about those romances and that such gossip was an ongoing feature of her life. So long as the article is clearly written so that it is clear that the sources are supporting the existence of gossip and not the alleged romances (and I think it does), it should stay. Kerry (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll quote your own sentence: "It is substantiated that there was gossip." That is not good enough. We can say there was gossip about anyone and thrust it into hundreds or thousands of articles. The Wikipedia article on Barack Obama does not say he was born in Kenya, or even that people claim he was born there, just because gossip about it exists. Grace Kelly was famous, wealthy and attractive, yet gossip exists about any woman who was famous wealthy and attractive. The standard must be higher than "someone says so."Catherinejarvis (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed "we" cannot go around saying there was gossip about someone, but we can say it if there are sources. And the existence of such gossip seems to have lead to various decisions by Prince Rainer in relation to protecting her reputation after her marriage. That there was gossip is part of her story. I don't have a personal axe to grind (I didn't write the current content) but I think you are taking away a part of her story with your deletions. Kerry (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Josephine Baker section[edit]

I'm going to delete the brief section on Josephine Baker. While it is a charming story, it is based on an interview by her cousin given twenty years after her death, and fifty years after the alleged incident. And second, a reaction which took up five seconds of a person's life simply isn't deserving of a separate section of the article, even if it were true.Catherinejarvis (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that it should be deleted and ask that you revert it. There is a source and there are a number of other web sites with similar information that support the story. And the events described were more than a "5 second reaction" but apparently the start of a long friendship and financial assistance later in life and, to me, demonstrates the attitudes and character of Grace Kelly. If the story can be disproven, by all means delete it. Given the story was told in a mass media context, one would expect some kind of denial to surface if it was untrue. Kerry (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

How can it be denied when all the participants have been dead for decades? It comes from one source, and the second half of the paragraph had "citation needed" for three years with no responseCatherinejarvis (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Judy Garland[edit]

Kelly competed for an Oscar with Judy Garland, Kelly for her part in "The Country Girl" and Garland for hers in "A Star is Born". The article says that "ironically" Garland played the part of the wife of an alcoholic. Why ironically? Can someone edit this passage to make clear why? It is in the section headed "Actress for MGM". --P123cat1 (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference leigh was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Bragg, Melvyn (1988). Richard Burton: A Life. Warner Books. ISBN 0446359386.