Talk:Albert II, Prince of Monaco

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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Prince Albert II of Monaco at the Enthronement of Naruhito (1) fix.jpg

Use of surname
An edit war has now begun to assert that "Grimaldi" should be added where the prince's full name is given. There is no reliable source for that and I will revert it again tomorrow unless a good reason is given here not to. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * This also affects other members of the House of Grimaldi, who had the removal of "Grimaldi" reverted. 2601:249:9301:D570:38CF:2358:328E:C8EF (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Britannica gives Prince Albert's full name including the surname. Векочел (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * His government does not. That, to me, is what we go by. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Except when it does. I do not think we should mislead readers into thinking that Albert and his family do not have a surname. Surtsicna (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

"illegitimate" children
The article currently has a header Relationships and illegitimate children. Referring to children as illegitimate is biased -- they are legitimately children -- and quite dated, as children born outside of wedlock are quite standard these days. (Just as an example: the first child on the list was born in the US, where 40% of children are born outside of wedlock.) There is absolutely no reason to be demeaning the children in this manner, for events that they had no control over. May I suggest Non-marital relationships and resulting children as a header instead? Or possibly simply Paternity claims? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. "There are no illegitimate children – only illegitimate parents". (Leon Rene Yankwich) --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Without objection, I changed it to Paternity claims. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well done! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Change it back, no one care about your cry baby feelings. It’s a common term, don’t like it? Log off and go think about it. Final warning. 184.146.127.118 (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC of interest
(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Billionaire
I just had to eliminate one of the sources used to establish his US$1 billion + evaluation, as it was a WP:FORBESCON article and thus not usable on a WP:BLP. I do not have Forbes access, so I cannot tell which of the information in the statement is referenced there. However, this evaluation is a problem, as it is greater than a decade old and thus cannot be trusted for the current situation. (I did put a date on it.) This also brings into question his inclusion in Category:Monegasque billionaires, as even if the more-than-a-billion evaluation stands, it is possible for him not to be a Monegasque billionaires because Monaco is based not on the dollar but the more-valuable euro, and it is possible he is worth less than a billion euros. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've not managed to catch the details on the new page before the paywall block popped up, and it evaluated him at a flat $1 billion. One might guess he gained money in the ensuing years, and thus qualify as a euro-billionaire, but guesses ain't factses. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Fiedler suit dates
I was bothered by the description of the Fiedler lawsuit as simply being "earlier". I found a later piece of coverage that cited the date of the alleged tryst to October 1986, and the matter was definitely getting coverage in 1991 (sometimes luridly so, as one might imagine), but given the sometimes slow-grinding wheels of justice, that means the suit could've been filed anytime between 1987 and 1991. If anyone can come up with a more precise date, it would be an improvement. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I found it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)