Talk:Albert II, Prince of Monaco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility / Sports and Games (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the sports and games work group (marked as High-importance).
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject European Microstates / Monaco  (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-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 (marked as High-importance).
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Olympics (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Albert II, Prince of Monaco is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

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.
 
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article has an assessment summary page.

Renamed[edit]

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

Title of article[edit]

If I understand the wikipedia guidelines properly the article header should be Albert II of Monaco with the longer title fleshed out in the main body of the article. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right about that. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Swedish symbol why?[edit]

Does anyone know whey there is a little shield with the Swedish flag design in one of the templates at the top of this page? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not a Swedish flag, it's a symbol of an heraldic cross, see File:Azure-Cross-Or-Heraldry.svg. It is a part of Template:WikiProject Biography, and is used as an icon for Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. /Grillo (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Why is that particular symbol, with - as I wrote above - the Swedish flag design (italics new), used in this context? SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Fixed SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Relevant "Succession issues"?[edit]

I recently removed this paragraph from the article's section on Succession issues:

  • Albert's marrying Jazmin's mother would probably not legitimatize her nor grant her a place in the line of succession, as she would likely be considered an adulterous child. The man to whom Jazmin's mother had been married since 1987, David Schumacher, filed for a divorce from Rotolo on 13 September 1991 in California, according to a San Diego Union-Tribune article by Jeff Wilson of the Associated Press, citing as grounds "irreconcilable differences". Rotolo did not contest the petition, the couple having been separated since April 1989.

I then used this edit summary:

  • rm grossly speculative paragraph of gossip which now also can be considered totally irrelevant since Albert is engaged

and I apologize if any of that wording offended anyone. The paragraåh has now been restored with this edit summary:

  • rv to sourced version agreed to on talk page & not mooted by betrothal

I find nothing "agreed" on the talk page about it as far as today's news goes.

Could somebody please explain how that paragraph is relevant, containing, as it does, speculation about non-happenings and info on a former girlfriend's ex-husband? Are we to engage in tabloid gossip or an encyclopaedia of relevant, sourced material, where the texts deal with the subjects they are under? I am removing it again now. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I restored the paragraph because its presence is explained & justified at length on this talk page in the section above titled, "Jazmin's status as Adulterine". Directly relevant to the "Succession issues" part of Albert's article is the fact that, under Monegasque constitution and law, if Albert ever marries the mother of Alexandre Coste, Alexandre automatically becomes heir to the throne -- regardless of any child Albert II has fathered since that son's birth, legitimate or illegitimate. This is unlike monarchies which altogether exclude illegitimates, or which place children legitimatized by parental marriage in the line of inheritance after children born in wedlock. The potential for a presently ineligible child to become eligible for succession is neither fabrication nor speculation, but a provision of Monegasque law. Monaco has, in the past, gone to extraordinary lengths to make a prince's out-of-wedlock child eligible to inherit the throne -- indeed, that's why Albert II is on the throne now. The previous discussion resulted in an agreement on choice of language which carefully eliminated any speculation; the article contains just the facts. It's simply a peculiarity of Monegasque law -- but a notable one. FactStraight (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Please do not create an edit war here! Wait for others to respond neutrally before reverting several times!
I find nothing in the discussion you twice have referred to which would support saving these extremely hypothetical speculations, irrelevant material. If there is anything specific in that other discussion which supports this paragraph, please quote it here specifically! The larger question is whether or not the whole overdone section violates WP guidelines for a BLP, dominant as it is. You should be satisfied with the removal of this paragraph, for now. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Consensus Flowchart.svg
Regardless of who is right here, SergeWoodzing, you are the one who needs to gain consensus because you are removing a paragraph that's been in the article for quite some time. Editors usually stick to status quo until they reach consensus for changing. Surtsicna (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course, every BLP needs to be sourced and there is usually nothing wrong with removing a paragraph on grounds of it being unsourced. Though I am not sure that the disputed paragraph is libelous. Surtsicna (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear Surtsicna: I had so hoped that the very helpful 3O process would be given a chance here, now we'll see if your entry (without providing the requested Third opinion) will dash my hopes or not.
New general comment by one of the two original editors: I am removing that paragraph (only) as obsolete and far-fetched mainly as an update in connection with the prince's recent engagement to another woman. The question remains as to whether or not it ever was relevant, and whether or not large parts of the section (which I have not removed yet) are now and ever were.
Please give the Third opinion process a chance here by not replying yet unless you are providing the Third opinion requested (se template above)! SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear SergeWoodzing: requesting a third opinion does not prevent a fourth user to give his/her opinion. Please, please stop telling me to leave a discussion! You simply don't have a right to do that, not to mention how incredibly rude that is. It's not even the first time you've done that (just to name one occassion). Surtsicna (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:
I apologize but since their are more than two editors involved here i am unable to give a WP:3O—Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I haven't expressed an opinion regarding the dispute. I simply commented on reverting without discussing. Does that prevent you from commenting on whether or not the paragraph should be there? I'm sorry if it does. Surtsicna (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I havwe reinstated the request, hoping it can still be addressed. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow, this is completely idiotic. What on earth is the point of WP:3O anyway? What does it do that WP:RFC doesn't already do? What is the point of commenting on this page in order to say that you are not going to provide your opinion? Bureaucratic idiocy. john k (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! As to 3O, it is often very helpful when used right. I have seen it solve disputes at least 50-60 times before they get a chance to blossom into long, nasty arguments. The best part of it is that you are asked not to comment if you are not completely neutral re: the two editors having opposing POV. Too many cooks principle. Great! SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I've been giving 3Os for a very long time, and I think Weaponbb7's comment was merely following the 3O policy to the word. By definition, 3Os are meant to be a tiebreaker in a conversation with two people. Having said that, I think it was a little silly to leave a comment like this on the page, hence why I left my own opinion below. In general 3Os do tend to help calm tensions and resolve issues around here, so I hope that my comments below will help. Further, I'll keep an eye on this page to help generate consensus. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Another opinion: The text added by FactStraight is unacceptable on the grounds that it's unsourced. Per WP:BLP, everything in a BLP article must be sourced to reliable sources. Speculative text about being an adulterous child or legitimization would absolutely need to be backed by sources. Further, merely mentioning an AP article about a divorce is not sufficient to back up such claims. Find some decent sourcing and then the text can be allowed in. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

  • In general, I don't see any reason to include this paragraph unless its argument (and not just the facts contained within it) can be attributed to reliable sources. It seems to verge on OR, IMO. john k (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Jardin animalier[edit]

This section essentially states that Albert plans to convert Monaco's zoo into a zoo..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlando098 (talkcontribs) 21:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Does no one know any more about this? What's the difference between a zoo (which it is now) and a zoo for children (which the article says it is going to be converted into)? Orlando098 (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Coins[edit]

This section states: As Monaco's head of state, Prince Albert is depicted on coins, including collectors' coins, with very rare exceptions. Not sure what "with very rare exceptions" means. Usually in Monaco normal French euros (with Marianne on the back) are used. Perhaps it should state: "Commemorative coins issued in Monaco depict Prince Albert on them, with very few exceptions"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlando098 (talkcontribs) 09:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Date of forthcoming wedding[edit]

Information regarding the wedding dates cited in Hello Magazine is incorrect. Please correct this as follows:

The wedding of HSH Prince Albert II and Miss Charlene Wittstock will take place on Friday 1 July 2011 in the Throne Room of the Palace of Monaco. The Civil Ceremony will be followed by a Religious Ceremony on Saturday 2 July 2011 in the Main Courtyard of the Palace of Monaco, including a Mass to be celebrated by Archbishop Bernard Barsi.

The source for this information is CityOut Monaco http://www.cityoutmonaco.com/monaco-events/articles/prince-albert-engaged-charlene-wittstock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexwent (talkcontribs) 16:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Prince Albert's children are listed as "Illegitimate"?[edit]

In this day and age, labeling children as "illegitimate" is unacceptable, pejorative, and stigmatizing. There must be another term.

The Wikipedia article on "Legitimacy" so states it's no longer used and instead replaced with "less abrasive words such as extramarital or love child." I have therefore changed "illegitimate" to "extramarital".

Yo

YoMenashe (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The Monagasque Constitution states that children must be "legitimate" to be eligible to succeed to the throne, it doesn't state that children must be "marital". I have therefore changed "extramarital" to "illegitimate". Note that, following the conclusion of the wedding, "officials" have admitted there may be another one or two illegitimate Grimaldis out there: [1] - Nunh-huh 00:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
"Extramarital" is also incorrect because, in English, it is usually part of the phrase "extramarital affair" and implies that one or both of the parties to the sexual tryst was married. Although Jazmin Grimaldi's mother, Tamara Rotolo, was (technically) still married when Jazmin was born, Albert was a bachelor and Nicole Coste was divorced when their son, Alexandre Coste, was born. A more correct term would be "born out of wedlock", however as has been noted, it is important that the status of these children not be minimised lest Wikipedia inadvertently blur the implications of their father's behaviour: Monegasque law uses the term "legitimate" and a version of that term should be used here because it is relevant to the kids' constitutional status in Monaco -- and to the prospects of any future children of the new Princess Consort. Yes, "illegitimate" is "stigmatizing" -- although less so nowadays than in the past. That's an impact on his children Albert should have thought about when he carried on not one, but at least two liaisons with women apparently without himself taking precautions to prevent pregnancy. Nonetheless, law makes all of Albert's children, legitimate and otherwise, past and future, co-heirs to their father's estimated $1 billion fortune -- that ought to be enough to purchase these unfortunate children enough life-long therapy to console them for the stigma their father has visited upon them. Meanwhile, we can now sit back, have some popcorn and wait for the tabloids to reveal how many other illegitimate Grimaldis have been spawned during his five year march-down-the-aisle to marry the exquisitely Euro-Zimbabwean Miss Wittstock. Since marriage to a commoner is acceptable anyway, maybe Rainier III should have allowed his son to marry his apparent true love; the Afro-Togoan Mlle Coste. I suppose we can now guess what the bride discovered this week which prompted those rumours about her thwarted attempts to flee her fiancé's realm before the wedding (remember Lady Di's threat to bolt when she found Charles's gift of diamonds to Camilla inscribed with their nicknames? What is it with these royal heirs and the women they don't have the guts to marry?). C'est dommage... FactStraight (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Legitimacy is certainly stigmatizing for regular people. However, Prince Albert is a royal, and the legitimacy of his offspring is an issue covered by his country's constitution. There's no intent to stigmatize or portray him in a negative light here, rather to tell the story as it is. To do otherwise (such as using the "extramarital" euphemism) would be wrong. - Yk3 talk ~ contrib 06:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The term "illegitimate" for extra marital children is pejorative[edit]

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: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. - 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)

Adopted children don't have right of inheritance either and "born out of wedlock and therefore......"[edit]

Is still pejorative and stigmatizing those children. Why are some people in this discussion so hung up on the right-of-inheritance issue? Just list their names, it is obvious they are from another relationship. Discuss the inheritance issue within the body of the wiki entry, where it belongs.

This is prudish and becoming nonsense.

Yo YoMenashe (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

agree, might be appropriate for three kids article or the office of the prince but not Alberta article

Bamler2 (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Why start a new heading?
Please read my input just above, beginning "Seems to me that if a living person ..."! There's your motivation, as I see it - its a relevant legal issue central to this particular biography.
I am certainly not "prudish", nor is my POV "nonsense". Why be insulting? SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Just in case you didn't know about the revision history of this page, the original version did not distinguish between the status of his children [12], until I changed it based on William IV of the United Kingdom (a featured article). The current phrase is frankly overdoing it and we might as well go back to the status quo. And for the record, "illegitimate" does not equal the n-word. Insinuating that would mean Wikipedia and all the other reliable sources above are insulting all children born to unmarried parents. — Yk3 talk ~ contrib 03:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I've always started a new title because I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly -- this is my second attempt to add.

First of all, someone above took personally something I said very generally and directed at no one in particular.

Some of you don't seem to understand how this affects a child or the perception of other people toward a child and/or his parents. Please read this article by a person who was born to unmarried parents here: ezinearticles.com/?Illegitimate-Children&id=3073217

Yo YoMenashe (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

My message was posted in response to this [13]. I'm saying either use "illegitimate" (which is used by reliable sources but obviously insensitive) or don't classify his children at all, like [14]. Also, I'm sick of people using their moral judgements during discussions at Wikipedia. Case in point: what should Muslim editors think about this article? (imo, the picture is deeply insensitive. But alas, WP is not censored.) Someone's bound to be offended in this world. Get used to it. — Yk3 talk ~ contrib 12:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


"reliable sources" doesn't make it right or correct language use. What's up there now, looks really tacky and unprofessional. I'm guessing this is on several other articles, especially involving royalty, where inheritance rights are such an issue. Schwarzenegger's child is just listed with the other children's names with his legal wife and details are discussed within the body of the wiki entry about the children, which is what I suggested we do with this one.

This is not a moral issue, it is a labeling issue. I am a linguist, that's why I'm finding this discussion frustrating. Labeling can be very offensive to many people, and not necessarily those directly involved. It's offensive to me. A term can be hurtful, especially when it's a pejorative term, which "illegitimate" is when related to a child, and we seem to be all agreed on that.

Yo. YoMenashe (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the current version? "Illegitimate" is nowhere to be found now. Personally, I agree with SergeWoodzing that in an infobox about a reigning monarch, it is appropriate to indicate that the only biological children this hereditary Sovereign currently has are ineligible to inherit his throne -- because that is an extraordinary datum. It simply isn't true that those who've commented in this discussion seem unaware or indifferent to the stigma. Rather some of us deem the stigmatizing information relevant to the accuracy & comprehensiveness expected from an encyclopedia, and deem that this particular encyclopedia's policies ("Wikipedia is not censored" support clarity and transparency on this issue, so stigmatization is not being ignored or denied but reckoned as an unfortunate reality the article is not justified in minimizing. Nobody seems truly pleased about the current language used, but that's what makes it a compromise, which is what determines wording in Wikipedia. FactStraight (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Société des bains de mer de Monaco.[edit]

The correct full name of the Monégasque (in French the "m" would be lower case) corporation given in both the text of this page and in the title of the corresponding Wikipedia page as "Société des bains de mer de Monaco" is the "Société des Bains de Mer et Cercle des Étrangers." It was so named by Princess Caroline, mother of Prince Albert I (The Navigator) for whom Prince Albert II was presumably named. I have a second home not far from Monaco. Actually, pretty much everybody just calls it "the SBM." Dick Kimball (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

King Obama[edit]

The most important pictures would be an official photo, current family, mother, father, Olympian, etc. Not of King Obama or Prince Ronald Reagan. Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece of Barack or other politician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talkcontribs) 19:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article would be better served with the type of photo you suggest, especially because English Wikipedia tends to be US-centric. That said, you removed the image without offering a good alternative. An image of the Prince with a US president doesn't make the article a mouthpiece for that particular leader. They are, in essence, historical documents, as is the image with Reagan. The title of the above implies that everyone here has a political angle, or is trying to sneak something by. JNW (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Obama has a huge following and Reagan some. Bush W has practically none. Whenever someone dies, wikipedia will usually put Obama's comments, almost as if we should change the name to Obamapedia.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talkcontribs) 22:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Albert has more French ties, a photo with the French President more important that Obama. Obama is a great man but has no Monaco ties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talkcontribs) 18:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to add that photo. The fact that Albert II chose to be photographed with the U.S. President establishes sufficient ties. Please avoid I Just Don't Like It FactStraight (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Albert is half-American and because of his mother's American origin and fame, is often associated with the United States, where he also attended university and has family. Showing a reigning monarch of a microstate with the Head of State of the world's superpower is common enough in bios not to constitute undue weight. The terms being used in this section's title and discussion to refer to Obama and the U.S. suggest inappropriate animus. FactStraight (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

King Reagan should be cropped out of the photo. He has nothing to do with Albert. Undue weight Bamler2 (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Per FactStraight's rationale, and more recently this offensive series of postings [15], there was never any problem with the images here. I'm striking part of my earlier comment, lest it be misconstrued as supporting a unilateral and disruptive intent. JNW (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Reign[edit]

His reign should have a photo which I added. It replaced the Obama photo which is undue weight since his reign has nothing to do with Obama except they were in the same museum reception. There was no treaty breakthrough or anything else mentioned in the first few pages of google — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talkcontribs) 03:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Father's record[edit]

Why does this article state that Albert's father was Europe's longest reigning monarch, which is not true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.253.125 (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Because, at the time of his death, Rainier was Europe's longest reigning current monarch. That IS true. As at 2005, he had been in office longer than Queen Elizabeth, and Queen Margrethe, and ( the list goes on ), all European monarchs. The only monarch who had been in office longer than his, was the King of Thailand. He was not the longest reigning monarch, ever.
The question was very valid, however. An uneducated person could read it and easily come away believing Rainier was Europe's longest-serving monarch, ever. And that would be us doing a disservice to our readers, so I've tweaked the wording. It's slightly clumsy, but that's what you get when you refer to "records" that were only ever temporary in nature, as if they were records for all time. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 06:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Succession[edit]

'Princess Caroline remains first in the order of succession. Although she is only the heiress presumptive and not heiress apparent...' What does Heiress Presumptive mean, if there is no Heir Apparent? Valetude (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It means that, although she is first in line, she can be displaced by birth of another person - specifically, by birth of a child to Albert and his wife. An heir apparent cannot be displaced by anyone's birth. There should be links to articles about those terms. Surtsicna (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

These sentences are outdated: Thus Alexandre would become Monaco's heir apparent under current law if Albert were to ever marry his son's mother. But in a 2005 exchange with American reporter Larry King, Albert stated that this will not happen. I'll try to update them without deletion, in view of the birth of a legitimate heir. --Patkenel (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

They are not outdated. If Albert were to ever marry Alexandre's mother, he would precede Charlene's child in the line of succession, being older. Surtsicna (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Since Prince Albert gives absolutely no indication divorcing Princess Charlene, let alone of marrying either of the mothers of either of his earlier children, all this is now sort of a waste of time. I understand that he now pays child support to both of those mothers.
Dick Kimball (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course, but that does not make the sentences outdated. I wonder if they constitute synthesis, however. Surtsicna (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)