Template talk:Belgian Royal Family

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

Wouldn't it be better if we changed the template to this:

It makes the weddings more clear (by putting them on one bullet), and shows that Fabiola is not the mother of Philippe, Astrid and Laurent Cheezycrust 19:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Astrid's children...[edit]

Why were Princess Astrid's children removed from the template? Officially, they ARE members of the Belgian Royal Family, and they carry the title Prince/ss of Belgium, as does their father. Morhange 17:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC notification[edit]

A request for comments which may impact this template has been started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RfC on style in royal family templates. You are welcome to comment there. Fram (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

HI&RH Archduchess Elisabetta[edit]

@Surtsicna::This edit is not an an "outdated, patriarchial and rather sexist view," it's just how things work. Diana, Sarah, Camilla, Kate, Sophie, Birgitte, Katherine, and Marie Christine were/are not British princesses but, were/are members of the British Royal Family because they married into it. HI&RH Archduchess Elisabetta is the same with Belgium.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Elisabetta is not a member of the Belgian Royal Family as she is not a Belgian Royal. Belgian Royal titles have not been automatic upon marriage since 1991, so any women to marry Belgian princes since then have had to become princesses by royal decree. No decree has been issued for Elisabetta; in fact in order to marry her Prince Amedeo had to give up his succession rights. Psunshine87 (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
"...in order to marry her Prince Amedeo had to give up his succession rights." That's not correct, he gave up his succession rights "because he wished to live an independent life, free of any official role."[1]Cebr1979 (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Let me rephrase; in marrying without royal authorization he gave up his succession rights. Psunshine87 (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
That's also not correct. You're insinuating (flat out stating) that he gave up his succession rights in order to marry without royal consent but, that's not what happened. He gave up his succession rights... and he also got married. He chose to do both of his own free will and one did not have anything to do with the other. That has been confirmed and is sourced. Having said all that, I am going to drop this but, will leave on this final note: If we are going to include Prince Amedeo as being a member of the Belgian Royal Family (even though Belgium has never said he is and no official list includes him), it would only make sense to include his wife who, upon marriage, acquired the feminine form of all his titles.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, scratch the part about her titles - my bad! I completely lost my head for a minute and forgot that Belgian princes don't pass on their Belgian titles to their wives, she only has the feminine form of his Austrian titles! Oops on my part!Cebr1979 (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be confusion here as to what we are discussing. We are not discussing whether or not she is a princess, we are discussing whether or not she is a member her husband's family and, the answer to that is: yes, of course she is. That's what a wedding does.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

But the fact of the matter is that as a non-Belgian royal she is not a member of the Belgian Royal Family - she might be a family member, but she is not part of the official family. Such a status is not automatic, nor is she recognized as such. In fact, the official website of the Belgian Royal Family does not list her at all - it doesn't even actually list Amedeo or any of his siblings. Unless you have a reliable source that lists Elisabetta as a member of the Belgian Royal Family any edit to declare her as such is inaccurate.
Further, your argument that "she is a member of her husband's family" is a bit unfounded. Going to your comparison of the British royals - Sir Timothy Laurence is not a member of the British Royal Family, despite very likely being considered a member of his wife's family. Nor are his wife's children, their spouses, or their children in turn, members of the British Royal Family, despite all being family members. That's because simply being related to the family is not enough to make one a part of the Royal Family - you have to actually be royal to be part of the Royal Family. Psunshine87 (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
By bringing up Timothy Laurence, you've proven you haven't paid attention to this whole conversation.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)