Talk:Jazmin Grace Grimaldi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
European Microstates This article is within the scope of the WikiProject European Microstates, which collaborates on articles related to European Microstates. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] constitution

I removed the phrase that the 2002 update of the constitution was the first change in 600 years. The first constitution of Monaco was only enacted in 1911. That was suspended in 1959 to be replaced in 1962 by the constitution that was amended in 2002.

Queen Brandissima - brandy.kelley@gmail.com


[edit] Friend or husband

  • French newspapers say Tamara Rotolo was with her husband, not friend on the riviera.212.123.202.81 17:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. very interesting.....I guess you cannot blame Ms. Rotolo....it was an opportunity of a life time.

[edit] Grimaldi

If she is an American and not subject to Monegasque law, shouldn't her last name still read "Grimaldi"?

  • My understanding is that part of the negociated deal with Thierry Lacoste is precisely that she will not use it. 82.120.1.10 05:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Her name actually still seems to be Grimaldi. - Nunh-huh 22:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Jazmin Grace will use surname Grimaldi until she completes school. Then, her surname of use will be her mother's maiden name of Rotolo. Her half-brother, Alexandre, uses the surname of Coste, one adopted by his mother.

Does she still go to JSerra High?Meson man 23:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In or Out of wedlock? BLP questions

The comment that the child was born out of wedlock has been removed pending proper sourcing. There has been an OTRS complaint filed (Ticket#2007122110002539). I advised that the material could be re-added once sourcing was included. Please help us do this correctly. Thanks -JodyB talk 17:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What on earth is the complainer on about? He thinks Prince Albert and Tamara Rotolo were married???? He thinks Prince Albert and Nicole Coste were married???? When a bastard child is acknowledged, the "out of wedlock" is pretty much confirmed. - Nunh-huh 18:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Where is the source for the acknowledgment? That's all you need. -JodyB talk 20:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The acknowledgment of what? (please be specific with regard to the "OTRS complaints". It's impossible to address without knowing the specifics - and as far as I can tell you're the only one who knows them. It's hard to imagine an objection to describing Alexandre as being born out of wedlock that isn't disingenuous.) If you're referring to Albert's acknowledgment of Jazmin, it's in the first reference in her article (actually, this covers both acknowledged bastard children). If you're referring to the acknowledgment of Alexandre, it's in the first reference in his article. - Nunh-huh 20:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
First, the OTRS is a private communication between the foundation and the sender. Anyone with OTRS access can see the email. What happened here was a request to look at the article and address what was considered by one editor as vandalism. When I looked, I was more concerned that an assertion was being made which was not sourced. Since such could be viewed negatively I removed it and said what I did about BLP violations.
Now, looking again at the article I found numerous dead links which I then removed. No after you comment immediately above I have located the comment which supports your out of wedlock comment. However, the fact itself is not cited and it occurs as part of another citation.
So, return the comment and cite that fact with an inline citation. This is the best way to do it. I will then speak to the other editor and remind him that this is a disputed content issue and not vandalism. Just because something is said in a reference cited elsewhere does not mean it does a good job of providing a reliable source for an potentially controversial comment somewhere else.
No one needs to war over this. I have already told the other editor to come here and talk with you about it. I did tell him that once sourced, it can stay. I'll keep watching. Thanks for your work. -JodyB talk 21:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
[1] If the OTRS is a private communication, then there's no need to mention it: mentioning it says "there's a problem, and I won't tell you what it is: read my mind and fix it." The person who knows what the problem is needs to specify it, not play guessing games, because it can't be fixed if it's a secret. [2] the fact that Jazmin's biological parents were not married is not controversial. [2] the fact that Alexandre's parents were not married is not controversial. [4] It's inappropriate to remove dead links if they were references; they should be converted to non-links; even if no longer available on-line, they remain sources. [5] I will try to divine what references and statements you've removed and provide more explicit referencing for them. - Nunh-huh 04:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid you are incorrect about OTRS. It is routinely mention even when full details cannot be revealed. The material is controversial because it has been questioned and is potentially damaging material. However, it has now been properly sourced and can be left in place. A so-called link that leads to "document not found" is really no source at all. The article would be greatly helped if your would read and use WP:CITE. It's more trouble but much, much better. I am happy you want to "divine" the dead links I removed. That will be a piece of cake - divination not required-- and you may certainly add them back.
Please do not think that I am the enemy. I simply want the article to exist with accurate information and to avoid additional problems. However, since you are concerned, I have listed this article at Biographies of Living People Noticeboard for additional eyes on this article. Once those BLP issues are fully quelled, we can seek and RfC if needed. Thanks for your work. -JodyB talk 12:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say you've deviated from procedure about OTRS, I said OTRS procedure is ridiculous. That her parents were not married (which I can only assume to be the issue, since you steadfastly refuse to say what the issue actually is), is questioned by no one - except, perhaps, your OTRS originator, but your refusal to state his actual objections means his questions will go unaddressed.
You say there are BLP issues, but refuse to state what they are here. You were apparently less reticent at BLP noticeboard. I'm not sure why that should be. There do not seem to be any BLP issues that remain. - Nunh-huh 16:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed material that was unreferenced or speculative editorialising. Further, please remember that the subject is a minor, so we need to be sensitive here. Our policies on living subjects need to be strictly followed.--Docg 13:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Part of what you removed as "editorializing" is in fact needed background material on Monegasque law, and its removal is unfortunate. You seem to feel a review of the relevant parts of the constitution of Monaco is "POV"; of course, you're mistaken. The constitution adopted in 2002 explicitly states that illegitimate children are not in the line of succession, and no one with any knowledge on the subject would hold any other point of view. The age of the subject is unrelated to your removal of this information. The subject is a minor on whose behalf suit was brought to have Prince Albert declared to be her father, and he has subsequently recognized her. Accurately reporting that fact is in no way acting against the subject's wishes! - Nunh-huh 16:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Article 10 of the constitution of Monaco: (translated from the French):

The succession to the throne, opened by death or abdication, takes place direct and legitimate issue of the reigning prince, by order of primogeniture with priority given to males within the same degree of kinship. 
In the absence of direct legitimate issue, the succession passes to the brothers and sisters of the reigning prince and their direct legitimate descendants, by order of primogeniture with priority given to males within the same degree of kinship. 
If the heir who would have acceded by virtue of the preceding paragraphs is deceased or has renounced before the succession became open, the succession passes to his own direct legitimate descendants, by order of primogeniture with priority given to males within the same degree of kinship. 
If the application of the preceding paragraphs does not fill the vacancy of the throne, the succession passes to a collateral appointed by the Crown Council upon same advice of the Regency Council. The powers of the prince are temporarily held by the Regency Council. 
The throne can only pass to a person holding Monegasque citizenship on the day the succession opens. 
The procedures of application of this article are set, as needed, by the statutes of the Sovereign Family, promulgated by Sovereign ordinance.

[1]

This replaces a section of the prior constitution which permitted illegitimate children of the prince to be adopted into the line of succession (Prince Louis II of Monaco adopted his bastard daughter Charlotte, who abdicated in favor of her son Prince Rainier. Had the current constitution have been in place, this would not have been possible). That the constitution adopted in 2002 removes this possibility is no accident; it was Rainier III's means of keeping his son's illegitimate children out of the succession. Much as the unnamed objector would like us to do so, it's impossible to discuss the succession to the throne of Monaco without discussing illegitimacy and its consequences. The descendants of Prince Rainier III were:

1 Rainier III of Monaco (1923 - 2005) & Grace Patricia Kelly (1929 - 1982)
        1a Caroline of Monaco* (1957 - ) & Philippe Junot (1940 - )
        1b Caroline of Monaco* (1957 - ) & Stephano Casiraghi (1960 - 1990)
                1 Andréa Casiraghi (1984 - )
                2 Charlotte Casiraghi (1986 - )
                3 Pierre Casiraghi (1987 - )
        1c Caroline of Monaco* (1957 - ) & Ernst August of Hanover (1954 - )
                1 Alexandra of Hanover (1999 - )
        2a Albert II of Monaco* (1958 - ) & Nicole Tossukpé (1971 - )
                1 (Eric) Alexandre (Stéphane) Coste (2003 - )
        2b Albert II of Monaco* (1958 - ) & Tamara Jean Rotolo (1961 - )
                1 Jazmin Grace Grimaldi (1992 - )
        3a Stephanie of Monaco* (1965 - ) & Daniel Ducruet (1964 - )
                1 Louis Robert Paul Ducruet (1992 - )
                2 Pauline Grace Ducruet (1994 - )
        3b Stephanie of Monaco* (1965 - ) & Jean-Raymond Gottleib (1967 - )
                1 Camille Marie Kelly Gottleib (1998 - )
        3c Stephanie of Monaco* (1965 - ) & Franco Knie
        3d Stephanie of Monaco* (1965 - ) & Pierre Pinelli
        3e Stephanie of Monaco* (1965 - ) & Adan Lopez Peres (~1974 - )

His son, Albert II, succeeded him. Albert might still marry and produce legitimate children; he could also marry the the mother of his illegitimate child Alexandre Coste and thus legitimate him. (He cannot do so with the mother of Jasmine, as Jasmine is not merely illegitimate, but adulterine). If Albert has no legitimate children at his death, the crown would pass to his sisters and their children. WIth Caroline and her children there are no issues of legitimacy. Of Stephanie's children, Louis and Pauline Ducruet were born (illegitimately) before her marriage to Daniel Ducruet, but the subsequent marriage of their parents legitimates them, and so they are in line to the succession. Camille Gottleib, because she is illegitimate, is not in the line of succession. - Nunh-huh 16:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

  • All that may be true, but it is beside the point. The verifiable facts can go on the article on the Monaco constitution. If there's to be be commentary on succession on this article, it has to be a record of media commentary, or what's been said ABOUT THIS PERSON in printed media. Otherwise what you have is an original synthesis. You need to find [{WP:RS|reliable sources]] that are discussing the constitutional position IN RELATION to Jazmin - and show that that discussion is considered important --Docg 16:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
If you'd bother to check the sources already referenced in this article, you'll find that this is discussed there ("While she could receive a share of the prince's fortune, which has been estimated at $2 billion, she will not join the line of succession to the throne, because Monaco's constitution requires that its rulers are the products of formal Catholic unions. "), though incorrectly. (There is no requirement that the unions be Catholic). This is in no way an original synthesis, it's facts, and facts which the reader of the article need to know in order to be informed. - Nunh-huh 16:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. I think that the problem isn't sourcing by most recent editors of this article, but violation of WP:OWN by Jazmin's self-styled "trustee". The "trustee's" edits tend to minimize references to Jazmin's illegitimacy, while advancing the notion that she is "close" to the throne -- alleging that she could, at a stroke of Albert's Princely pen, be legitimized, become heir to the crown, and/or acquire dynastic titles. Unfortunately, the former cancels out the latter, and the only way to clarify the situation and prevent distortion is by sticking to the facts. I agree that sensitivity is called for when the subject is only 14. Still, it's possible to be both factual & minimally explicit. But the "trustee" must work with other editors toward that end. Instead, edits are inserted & deleted without regard for known Monegasque legalities. Worse, WP:BLP monitors -- you et al. -- are summoned to enforce those edits, infuriating editors who don't want to hurt Jazmin but insist that the article neither say nor imply other than the truth.
  2. Sources? "Previous illegitimate sons and daughters of princes of Monaco became part of Europe's oldest royal family because there was little choice. There were no other heirs and the illegitimate offspring were needed to preserve the dynasty. This is no longer the case. The law of succession in Monaco was changed three years ago, precisely because Prince Albert showed no signs of marrying and producing children. The crown now passes to his sisters and their children, if he dies without producing a legitimate son or daughter...But there will be renewed questions aobut the judgement of Prince Albert, who was never quite trusted by his father to take a serious role in running the principality, which is, in effect, the family business", The Monegasque succession, John Lichfield, The (London) Independent, 6 May 2005.
  • "Albert and Tamara Rotolo met on the Côte d'Azur in July 1991...She was married, Albert was careless'...Details of the affair surfaced after the Prince, who has never married, hinted last year at the existence of other children. In July, after he recognizesed that he was the father of a two-year-old boy, the Prince told Larry King on CNN, 'I know that there are other people who are in more or less the same situation. We will give them an answer at the appropriate time'...after a long legal wrangle which began in 1992, the date of the first demand for child support...Under Monaco law, an illegitimate child of the ruler cannot accede to power unless the ruler marries the mother. Under a 2002 succession law, passed before the death last year of Rainier III, Monaco's throne will pass to Princess Caroline if the Prince diews without legitimate offspring", 'Careless' Prince recognises second illegitimate child, Charles Bremmer, Times Online, 1 June 2006.
  • "...Rotolo's father, Sam Rotolo, 75, said the family has known since Jazmin was born that she was the prince's child. He said Albert has provided financial support...At first blush, the revelations might seem a thorough embarrassment to Monaco, which is, at least on paper, a devout country. Albert said upon taking the throne last year that he would make it a top priority to clean up Monaco...However, this is the second time in less than a year he has acknowledged fathering a child...Centuries ago, monarchs such as King Henry IV and King Charles II were renowned for their ability to produce illegitimate children because the broods were seen as evidence of virility", U.S. Teen revealed as part of Monaco's royal family, Scott Gold, Lance Pugmire & Susannah Rosenbblatt, The Seattle Times, 2 June 2006.
  • "I would think that she's going to get in the tens of millions of dollars, but it could be hundreds of millions of dollars...if they can show that he effectively disrupted a marriage because Tamara, the mother, was married at the time...He'd better start producing a legitimate heir soon, otherwise he will be worn out from his previous endeavors in that direction. But he is getting on. He was born in '58", Charles Moseley, editor, Debrett's, Paul Zahn Now, CNN, aired 1 June 2006.
  • Clearly, there has been plenty of mainstream news coverage of Albert II, succession to his crown, the law, out-of-wedlock royal children, and their prospects -- as related to Jazmin. It can't be declared off-limits here. Now, can we work toward wording which is accurate, but won't invite schoolyard bullies to harrass a teenager? Lethiere (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's just say it took us considerably fewer edits to get it right than it did for you to add your two bits. The talk pages of articles are meant for facilitating the improvement of articles. If you're not interested in that, and if your sole input is to discourage it, perhaps it's you who should be moving on. - Nunh-huh 18:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High School

It is not pertinent to the article what High School she attends. Jons63 (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] status

Nowhere does the article state that Jazmin is illegitimate. To understand this (rather basic fact that is so very important for royal families) you must puzzle together several other statements from this and her mother's page.

Please state clearly the child is illegitimate. This is just a statement of fact and should not be construed as making a moral judgement. 85.227.226.235 (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right that the article needs to make this clear. But concerned editors will usually revert such changes from an anonymous editor. I will try to present the information in as clear and inoffensive manner as possible, and hope that editors read the talk page to learn why, in this case, her illegitimacy is an essential part of the article. This has already been the occasion of an OTRS intervention, and those who staff OTRS are now satisfied that the information is more than adequately sourced and is in no way a contravention of our BLP policy. - Nunh-huh 03:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Just as an explanation, I reverted 12.146.102.46's edit because that user was inserting similar things to a vast array of articles, many of times where it was completely irrelevant. It seemed that the user was making a moral judgment call more than he or she was improving articles. The way the information is presented now is a good compromise, and I'm sorry if I stepped on any toes. --clpo13(talk) 04:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
No complaints here - and it's not as if you were the only person with the inclination to revert it - I totally understand, and I'm glad you think the current wording is informative rather than judgmental. I see what you mean about 12's other changes - illegitimacy is important when it disqualifies you from being the ruler of a nation, and clearly not when you're an actor! - Nunh-huh 04:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Cool, glad everything worked out. --clpo13(talk) 20:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)