Talk:Princess Gabriella, Countess of Carladès

Article title may change...
...Depending on what the common name ends up being (Princess Gabriella or the Countess of Carlades). See Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), point 5. Seven Letters 21:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing, except for her brother. Not sure if Marquis of Baux supersedes the Hereditary Prince title or not. I don't think Gabriella's article will change. She has a substantive title, I think, in the same way that the Swedish children are Duke/Duchess of X. Morhange (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That point was added to WP:NCNT specifically because of a discussion of Swedish (and Parmesan) princes. Really, they should be changed. Jacques will not have Baux added, c.f., Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden and her ducal title. Seven Letters 21:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone made the decision for us... Seven Letters 22:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I moved it after making sure that she's a real countess in Monaco not only in the French territory. Her title might be similar to the Duchess of Brabant who is still known as Princess Elisabeth but is officially a duchess. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The different is that Brabant (like Wales, Asturias, Baux, etc) is specifically the title of the crown prince(ss) of those countries, actually used entirely in lieu of it. It wouldn't have mattered if the title were French or Monegasque if that is how she is to be known, it would be used regardless. The issue may come in time though if she is officially referred to as "Princess Gabriella" by the princely court or if she is referred to as "the Countess of Carladès" instead... C.f. members of the Swedish royal family, who all have ducal titles but are not generally known by them, not even in the listings of members of the royal family, yet they curiously have them in their article titles here although WP:NCNT says they should not. Seven Letters 18:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The Swedish royals are sometimes referred to by their ducal titles. An example is when they visit the region of which they hold their duchy. There just isn't a need to refer to they by their ducal titles because there aren't many of them. They are referred to in groups as the Crown Princess Couple/Family or The Princess Couple/Family. Anyway, there are always exceptions to rules and it's not a policy. It's just a guideline which can be contested. The Swedish royals have held their ducal titles since birth  or as far back as they can remember so there is some attachment to them.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have edited the guideline to remove Carl Phillip since that can easily be disproved.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It *has to be* disproved, rather than may be. See how the royals are listed here. . Seven Letters 19:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Carl Phillip is not listed as a Prince of Sweden. It's simply prince.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The territorial designation is implied and used outside of Sweden. Seven Letters 19:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Titles and styles
Does anyone else think that it's stupid to write from "10 December 2014 – 10 December 2014"? It's the same day! And only a matter of minutes! Which is why I added the time. Personally I don't mind the bullet points although it causes some problems (we don't technically need them and can have a short explanation on her titles) I propose removing the bullet points and adding an explanation or do something similar to here.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I would keep the bullet points (seems standard to other royal articles) and just use one date with the time after in brackets. It is important information to present (that she was hereditary princess) but it should be made clear that it was for a very short amount of time (without it seeming like an entire day). Seven Letters 18:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with removing the second instance of the date.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:Verifiability and, more specifically, WP:Biographies of living persons. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." No source was provided for the claim that she was referred to as Hereditary Prince of Monaco. Honestly, I cannot understand how someone can argue that, during those two minutes, anyone had the time to style her as such. The "Titles and styles" section lists the titles and styles that were used to refer to a person during her or his lifetime, not the constitutional positions that person held. Gabriella was indeed heir presumptive, but unless you can find a publication that refers to her as "HSH The Hereditary Princess of Monaco", that bit should not be in the article. It constitutes a prime example of original research that plagues royalty-related articles. Surtsicna (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The laws of the principality of Monaco make an only legitimate child hereditary prince(ss) (specifically, the first in line, which Gabriella was). Gabriella was the only legitimate child, albeit for two minutes. Fact is fact. See the amended house laws of 29 May 2002, which are online. Seven Letters 14:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Here: . Seven Letters 14:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course. Nobody disputes that. The disputed claim is that Gabrielle was formally, officially styled as "HSH The Hereditary Princess of Monaco" during two minutes of her life. She was not. She was an heir presumptive, an hereditary princess, but never "HSH The Hereditary Princess". The first and so far only announcement regarding her title and style came very shortly after her birth and was very clear about the matter. WP:SYNTHESIS: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Gabriella was indeed heir presumptive, and heirs presumptive are styled as "HSH The Hereditary Prince(ss)", but that does not mean that we should explicitly state that the Palace or the media ever referred to her as "HSH The Hereditary Princess". Unless (in an extremely unlikely case) we learn that the obstetrician announced the birth of "HSH The Hereditary Princess" prior to delivering the baby he or she then called "HSH The Hereditary Prince", we should remain silent on the issue. Surtsicna (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We are not stating "the palace or the media" called her that. Rather, it is the title and style applied to her by law. Has anyone explicity called her "Her Serene Highness The Countess of Carladès" (nothing shows up in searches other than our article) in that exact form? Probably not, yet that is not in dispute. A title and style explicitly enshrined in the laws of the principality of Monaco should not be in dispute either. Seven Letters 15:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, which is why my original wording did not state so. And yes, we are listing the titles and styles that have been officially used to refer to this person, or at least we should be doing so that rather than making stuff up. We should not list titles and styles that we think should have applied to her. That is original research. We do not pretend that Lady Louise Windsor is "HRH Princess Louise of Wessex" or that Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, is "HRH The Princess of Wales". Furthermore, "HSH The Hereditary Princess" is not a style "explicitly enshrined in the laws of the principality of Monaco". No such phrase can be found in the constitution. For what it's worth, Caroline was known as "HRH The Princess of Hanover" while she was heir presumptive, regardless of what the constitution says (or doesn't say). It's all about usage. Surtsicna (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To add to the confusion, her brother is referred to as "Crown Prince" in the English version of the official site.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's merely an understandable mistake, a mistranslation of the French term into English. Crown Prince and Hereditary Prince both translate to "prince héritier" in French, but the translation doesn't go back to Crown Prince for heirs to families of grand ducal rank and lower, since the distinction between them and imperial/royal heirs exists in English. Seven Letters 02:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Titles and styles (new section)
The other section was getting too long so I started a new one. Prince Albert did say something about this before the birth. "La première ou le premier à voir le jour sera la princesse ou le prince héréditaire, mais s'il devait s'agir d'un garçon et d'une fille, le garçon serait Prince héréditaire. Il en irait de même en cas de jumelles: si, plus tard, un garçon venait agrandir notre famille, c'est à lui que reviendrait alors le titre de prince héréditaire."

My French is not good but this roughly translates to The first or the first to be born will be the hereditary princess or prince, but if there was to be a boy and a girl, the boy would be hereditary prince. It would be the same with twins if, later, a boy arrived it is he that would the hereditary prince.

According to the French Wikipedia contributers and I asked why Gabriella is not listed in the list of hereditary prince/princesses, and they told me that it is because of this statement which states that a male would be hereditary prince.

He also said that he reserved the title count or countess of Carladès for the second in line.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no problem with what Albert said in reference to the eventuality of both births. It was only clear that Gabriella was going to be second in line once Jacques was born. Before that, she was heiress presumptive and Hereditary Princess. It is the operation of the law. The eventuality of both births though is that Jacques is Hereditary Prince and Gabriella lost the position she held for a very short period of time. Seven Letters 03:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, Gabriella is Countess of Carladès because she is second in line now. She wasn't second in line at birth, she was first. Seven Letters 03:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This would be easier if someone could contact them and ask if she was ever a hereditary princess. Who knows?--Hipposcrashed (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Surtsicna said. That she might not have been considered a hereditary princess.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Surtsnica said she was not styled "Her Serene Highness the Hereditary Princess" but that she still was the Hereditary Princess of Monaco... So, I don't think you do actually agree. Seven Letters 15:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting legalistic discussion, really it is, but we just can't say this without a source that says she was the hereditary princess. Flyte35 (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a source that say's the heir to the throne is automatically the hereditary prince or princess and, for those two minutes, she was the heir to the throne. Wikipedia does NOT require there be a source that specifically states the words "Princess Gabriella was the Hereditary Princess." The fact that we know she was the heir and that the heir is automatically the Hereditary Prince or Princess is acceptable by wikipedia's standards and requirements.174.6.0.22 (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What source says Princess Gabriella, Countess of Carladès was hereditary princess of Monaco? There's no sourcing provided. Flyte35 (talk) 07:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The sourcing provided is just "According to the Decree of the Sovereign n° 15.368 of 29 May 2002," which is not a real citation. Beyond that, it could not possibly indicate that the subject of the article was hereditary princess for two minutes. In order to say that, you have to provide sourcing for that precise point. As I indicated in talk, it's an interesting legal question, but you can't say she was hereditary princess for two minutes unless you have a source indicating she was hereditary princess for two minutes. Anything else is original research. Flyte35 (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "According to the Decree of the Sovereign n° 15.368 of 29 May 2002," is a real citation. Citations do not need to be clickable links, as you seem to believe. A refresher on wikipedia's citation policies is something I recommend for you.174.6.0.22 (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't indicate that subject of the article was hereditary princess for two minutes, that's what the problem is here. This information shouldn't be in here until you, or another editor, provide a source indicating that. I'm aware that citations do not need to be clickable links. Flyte35 (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Noone needs a source to say that she was the Hereditary Princess for two minutes, that's you being difficult. The fact that she was the heir for two minutes and the heir is automatically the Hereditary Prince or Princess meets wikipedia's standards.174.6.0.22 (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, in order to add that you do need a source indicating, specifically, that the subject was the hereditary princess. You cannot simply make your own interpretation, that is original research. That's why this information should be deleted immediately until you can find a source indicating that. If it's true that shouldn't be too difficult. Flyte35 (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a very big difference between a given title and an automatic one. When a title is automatic, knowing that someone had it by birth is not original research. An understanding on how automatic titles work is needed to take part in this discussion. You've been given a source that states the title is automatic.174.6.0.22 (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact, you've been given it more than a few times now... 174.6.0.22 (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That is exactly what original research is. Listen, I understand you think this is true, and it even appears obviously true to you, but it's just not properly cited, and that's why it shouldn't be here. The policy on this is that "reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source." What you're doing here is interpreting a primary source. Flyte35 (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just keep making your points, I've gone as far as I care to and it doesn't look like anyone else is wanting to continue this tired conversation either so... Have a good day.174.6.0.22 (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing to discuss here for as long as there are no reliable secondary sources. WP:BLP is perfectly clear about that: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." There is no need for tags - this claim should not be in the article at all. In biographies of living persons, a discussion about contentious material is only a viable option when an appropriate source is cited. There is no source whatsoever, let alone a reliable one, which states that Gabriella was styled as "HSH The Hereditary Princess" at any point in her life. Surtsicna (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If further discussions on this are made, please start a new section. There is no doubt that her title/status is disputed (I'm on neither side if you're wondering and I hope this gets resolved). The French Wikipedia had no such disputes.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Future legitimate issue of the Prince of Monaco
This page was deleted when the twins were born instead of being moved into one of these pages. Is there any way we can add some of the information about the pregnancy that the page had to the pages for Gabriella and Jacques? Psunshine87 (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I requested deletion of that because I didn't see any point in adding the information about an unborn child into an article about a born child. I can give you a summary of what was in it.

Summary: Announcement of the pregnancy and due date(in the article it said child but in the official announcement they avoided this because of the twins) Titles Announcement of the twins Background (succession issues) There was also a lot of trivial information that I don't see as important for articles like this.

--Hipposcrashed (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Titles and styles (new section)
The official website of the Palace and the press release state this:

There is nothing there that states he received the title of Hereditary Prince. To me it's too much obvious no one had to grant Prince Jacques the title of Hereditary Prince. Why? Because it's automatic. Unlike the title of Marquis of Baux, which had to be granted, as stated above, and Princess Gabriella couldn't have been granted that title because of Salic law, I suppose. If it's automatic for Prince Jacques, it was automatic for Princess Gabriella too, even if it was only two minutes and no one had the idea to call her Her Serene Highness The Hereditary Princess during that little timespan. At 17:03 CET of 10 December 2014, Prince Albert had no legitimate children or existing brothers, his older sister was the Hereditary Princess. At 17:04 CET, Albert had only a daughter, she was the Hereditary Princess, at 17:06 CET, Albert had a daughter and a son, that son is the Hereditary Prince. I don't know what to say more, with all this obstinate opposition to admit a fact without having a source which says it with every single word. What's next, Wikipedia can't have the line of succession because the Palace website has not included such a list and we can't confirm the obvious? Seriously I don't understand. 2.82.123.250 (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The list of titles and styles is not (or at least should not be) a list of titles and styles one is/was entitled to use. It is (or at least should be) a list of titles/styles that have been used to refer to the person. We do not pretend that Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, is "HRH The Princess of Wales" no matter how "automatic" that should be. We do not pretend that Lady Louise Windsor is "HRH Princess Louise of Wessex" no matter what the letters patent say. We do not pretend that Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, is "HRH Princess William", regardless of whether or not she is entitled to be styled as such. We report things as they are, not as they could be or should be. Surtsicna (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But then, all those royals you mentioned have a bunch of titles, but commonly they only use one, the one which suits best. Camilla doesn't use the title of Princess of Wales because of Diana, Lady Louise is called that way because the Queen wanted so, for unknown reasons. Catherine uses the title of Duchess of Cambridge because, well, it's obvious, isn't it? A litte weird to commonly call her Princess William. However, no one said Princess Gabrielle wouldn't use the title of Hereditary Prince, explaining or not the reason why. If the title is automatic... If someone tells me with evidence that the title of Hereditary Prince(ss) of Monaco is NOT automatic, then and only then I will rest my case. 2.82.123.250 (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * She might very well have been the hereditary princess, but until there's a source saying the subject of the article was the hereditary princess, we can't include it. Verifiability, not truth is the the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. Flyte35 (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Marquis of Baux is granted? Then why on the article does it say it is passed?--Hipposcrashed (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it's a Wikipedia article. Sometimes Wikipedia articles contain mistakes. Flyte35 (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good question, indeed. I don't know, I just quoted the press release from the Palace website, and I don't think they would imply that this title was granted if it's automatic too. 2.82.123.250 (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The press release says something about a treaty but I don't know about these things.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither do I, so I'm not pronouncing about that. 2.82.123.250 (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Compromise
I would actually be okay with just a paragraph stating she would have legally held the title without having ever used it. It doesn't necessarily need to be listed as a formal title she held but, an explanation somewhere as to her being in the position for those 2 minutes needs to be here somewhere.174.6.0.22 (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I too would be perfectly OK with it if it came with a reliable secondary source. Surtsicna (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm not saying she didn't legally hold the title, we just don't so far have reliable secondary source that said she did. Flyte35 (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We can say she was first in line to the throne, heir presumptive to the throne, etc. The one thing we know for sure is that she displaced Caroline as we do have sources for the line of succession.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If we can agree she was first in line to the throne then we must concede that she was hereditary princess. It is stated in the laws governing the succession of the princely throne. Seven Letters 18:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If we have sourcing saying she was first in line to the throne then we can say she was first in line to the throne. That's it. We cannot draw conclusions based on primary sources. That is OR.Flyte35 (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So your point is that we have to find a reliable source which states exactly this: "Her Serene Highness Princess Gabrielle Thérèse Marie of Monaco was the Hereditary Princess of Monaco from 17:04 CET to 17:06 CET on December 10, 2014" and if we fail to have such source we can't conclude that she was the first in line to the throne, even if for only two minutes. Do you realize the absurd of it? Only if the Palace website updated the event live or if someone from the Palace had spoken about that after both the twins were born, for which there was no need. Even more absurd, for those two minutes who was then the Hereditary Prince(ss)? Caroline, Albert's sister, considering he had a legitimate daughter? Nobody? Jacques, who wasn't born yet? I repeat: Albert had no legitimate children before, her sister was the Hereditary Princess. Gabriella was born, she was the Hereditary Princess for two minutes until Jacques was born. This title is AUTOMATIC. There is no need for a source containing all the words to back a legal evidence. There is not even space for interpretations here. You are the ones who are complicating such a simple thing, dismissing users who support the other option and reverting when there is a discussion ongoing that Surtsicna dubbed "nonsense" when short of argumentation and there is a situation of 3 supporting and 2 opposing. If you insist on the opposite you may well delete all lines of succession here on Wikipedia until you find that kind of sources you demand. Monegasque laws state this unequivocally: the first in line is the Hereditary Prince(ss). No matter if it's a male, a female, an old person, a newborn baby, if it's for 50 years or two minutes. The only thing we needed we have. Gabrielle was born at 17:04 CET, Jacques at 17:06 CET. Period. 2.82.123.250 (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you find a source that says she hereditary princess, then you can say she was hereditary princess. Again, I'm not saying she wasn't, I'm saying you can't say she was without a valid source saying so. Concluding something from a primary source is OR. It doesn't mean you're legally wrong about the substance of the issue; you just can't edit Wikipedia that way. Flyte35 (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To Hipposcrashed: So what's your opinion of this discussion? Are you willing to take a position? 2.82.123.250 (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Gabriella was indeed hereditary princess, a phrase that means nothing more than heir presumptive/heir apparent. On the other hand, she was never, absolutely never styled as "HSH The Hereditary Princess of Monaco". Absolutely nobody has ever addressed her as such. We cannot make things up. Surtsicna (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're contradicting yourself. No one is making things up. The sources are all there. It's you who is obstructing the assumption of a fact, ignoring sources and insisting on a lost argument. 2.82.123.250 (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I am not. Being a hereditary princess and being styled as "HSH The Hereditary Princess" are obviously two very different things, just like being Earl of Carrick and being styled as "HRH The Earl of Carrick" are two obviously different things. Yes, you are making things up. There is no source that says that Gabriella was ever styled as "HSH The Hereditary Princess of Monaco". None whatsoever. If you see things that simply aren't there, that is a whole other issue. Your rhetoric gives away your fundamental lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works: we do not assume things here. We report what the sources say. And once again, there is no source that says Gabriella was styled "HSH The Hereditary Princess of Monaco". (And how could there possibly be one when she was not?) Pure logic suggests that I cannot be ignoring something that does not exist. As to whether this argument is lost, I must say I haven't seen any change to WP:Biographies of living persons and WP:Verifiability since this discussion started, so I don't think I've lost it yet. Surtsicna (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Get your way at the talk page if you can." This is just hillarious, by the way, since "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content", not the other way around (WP:ONUS). Surtsicna (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Now your reference to (WP:ONUS) is beyond hilarious! Once again you dropped the ball, because you're still outnumbered (3 > 2) and resort to reverting with no reason and arrogantly dismissing opposing points of view and ignoring sources. If you don't see the obvious on the sources presented, then that's your problem. It's you who has to concede or reach consensus. Three users want this included in the article, you and another one don't want. I'll do the math for you. You're outnumbered and reduced to arrogant and stubborn dismissing. Get over it! 2.82.123.250 (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm still not taking part in the argument but I think user 2.82.123.250 should calm down. Your last comment is near the fine line that separates a non-personal attack from a personal attack. We're here to discuss facts not personal decisions.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if I'm almost stepping the line, then I'm sorry. Surely I don't want to resort to personal attacks, but in my defence you should look closely at some words Surtsicna used like "nonsense" for everything that opposed his views and the warnings. Otherwise, I maintain every single point I've made at this talk page and my argument with Surtsicna ends here. 2.82.111.76 (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please do not restore the contentious material unless it is sourced. And no, you cannot use a 2002 source for an event in 2014 (that is clearly original research). You need a source that states the claim unambiguously and directly. DrKay (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But that's the point I've questioning all the way through. I really don't see how that isn't obvious. Even if it isn't, how are those sources not enough? They reference Monegasque laws written in 2002, but they are still in force. 2.82.111.76 (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't obvious. You're interpreting a primary source, which is, again, OR and improper. Flyte35 (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In case we still have a misunderstanding, basically we have people who argue about original research and that it is not up to us to interpret a law and laws can be interpreted in different ways. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Princess Gabrielle was the first in line to the throne for two minutes. The first in line to the throne is the Hereditary Prince(ss). How can you justify that she wasn't the Hereditary Princess for those two minutes? A=B, B=C => A=C. That's not interpretation, it's logic. 2.82.111.76 (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The quality of your logic is irrelevant. Using "A=B, B=C => A=C" is original research, which is inappropriate. Flyte35 (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The wife of the Prince of Wales is Princess of Wales, Camilla is the wife of the Prince of Wales => Camilla is "HRH The Princess of Wales"? Hardly. Gabriella may have been heir presumptive for two minutes, but she was absolutely never (on no occasion whatsoever) referred to by anyone as "HSH The Hereditary Princess". Since that much is indisputable, I don't see why we should lie to our readers. Surtsicna (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Princess Caroline, through her current marriage, is styled HRH The Princess of Hanover since 1999. However, it's widely known she wasn't deprived of the use of the style of Hereditary Princess of Monaco until the twins' births. Camilla's case is totally different, as the reasons for the deviation from the usual stylings were explained. 2.82.111.76 (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * She was not deprived of it, but she did not use it either. "Hereditary Princess of Monaco" was her constitutional position, but "HSH The Hereditary Princess of Monaco" was not the style she used. She was (and still is) "HRH The Princess of Hanover"; nothing more, nothing less. The Prince of Wales is Earl of Carrick, but he is not styled "HRH The Earl of Carrick". We do not care if, why and how Camilla's case is "totally different". It is as correct to say that Gabriella was styled "HSH The Hereditary Princess of Monaco" as it is to say that Camilla is styled "HRH The Princess of Wales". She was not, and she is not. There is nothing more to it. Surtsicna (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why we "aren't allowed to say anything about her that isn't offical" in her article about being briefly Hereditary Princess when the infobox on her page, her brother's page and her aunt's page, as well as the Hereditary Prince of Monaco page all reflect her brief stint as Hereditary Princess. Morhange (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * See the previous comments. User DrKay's comment made it clear that we need to find a source that says plainly that she was first in line. For Caroline, there is at least one news source that says she was heir presumptive. I doubt that there is a news source about Gabriella's case because it was so ambiguous and unofficial. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The infobox probably also shouldn't reflect a brief stint as Hereditary Princess, since there isn't sourcing for that. That information on all of those people's pages was probably all added by the same editor. But inboxes are often uncited, so it didn't seem like the most important thing to worry about at this point. Flyte35 (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't really answer my question? Jacques, Caroline and Gabriella's succession boxes all show that Caroline was succeeded as Hereditary Princess by Gabriella, who was succeeded by Jacques. Hereditary Prince of Monaco mentions Gabriella was briefly Hereditary Princess. So is someone going to remove this information? If it can't be in Gabriella's article, why have none of the dissenting voices removed the succession box or altered the article? It's nonsensical to me. We can't state that Gabriella was Hereditary Princess, but there's been no reaction over the succession box in her article clearly referencing her being Hereditary Princess? It's got to be either all or nothing here, imo. Someone clearly preceded Jacques as Hereditary Prince, but are we going to skip Gabriella entirely and say he was preceded by Caroline? Morhange (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm working on a new succesion box that will hopefully solve the problem. Until then, I have removed the box from Gabriella's article to reduce the implications.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Religion
Why are Gabriella and her brother in the Roman Catholics category? I don't think they will tell us they they chose that religion.-Hipposcrashed (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * They'll presumably be baptised as Roman Catholics some time in the next few months, which is why I kept the religion bit (albeit hidden) in the infobox when I copied it from one of the Belgian princes' pages, but I agree, they haven't been baptised yet, so they shouldn't be in the category. Morhange (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Baptism doesn't automatically make a person religious. A person can denounce their religion. Until a person is old enough to tell us that they chose that religion (I'd say around age 7 but I have no idea how children think), they shouldn't be considered religious. Again we're making assumptions and they haven't even been baptized yet. The same was for the Spanish infantas Leonor and Sofia- until they were old enough to express a religion, their religion could not be mentioned in the article with the exception saying that they were baptized as that is a fact . --Hipposcrashed (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Heir-presumptive for two minutes
Wasn't Gabriella the heir-presumptive to the throne, between her birth & her younger twin brother's birth? GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * One could argue that she was. Unless there are sources saying so, however, we should not add it to the article. Surtsicna (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Usually, unborn male children in the womb precede their sisters in male-preference primogeniture. See Posthumous birth. DrKay (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The birth of the twins was not a posthumous one… Charles 22:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's just one example of where the principle applies. DrKay (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Very well. It shouldn't be added :) GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)