Talk:Grace Kelly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:France
 France Portal
Grace Kelly is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Billy Penn, Our Founder Grace Kelly is part of the WikiProject Philadelphia, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Philadelphia and the Delaware Valley on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Monaco

There was really little or small amount actual danger that Monaco would revert to France, though I don't doubt this was evinced as a reason for selecting a fecund bride. A childless prince of Monaco can adopt an heir, and has been able to do so from 1882 to 2002. In 2002 the treaties between France and Monaco were revised to make it clear that even in the event of the death of a prince without an heir, biological or adoptive, the principality would not revert to France, but would remain independent (though in all likelihood it would become a republic). -- Someone else 03:57 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

Would you please update the article to add that? You're right that it's no big deal, but isn't part of the purpose of any encyclopedia to convey some of the social context that makes history more than mere timelines? -- isis 04:47 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)
I'll give it my shot, please do polish it up! --Someone else 07:15 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

The article is wrong in its claims about Ranier's inability to divorce a wife if she proved 'barren' or about the need to marry a catholic wife. Ranier's family (no, not the younger generation, his precedessors!) led notorious sex lives, regularly having affairs, extra-marital children, multiple divorces, etc. (I think I read somewhere that one of Ranier's parents or grandparents was illegitimate and 'legitimised', but I could be wrong. It was something I read nearly 15 years ago. Was it Ranier himself? ) So the idea that Ranier III had to marry a good catholic girl who could give him children is poppycock. If she couldn't, then as a head of state he could request a Roman Catholic Church annulment or even a Pauline et Petrine Papal Divorce. If it is to enable a catholic monarch to get an heir, the Catholic Church has a long history of bending, twisting and breaking its own rules to help that happen. (They'd have given Henry VIIII his requested annulment if it wasn't for the fact that his Queen didn't want the marriage annulled, her nephew the Holy Emperor made sure His Holiness new that, and that nasty things might happen to His said Holiness if he allowed the Emperor's aunt to be dumped. So the pope promptly changed his mind, say No way, Henry, Henry made a rude gesture back, seized then monasteries, broke from Rome . . . and the rest his history).

As to Someone Else's comment about in the event of their being no heir, Monaco would become a republic, that is exceptionally unlikely. They would be 99.9% certain to keep a monarchy, even if they had to put an add in the Wall Street Journal - 'Wanted, Prince of Monaco. Good Pay. Nice Palace. (Pink). Must be willing to be called Grimaldi. WiIlingness to marry Brittany Spears a bonus.' For a president would be useless to them. A royal would get them acres of international coverage, bring in rich businessmen to invest and rub shoulders with royalty, etc. Monaco's royals regularly get into newspapers, magazines, onto TV, etc. A President of Monaco would be hardpressed to get to page 40 (three lines mention) in the New York Times and never get them onto Fox, the BBC or MTV. In those situations, monarchy counts in getting you coverage far beyond your own actual status. Monaco without a royal would be pointless, a Switzerland by the sea. They might as well merge with France as become an irrelevant republic. Or maybe invite the Comte de Paris to become their prince. JTD 06:52 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

Monaco doesn't have Salic law, and never had it. It had primogeniture with preference for males, just like the UK, Denmark and Spain. There were fears that the dynasty would become extinct, not because a lack of males, but a lack of children - until a constitutional change in 2002, only direct descendants of the reigning prince could succeed to the throne, siblings and their descendants were excluded. Hence my correction of this page. Erwin 14:36, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Gay icon?

User TheCustomOfLife is helt-bent on categorizing Grace as a gay icon? What sources may he have for this? Rienzo 19:21, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have no particular problem with her being included in such a category, but it would do wonders in overcoming objections if the content of the article actually said something about her being a gay icon, and explained why. --Michael Snow 17:31, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more! If Grace Kelly should be labelled a gay icon, I and others with me demand an explanation for this. As yet we have no proof at all. It is NOT NPOV to label celebrities arbitrarily! This means that if I in my twisted way FEEL that George W. Bush is my private gay icon for all times, then I will label him as such! Rienzo 22:29, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't know whether Kelly is beloved enough by a segment of the gay community to be considered an icon -- she's not the first actress to spring to mind. But we do all realize that a "gay icon" is someone beloved by a segment of the gay community, rather than someone who is gay and also an icon, right? Grace Kelly may be a gay icon without being gay. Many people are/were. -- Scarequotes 23:59, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
Dammit guys, this is the stupidest edit war I've ever seen. If you have some evidence for why Grace Kelly should be categorized a "Gay Icon" why don't you put it here on the talk page instead of just obnoxiously returning it to the article over and over? I searched google for "Grace Kelly" and "Gay Icon" and every single page is about Judy Garland or Ethel Merman or someone else and only mentions Kelly tangentially. --Chinasaur 04:46, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hear, hear! Rienzo 05:01, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I first categorized her as such, and I tend to agree. I was asked if there was any proof, and I only had an opinion as such. I've been at peace with removing her as a gay icon days, if not weeks, ago. Mike H 01:47, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for piping up Mike H. How many people do you know of who see her as a gay icon? I would've thought it would show up on Google somewhere if it were really a widely held view. I notice you referred people to your talk page sometime earlier in this argument, but I didn't see anything there that would clear this up? --Chinasaur 03:51, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
User:Arkady Rose wanted to let us know: "Grace Kelly is a gay icon, whether you like it or not." I think we all agree that it doesn't matter whether we "like it or not". It matters whether anybody is going to produce any evidence for this being a widely held view. I've never heard of it and I live on the edge of the Castro. I'm sorry if this is condescending, but so far I don't see much reason to give people on the gay icon side of things the benefit of the doubt. I got to this argument late, but from my perspective it appears pretty clear that the anti-icon people have asked repeatedly for some intelligent discussion of this point and the pro-icon people have repeatedly refused to engage in anything more intelligent than an edit war (Mike H aside). --Chinasaur 03:51, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your words! I have asked e.g. David Gerard repeatedly for his reasons to label Grace as a gay icon, but he just reverts my edits arbitrarily. This shows that he hasn't got any proof at all that Grace is a gay icon! David Gerard endorses POV in Wikipedia! Rienzo 10:10, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What is the significance of........?

In the middle of the fourth paragraph there appears the following, (Donna Reed won for her role in From Here to Eternity.) Doesn't make sense, and also lacks obvious relevancy to the article. Shall I delete it, or can someone make it grammatical and relevant? Moriori 00:10, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

I believe the point is that the quality of the performance in From Here to Eternity somewhat excuses Kelly's failure to win on her Oscar nomination.--Chinasaur 07:19, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Nope, that's NOT what it says. Furthermore, what does a reference to Donna Reed have to do with an article about Grace Kelly? The text does not establish a connection.Moriori 08:35, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
I know it's not what it SAYS. But wouldn't you agree that's probably the point? Change it for more clarity if you would like, or cut it. Either way seems fine to me. Normally people don't make excuses about only getting an Oscar nomination, so I don't think it's necessary to mention who actually won the award that Grace didn't. On the other hand, I can imagine someone asking "only a nomination? why didn't she win?", in which case the answer is in the article. --Chinasaur 17:46, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Go ahead and cut it. I think I originally stuck it in there, mostly because the text said that Kelly won the Oscar, which was incorrect. The explanation may be overkill and a little vague, but I admit I don't see how it's ungrammatical. -- Scarequotes 21:53, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
Okay (to both of you). Points taken. However I think there is a clearer way of conveying the intention of the message, so I have done a little edit. (I'll know you didn't consider it an improvement, if it's rv'd). Cheers Moriori 22:49, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Strange compromise

Some people see Grace Kelly as a gay icon, but there is no proof of her actually being one.
That's an odd statement to have in an article. It shouldn't be terribly hard to figure out if someone's an "icon" or not, because being an icon would tend to imply some adoring fansites, message boards, and other such. If we can't prove it, wouldn't that mean she isn't much of a gay icon? And if it's not true, why is it worth mentioning in the article? Isomorphic 01:45, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, that text added by Rienzo doesn't belong in an article. But I think Rienzo's subsequent removal of the gay icon category tag with the blatantly false edit summary correcting spelling error is a more serious offense. Still, I don't see how the people who are adding this tag can keep doing so when 1) the article doesn't explain what would make Grace Kelly a gay icon, and 2) people have requested evidence to support the claim here on the talk page, and none has been provided. My own attempts to explore the question have reached pretty much the same conclusions as Chinasaur above. --Michael Snow 16:52, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just to note - sometimes one goes into editing an article to fix a spelling error, marks the edit summary, and then discovers that, say, a category you don't think should be there is there again, and remove it too, and forget about the edit summary you already wrote. That is, assuming that a spelling mistake was also corrected. At any rate, until anyone can provide support for the gay icon status besides that she was "fabulous," it shouldn't be in the article. john k 18:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more! Grace Kelly is NOT a gay icon, and she will NEVER be one! Rienzo 01:10, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh yes she is.

[edit] Death of GK

Regarding the urban legend of Grace Kelly having died on the same stretch of highway in Monaco that had been featured in To Catch a Thief, see this blog post

[edit] Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 21:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Her style

I have changed several times, the opening style from Grace Patricia Kelly to Her Serene Highness Princess Grace of Monaco, as she predeceased her husband it should be HSH princess Grace of Monaco, it should not be opened under her maiden name. [unsigned]

It is standard procedure here and elsewhere for deceased consorts to be named under their pre-marital name and style (if any). Please do not change this article from the agreed format. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 20:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Jtdirl, please do not misrepresent the agreed procedures: (1) Here, deceased consorts of kings and emperors revert IN HEADINGS to their pre-marital name without title. The case of monarchs lower than king is debatable: we have Princess Alice of the United Kingdom although she was consort of a monarch, Grand Duke of Hesse, and thus could be Alice of the United Kingdom. The first line is still under discussion, and no such definite agreement exists that Jtdirl here tries to say. (Although I prefer "Grace Patricia" here, honesty requires that I say that the issue is still debatable.) (2) First line should not include the pre-marital style, as Jtdirl learned when Alexandra Fyodorovna's first line was under debate. Thus, whatever the decision re style, the pre-marital one would not be the best one. (I prefer that styles are left out from first lines, such issues can be explained in some later subsection of the article.) 217.140.193.123 20:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not mispresenting anything. I was one of the people who wrote the MoS and NC pages on the issue. It was widely debated on the WL and on TP. It is policy whether you like it or not. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 21:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, Jtdirl, it is so bad that you are not able to read (although you claim you have participated in writing them): Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) do not contain precisely such instructions you claim above. So sorry to need to remind you. 217.140.193.123 23:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Princess ?

As she was not born a princess, was she not technically Princess Rainier ?

  • I don't think so. I believe that in Monaco, they just use "Princess Christianname" for wives of Princes of Monaco. Princess Caroline's children were born in Centre Hospitalier Princesse Grace in Monaco. So I think she was correctly titled "Princess Grace of Monaco", but I could be wrong. We will have to wait and see what Albert's wife is titled as, if he ever marries.Prsgoddess187 13:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised she wasn't known as The Sovereign Princess of Monaco, or The Princess of Monaco - does anyone know if she was? Her husband formally was The Sovereign Prince of Monaco, so didn't her title follow suit? I would have thought that Princess Grace of Monaco was what a daughter of a reigning prince would be called (eg Princesses Stephanie & Caroline) -- are you sure we're not referring to her as Princess Grace of Monaco because we're talking from a foreign point of view? (in that Princesses of Wales were somtimes referred to as e.g. Princess Diana of Wales when she was actually The Princess of Wales).

  • That is a good point. As the Prince is titled The Sovereign Prince of Monaco officially, she might have been The Princess of Monaco. Hopefully, Albert will marry soon, or will will have to wait for Andrea to marry, and then we will be able to find out. Prsgoddess187 21:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well she would not have been Princess Rainier, as this is mostly a British manor of style (although I believe the Greek Royals used it as well) most monarchies, Monaco included, style a Princess with her own Christianname. I think that Grace was probably officially The Princess of Monaco, however Monaco has never been big on "official things", and I believe she was almost always styled as Princess Grace. Although like Annamarie said we will have to wait until the next Prince marries, wheather it be Albert or Andrea. As for the Princess of Wales comparison, it is not rally a valid one as in recent times most Princesses of Wales (with the exception of Diana) were born Princesses therefore entitled to "Princess Christianname" by birth. Diana was never offically styled as Princess Diana, this was just the way the media styled her. Mac Domhnaill 21:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

True... a better example would be Princess Alexandra of Denmark then - yes she was a princess, but it must surely have been only Britain that called her Princess Alexandra of Denmark, in her native land no-one would have added the Denmark suffix (we don't call Princess Anne "Princess Anne of the United Kingdom, do we?). I do wonder at the Princess of Monaco title though - it was probably official but her style was different, since there's nothing to distinguish a sovereign prince/ss from the other princes/ses unless you actually use the word "Sovereign" in colloquial speech or their christian name... What was Prince Rainier styled as in his lifetime? "Prince Rainier" or "The Sovereign Prince"? I wonder if "Princess Grace" is equivalent to our "Princess Diana" and "Prince Charles" errors, in that she was commonly styled it but not titled so. Especially since we're foreigners, it would be easy to make that mistake... we talk of Princess Victoria of Sweden when she is The Crown Princess in her native land. Any follow up on this?

[edit] Picture of her as Princess added

I added a picture of her from the French Wiki during her time as Princess Grace of Monaco to the artile. Before there were only pictures of her from the time when she was still the actress Grace Kelly. --Nikostar 12:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prince ?

"until the next prince marries".....Andrea Casiraghi is NOT a PRINCE.

But Prince Albert is. And if Albert never marries, and Caroline becomes Sovereign Princess, she could create her sons and daughter as Princes/Princesses of Monaco. Once again, we wil have to wait and see...Prsgoddess187 00:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

we know hes not a Prince....but if u were well informed you would see, that it appears that there is a very likely chance that he will become a Prince. Mac Domhnaill 03:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I am quite well enough informed that Andrea Casiraghi is not a Prince. Your comment was "until the next Prince marries whether it be Albert of Andrea " - implies that he is currently a Prince. The Casiraghi children take their rank from their father who was not a Prince either. You should also note that there is also a very likely chance that Albert will produce a legitimate heir and a very likely chance that Caroline or Andrea will not succeed at all.

[edit] Silk scarf

The classic head-cover of a silk scarf crossed under the chin and knotted at the side or nape of the neck is universally known as the "Grace Kelly."

It would be nice to get a photo of this in the article. —Viriditas | Talk 23:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early Life

The early life section seems to be more about her family than her early life. Maybe the section name should be changed? —Effika 04:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked?

I seem unable to change this page. Why? If you can, at least move the succession box to the bottom. They are currently in a wrong position. --Attilios 11:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There were four copies of the article with only the last one being displayed. Since you were not editing the last copy, your changes were hidden. --PhantomS 22:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cultural references

At this rate the section's going to overwhelm the article. Gwen Gale 17:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead photo

I think I recognize that fountain as being in Beverly Hills (Santa Monica Blvd if memory serves). Can anyone confirm this? Gwen Gale 15:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tierny

An anon has added this:

Kelly replaced Gene Tierney in Mogambo (1953) due to Tierney's mental health problems.

Could we have a citation to support it please? Gwen Gale 13:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meeting Prince Rainier

How did she and Rainier meet? The article doesn't say (and it really should; it's not often that an American film star marries European royalty). Funnyhat 06:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

They met while she was filming To Catch a Thief (film) in Monaco with Alfred Hitchcock and Cary Grant. Note that Monaco has long been a kind of playground and mixing ground for both the affluent and European aristocracy, think of it as a high end tax haven/Las Vegas, more or less. Gwen Gale 11:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Then we have an inconsistency. The article is stating that they met when she was invited to a photo shoot in Monaco, which took place because she was in Cannes, France for the Film Festival. The version noted by Gwen above is the one I had known too, but the article is saying something else. We need to confirm which one is it.
And I'd take the opportunity to note something we might want to look into: I saw a biography on her a while back, I believe it was from the Discovery Channel, and in it they kind of implied that her acceptance of the Prince's proposal represented what I'd describe as opting for the best suitor. They didn't actually spell it out, but it was very much clear that they meant that Kelly had not had romantic feelings for Rainier, and obviously, that there had been no previous courtship. What I understood from it was: they met, they kept in touch, although not really representing an involvement, and a little later, Rainier proposed and Kelly accepted because, well, he was a monarch and that would represent the best, most secure future for her. In fact, the documentary explicitly informed that at the time of the proposal she was in a on-and-off relationship with Oleg Cassini, and that she effectivelly called him, or wrote him, I don't remember which, to tell him "I'm sorry, but I've decided to accept Prince Rainier's proposal". This indicates further a choice for who she perceived as the best suitor, but not necessarily the one she loved at the time. The documentary says what it says, but we would need to word it so as to affirm only what was stated by this source. But I was actually wondering if anyone else knows a little more about this, so that we can improve the article in that regard. Redux 22:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/a/Talk%7EGrace_Kelly_c80d.html"