Talk:Queen Mathilde of Belgium

Untitled

The entry contains the following (contradictory) information:

"...Though her grandfather and her uncle were barons, she and her father were members of the untitled nobility...

Mathilde's father is Count (formerly Jonkheer) Patrick d'Udekem d'Acoz..."

Now he EITHER is an untitled member of the aristocracy or gentry (can't be nobility) OR he is a count.

WHAT is it?

Verity Truth (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, like in the Netherlands, there is an untitled nobility in Belgium. Members of the nobility who don't have a title are entitled to use the style "Jonkheer" (in Dutch) or Ecuyer (in French). Princess Mathilde's father was a member of the untitled nobility as her grandfather's title of baron had passed to her uncle. By Royal Order of 8 November 1999, baron Henri d'Udekem d'Acoz, Raoul d'Udekem d'Acoz and Patrick d'Udekem d'Acoz were granted the title of count for themselves and their descendants. This Royal Order entered into force on the date of the wedding of Prince Philippe and Princess Mathilde.--Ganchelkas (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

...therefore if Prince Philippe assumes the throne, Princess Mathilde will become the only European Queen Consort with noble ancestry.

This sentence doesn't seem right. What was the criteria used to say that she will become the ONLY consort with noble ancestry? Is it of a ruling house? Because Queen Sofia of Spain was born a princess, so in this case we assume that will only be if Prince Philippe ascends after the King or Queen of Spain are dead? If it is of a ruling house, have you considered principalities? Sophie, Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein was born a duchess and became a princess before her marriage, and there are also a few other cases of marriages between ruling and non ruling houses that also debunk that and a few others where the queen's or crown princess' nobility comes from an illegitimate line. The link that supposedly shows her nobility is of her mother, a Polish princess, therefore non ruling. I don't know if it refers to nobility in the country of the throne her husband is to inherit, then her father's genealogy is needed... there are a few possibilities here, can someone clarify that? ˜˜˜˜—Preceding unsigned comment added by Notconnectedtome (talk • contribs) 03:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe with the sentence was meant: ...therefore if Prince Philippe assumes the throne, Princess Mathilde will become the only European Queen Consort of nobility. And with nobility I only mean "legally" recognized, since the nobility in Germany and Greece is abolished. Demophon (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

So is in Poland, where her nobility comes from, the monarchy abolished. Argument still flawed. (Notconnectedtome (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC))

The Duchess of Brabant's father was a Belgian nobleman. Surtsicna (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

(because Camilla Parker Bowles only belongs to the gentry.

I concur that the comparative nobility statement seems needlessly contentious in an article that is otherwise very informative. Whatever one may think about the nobiliary status of the English gentry, the Duchess of Cornwall is a cadet of Shand of Craig, an armigerous Scottish family; her father bears arms that are registered with the Lord Lyon; all Scottish armigers are constituted members of the noblesse of Scotland. Either the Duchess is a Scottish noblewoman by birth, or we're judging by English standards, by which all foreign nobles (including the Duchess) have the rank of esquire, and all of the ladies mentioned in this passage consequently rank as members of the gentry in England. Why get into it? Liushazhai (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, King Albert II raised Mathilde's family from the rank of esquire to count. Keep in mind also that Mathilde's uncle was already a baron in his own right. Her father was only a esquire (jonkheer) because, in his family in particular, the baronial title descended only by primogeniture, which is actually somewhat rare in the nobility of Belgium and the Netherlands. In any case, untitled nobility is legally recognized in Belgium, unlike in the UK, and there's no legal doubt that Mathilde is of noble birth (hence why she was legally entitled to use the jonkvrouw predicate from birth). As for Camilla, what title or honorific predicate did she have before marrying Prince Charles ? 161.24.19.112 (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved. Editors favoring a move have both a numerical majority and the support of a specific project naming guideline. While an RfC has been opened on WP:CONSORTS, the guideline as written supports this move. If the guideline is deprecated, it may be appropriate to reverse the move. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Mathilde of Belgium → Queen Mathilde of Belgium – Article should be moved to reflect her new status as consort, as per WP:CONSORTS, she should have Queen in front of her article name. Morhange (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The title should be consistent with that of the article about her husband. It should be either Queen Mathilde of Belgium and King Philippe of Belgium, or Mathilde of Belgium and Philippe of Belgium, or Mathilde, Queen of the Belgians and Philippe, King of the Belgians. It would be ridiculous to have her as Queen Mathilde and him as plain Philippe. Common sense indicates that, if the titles are not to match for some reason, he should actually be the one with the royal title and she the one without it. There is no reasonable justification for referring to the monarch's wife as "Queen Z of Y" and to the monarch himself as "X of Y". Surtsicna (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support. That's right. She should have Queen in front of her article name. Like the titles of articles of the other consorts of monarchs. We have Queen Máxima of the Netherlands not Máxima of the Netherlands. Also Queen Sofía of Spain, Queen Sonja of Norway, Queen Silvia of Sweden, Princess Lalla Salma of Morocco, Queen 'Masenate Mohato Seeiso, Empress Michiko, Queen Rania of Jordan and Sultanah Haminah Hamidun. The title of this article also should be Queen Mathilde of Belgium. Keivan.f^Talk 14:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The title of these two articles should not adhere to common sense only because some other articles don't? That does not make much sense. Surtsicna (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Now I agree with Surtsicna. The title should be consistent with that of the article about her husband. Keivan.f^Talk 14:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support. As long as WP:CONSORTS is in force the article's title should be Queen Mathilde of Belgium. Although I wouldn't mind to change WP:CONSORTS to reflect Surtsicna's reasoning. Gugganij (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe the best way to change that guideline (and I stress that it is a guideline rather than a policy) is to accept its faultiness and start ignoring it if it leads to silly titles such as Philippe of Belgium and Queen Mathilde of Belgium, Queen Máxima of the Netherlands and Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands, etc. I will bring this up at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), but I don't think we should let that faulty guideline impose bad titles even while it stands. Surtsicna (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support as nominator. If anything, the articles for the monarchs should probably be at King X of Y, or X, King of Y rather than making the queens Z of Y. Morhange (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • If that is your opinion, suggest it at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). I believe that proposal would meet much more opposition than the proposal to drop "Queen". It would also require moving hundreds (if not thousands) of articles for the sake of five. Either way, having "Philippe of Belgium" and "Queen Mathilde of Belgium" would make Wikipedia look nothing but silly. Such format can only look natural to those who have been editing Wikipedia for years and thus became accustomed to it. To everyone else, it is just confusing, misleading and illogical. Surtsicna (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Then Philippe should be at Philippe I of Belgium. The problem seems to be the ordinals. No one is confused by George V of the United Kingdom or Margrethe II of Denmark, it's Philippe and Willem-Alexander's articles who ultimately cause the confusion. Would we also make changes to have articles at Henrik of Denmark or Maria Teresa of Luxembourg? Personally, I think all the monarchs of kingdoms should have ordinals whether they're first or tenth and their consorts should be at Queen X of Y or X, Prince Consort of Y. Others will disagree, I'm sure. Morhange (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Of course others will disagree when your proposal ignores factual accuracy and recognisability. Victoria I? Anne I? Anyway, this situation is entirely incomparable with that of Henrik and Maria Teresa. Henrik is not a king and the article about Maria Teresa is titled Maria Teresa, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg, which is entirely in line with that of her husband, Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg. Surtsicna (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure what factual accuracy has to do with this situation--is Philippe not the first Belgian king of his name? What, exactly, is factually inaccurate about Philippe I, King of the Belgians? Does your previous accusation that this is confusing, misleading and illogical policy apply to Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden and Queen Silvia of Sweden? Matilde is not a reigning monarch. The way her article is titled now, from Wiki policy one would assume she is either queen in her own right or a former queen consort back at her maiden name, neither of which are true. Are you proposing to drop Queen from all the queen consorts? Morhange (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
          • He does not reign as Philippe I. He does not sign documents as such and is not known as such. Of course it is thus factually inaccurate to refer to him as such. Is it not factually inaccurate to refer to Anne Hathaway as Anne Shulman, despite her being "Mrs Shulman"? Anyway, that is exactly what I am talking about. Only Wikipedia editors interested in royalty can assume such a thing from Wiki policy, and that's only because they became accustomed to such practice. Only they can assume that Mathilde of Belgium is a monarch and that Queen Silvia of Sweden is a consort. Why do you think that a random John Smith who comes to read about European kings and queens would find it natural and logical to have Philippe of Belgium and Queen Mathilde of Belgium? If there is anything a random user can conclude from such formats, it's that the person with the title is more important and thus the monarch, while the one without the title is the consort. Of course random readers find that confusing, misleading and illogical. Yes, I am proposing that. Surtsicna (talk) 11:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose until and unless her husband is moved to Philippe, King of Belgium (or "Philippe, King of the Belgians"), since he lacks the ordinal which clues readers that his article is likely to be about a monarch. I'll gladly support this move when that one occurs. FactStraight (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: King of the Belgians rather than King of Belgium is his formal title, and I'd stick to that, on the grounds that sources that call him King of Belgium are ipso facto not all that reliable. Andrewa (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support per the standards for consorts past and present. If people disagree with the naming convention they should get the convention changed and rolled out consistently, not recreate a messy patchwork of article titles just to make a point. Her husband's article is already in the standard form, in line with others such as his uncle's. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The only thing disrupting Wikipedia here is blind adherence to senseless rules despite their obvious faultiness. Nobody has yet responded to my arguments. The only argument in favour of the proposed title seems to be "that's the way we do it". Why not attempt to explain why that's the way we do it? Does Wikipedia have to be confusing and misleading and look silly with titles such as Philippe of Belgium and Queen Mathilde of Belgium just because of a guideline? I don't understand that. Surtsicna (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Per naming conventions for royalty. Seven Letters 21:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Would you care to defend that convention at the relevant talk page? So far, only the nominator actually took the effort to do so. Others sweep in to plead convention, completely ignoring the arguments against it and the discussion about it. That is not very helpful and makes this look like a vote. Surtsicna (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Per WP:CONSORTS and results for Talk:Queen Máxima of the Netherlands#Requested move 2013.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Per WP:CONSORTS. All consorts should have the same style. No reason to treat Mathilde any different from Maxima and the lot. -- fdewaele, 22 July 2013, 13:20 (CET)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Title

Shouldn't the title of the article be "Queen Mathilde of the Belgians" ? There is no such title as "Queen of Belgium" or, for that matter, "King of Belgium". 161.24.19.112 (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Mathilde is not "Queen of the Belgians". That title is reserved to reigning queens. Her legal titles in Belgium are "Queen", "Princess of Belgium", and "Countess d'Udekem d'Acoz".2804:14C:165:8EC3:C0FA:D446:67A:7BB (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Queen Mathilde of Belgium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080929094453/http://gpdhome.typepad.com:80/royalblognl_news_summary/2008/09/father-of-princ.html to http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2008/09/father-of-princ.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Queen Mathilde of Belgium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080330200808/http://www.rtlinfo.be:80/rtl/news/article/112574/--Le+p%C3%A8re+de+la+princesse+Mathilde+est+mourant to http://www.rtlinfo.be/rtl/news/article/112574/--Le+p%C3%A8re+de+la+princesse+Mathilde+est+mourant

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)