Talk:Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha

Page moved from Simeon II of Bulgaria

The present article page here seems to have a long history. What has happened? a copy-and-paste move, or what? Arrigo 08:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The former talk page is at: Talk:Simeon II of Bulgaria

This article needs to be largely rewritten in an NPOV manner. --SandyDancer 23:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go. --SandyDancer 23:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"We want our Tsar" claims, language skills of Simeon

• I think some useful information has now been removed form this article, particuarly regarding the languages spoken by Tsar Simeon and that, during his 1996 return, crowds cheered "we want our Tsar", why has this been removed? I would quite like a rational explanation. Perhaps the latter could included again with the qualification of it needing a citation.--Couter-revolutionary 09:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's your rational explanations

• the bit about the languages was removed as it was seemingly irrelevant and was certainly out of context in the section it formerly appeared in. Perhaps you could reintegrate it somewhere sensible?
• The bit about the crowds chanting "we want our Tsar" has never been backed up by a source (like many parts of the article), and fitted with the whole monarchist POV tone of the article a little too well...

Please try and look at this article from a NPOV. I note elsewhere on Wikipedia you are referring to the subject as "Tsar Simeon II of Bulgaria" - it may be your POV that he should be this, but he isn't and this article isn't going to slavishly follow a monarchist line --SandyDancer 09:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly this article doesn't say much about Simeon, "the man", as it were. As a result I think information about the languages he speaks would be useful. Refarding the "we want our Tsar" it may well fit the monarchist view but the flip-side is that it doesn't fit the Marxist/Republican view. I do not know of a source for it but if I do find one I would like these remarks included as they show the Bulgarian peoples perception of Simeon.--Couter-revolutionary 10:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

0-: who mentioned Marx?? Pal, saying loony things like that just discredits what you are saying. It really isn't the 1920s. Yes, of course the claim about "we want out Tsar" can go in if it is properly sourced. --SandyDancer 10:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like you're going to have much luck mate - [1] - Google only returns Wikipedia and its mirrors for the claim you are making - looks like someone made it up for insertion in this article. It did sound a bit iffy. --SandyDancer 10:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• We really must mention though the fact that he speaks many languages, it is also of note that he does so in an obviously aristocratic manner. This is a statement of neutral fact.--Couter-revolutionary 23:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral, fine, but unverified. If it isn't verified it can't go in. If you find a source saying he speaks Bulgarian in a manner which is considered aristocratic, put that in but make it clear that "[X source] commented" he speaks in that way. Don't state it as settled fact because it is almost certainly unverifiable. --SandyDancer 09:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I found the bit about "we want our Tsar" and have it sourced and included. --Couter-revolutionary 10:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A message to all, whether you like monarchy or not this artical must stay neutral at all times and should be based on fact, that is message to both pro and anti monarchy writers, whether we want to believe what the crowds were chanting, i was there on the day in those very same crowds and they were chanting "We Want Our Tsar", whether you want to add this or not is up to you, but this is fact witnessed by thousands of people, and no sorry anti monarchists they were not chanting down with the Tsar, one asks ones self why? if you dislike monarchy so much as certain writers have shown above, why are you so interested in the writing on the subject?

Infobox

Shouldn't he have an infobox reflecting that he's an active politician, rather than monarch? --SandyDancer 10:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't think "rather than" is the answer, perhaps both. Afterall he was Head of State, which is higher than PM. --Couter-revolutionary 10:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

After he had died, he will no doubt be referred to here primarily as King and the article will reflect that. But while he is living and is an active politician, that has to come first. --SandyDancer 13:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the issue of what he should be called at the moment, I'm just telling you that he was the Head of State of a country. If he were President as a young man and returned as PM you wouldn't want to get rid of his Presidential infobox; so why do it just because he was King?--Couter-revolutionary 13:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I would want to get rid of the Presidential infobox in that instance actually, but don't feel too strongly about it to be honest. --SandyDancer 14:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• It is really quite disgusting that the first paragraph does not even mention the period he served as head of state to Bulgaria as Tsar, which let's face it, is a much more important position than a mere PM.--Couter-revolutionary 23:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Although on the other hand, he was much more of a real ruler when he was a PM. As Tsar he was a little boy who had nothing to do with what was actually going on in the country. Not that it matters so much now; of course, both facts should be mentioned. --91.148.159.4 23:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Disgusting's a bit a strong a word isn't it? Make an appropopriate edit if you are concerned, just don't put anything which say he is rather than was a Tsar / King / Monarch. --SandyDancer 09:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That's perfect in my opinion. --SandyDancer 10:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved from lead

(Up until The Great War, the Bulgarian Emperor was referred to as the "Kaiser" in English. This was most likely due to the German background of the Bulgarian Imperial House. Thus, the Allied forces sometimes said that they were fighting "three Kaisers and a Sultan".)

Quite irrlevant here, as he became a tsar long after "The Great War". Also, calling the Bulgarian tsars of the XXth century "emperors" is not really mainstream practice. Apart from that, the info could be suitable for other articles, if sourced. --91.148.159.4 23:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Page movements

Since this page has been moved from Simeon II of Bulgaria to its current title, shouln't the same be done with Michael I of Romania?? (see discussion at its talk page). GoodDay 17:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No Simeon was subsequently PM, therefore some think he's more famous as PM than as Tsar. King Michael has had no such subsequent position. --Counter-revolutionary 18:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorta figured on his Prime-Ministership (concerning the page movement), just wanted to be certain. Thanks. GoodDay 18:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. --Counter-revolutionary 18:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Simeon Sakskoburggotski

I think his bulgarian name should be mentioned; I don't see why it was suppressed. Wedineinheck 20:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's just to do with the English language WP lot. In the same way they call Emperor Karl (who everyone calls Karl!) Charles. Odd if you ask me. --Counter-revolutionary 21:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this article ought to be called Simeon Sakskoburggotski and I'm all for anglicization. The fact that he adopted his dynastic name as a surname to use a commoner/politician speaks to me that it ought to not be "translated" into English. On Charles/Karl, there is plenty of use for the English form of the name. Charles 22:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Simeon Sakskoburggotski is actually a more bulgarian-sounding name he specifically adopted to further his political career in Bulgaria. Saxe-Coburg-Gotha sounds too foreign for bulgarians.11:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it sounds foreign to anyone or not, it's a matter of what is most correct. This case particularly of a surname is much like if someone translated a LeBlanc to White or something like that. It's wrong. Charles 21:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A matter of "local usage" - English and Bulgarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Only former monarch to be elected?

It says that he is "the only former monarch in history to return to a position of power through democratic elections. His election victory came after 50 years of exile." What about Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia? Thanks, Happy138 (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sihanouk was restored and never elected; and in any case, he was returned to symbolic head of state, not head of government. KarlM (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Technically Otto von Habsburg could be included among the elected royals - have any of the dynastic heads of families of the former German states and of the Indian princely states (ie the persons who would be ruler if the relevant state were restored and the ruling family restored) been elected to any relevant parliaments? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The simplification that he is the "only monarch to be democratically elected as head of government" is even more debatable. Consider Prince Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte; and some changes of dynasty have been at least ratified by elections. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes but none of these examples are near Simeons position, as he was elected Prime minster of his former Kingdom, none of the above where, Sihanouk was just restored to a throne, which has happened many times in history, Otto, can not be included as he was not elected to any former habsburg lands, and i wish people would stop thinking that the Holy Roman German empire was hereditary it was only based on election, this shows with the election of Charles of Bavaria being elected Emperor in 1742, who was not a habsburg i might add, sorry had to answer this before, someone states about the holy roman empire being habsburg property which it was never, just that they were very rich and good at paying off the electors with habsburg gold, I would also say that the electing of Prince Louis Napolean, was to a local council ie as mayor, which is a very minor position, never state power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.195.142 (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

British King?

I removed the claim that he is a claimant to the British Throne. See [[2]] to see who is. Happy138 (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

German?

Any word on why he has a German name? Sca (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Answer: Simeon Wettin, is from the German Ducal House of Saxe Coburg und Gotha, being of the ernestine line of the House of Saxony.

The Surname of Wettin , Not Saxe Coburg und Gotha should be used.

Hi firstly, Simeon's surname is Wettin not Saxe Coburg und Gotha, that is a Title not a surname secondly there is no von before wettin, just Simeon Wettin, any member of the Ducal House of Saxe Coburg und Gotha, bears the surname of Wettin, that means all members, there is no such surname as " Saxe Coburg und Gotha" please take note, even if so called experts say otherwise, who quite clearly would not know there own surname it seems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.195.142 (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)