Talk:Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant

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]

Contents

[edit] moving

Request was to move from Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant to Philippe, Duke of Brabant. Per Wiki naming conventions for royals, heirs to thrones, et cetera, ie Charles, Prince of Wales. Mowens35 01:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree. Simplicity is desirable. Unnecessary titukary in headings should be banned altogether. 217.140.193.123 2 July 2005 09:39 (UTC)
  • Agree'. It is the correct agreed version under the naming conventions. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 2 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)


"...who, when crowned, will become the first Queen Regnant of the Belgians"

Belgian monarchs are never crowned. They are sworn in.

[edit] unnecessary

  • completey unnecessary. Prince Charles´s father is also listed as Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and not Phillip of Edinburgh or whatever you want to take call him. do i sense a slight anti-royalist touch with mr. Mowens35? Antares911 16:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That is because he is a consort, not the heir apparent to a throne. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 2 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
Funny that Antares has deemed herself entitled to libel others here, e.g accusing of slight anti-royalism. I feel Antares' behavior is slightly paranoid, due to Antares' well-known "slight" touch of sycophancy. 217.140.193.123 2 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)

[edit] Baudouin's Heir-Presumptive?

Just a hunch, the reason for Phillipe having been viewed as the next monarch during Bauadouin's reign was perhaps because: Belgians believed King Baudouin would live well into old age (he didn't), and thus might outlive Albert or maybe Albert by then (also very old) might pass the successon to his son? As it turned out, King Baudouin unexpectedly died at age 63 (in 1993), Albert was 59, fit as a fiddle and so there was no need to change the succession? User:GoodDay 19:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC).

True but according to the Belgian Constitution, Albert always was the first in line... if he wanted to be King, he would have been, regardless of his age or the political demands of the time + the government of the time (Dehaene I) had their doubts about Phillipe... they thought him to be too young, too inexperienced and too unmarried to be put on the throne already, especially at a time when Belgium was going through a phase of constituional reform: they needed a stable experienced monarch. fdewaele 13:00, 19 November 2005 (CET)
I've removed the paragraph about Phillipe being seen (at one time) as Baudouin's Heir-Presumptive. The Belgian Constitution always had Albert as Baudouin's Heir-Presumptive. GoodDay 02:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the term "heir-presumptive" is probably wrong, but it's perhaps worth mentioning that he was seen as Baudouin's likely successor. This kind of thing is fairly common, even if it doesn't always pan out. I can think of three examples of this in Habsburg history. During Joseph II's reign, his nephew Francis was considered to be the likely heir, and was raised in Vienna by his uncle with that in mind. Joseph's death in the midst of a political crisis in 1790, when his nephew was only 22, meant that Francis's father, Grand Duke Leopold of Tuscany, took the throne as Emperor Leopold II in spite of this expectation, although he would only reign for two years before his own death. After Francis's death in 1835, he was succeeded by his feeble-minded son Ferdinand. Because Ferdinand's brother Francis Charles was hardly much better, it was widely anticipated that the two would stand aside for Francis Charles's son Francis Joseph when the latter came of age. And this is, indeed, what happened in 1848. After Francis Joseph's son Rudolf committed suicide in 1889, Francis Joseph's brother Charles Louis was the heir-presumptive, but it was widely assumed that if the Emperor predeceased his brother, Charles Louis would stand aside in favor of one of his sons (it was unclear at that point if the eldest, Francis Ferdinand, would live very long, so it was unclear if he or his younger brother Otto would inherit). At any rate, in all these cases the situation was rather similar to that of Philippe - a nephew of a sonless monarch was expected to succeed, rather than his father. Whether or not the present king was the legal heir-presumptive throughout his brother's reign (obviously he was), it is probably still worth noting that his son was widely considered to be likely to be the next king through much of Baudouin's reign. We are not restricted to only discussing the letter of the law of succession. john k 04:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I've re-added the paragraph, with some minor adjustments. It's the Belgian Parliament which chooses who'll be King. GoodDay 19:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The Belgian Parliament doesn't choose who'll be king, except indirectly. There's a law of succession, which makes Philippe the heir. When his father dies, Philippe will automatically become king once he takes the oath of office, won't he? It is not as though the Belgian parliament meets when the king dies and elects a new king. It just gets to set the law of succession. john k 21:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
You're sorta right, the thing about Belgium is succession to throne isn't automatic ('The King is dead, long live the King' doesn't apply here). Belgium went 10 days (July 31-August 9, 1993) with no monarch; the prime minister served as 'Acting Head of State' from King Baudouin's death 'til King Albert II's swearing-in. Anyways, I like your edit best. GoodDay 22:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware that the new monarch has to be sworn in. But who the new monarch will be is already set before the old monarch's death. It's not a matter of parliament choosing a new monarch upon the old monarch's death. But I'm glad you like my edit. john k 05:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calls for Philippe, to step aside

I've adjusted the paragraph, about calls for his removal from the line of succession (since it would make his daughter [currently a minor] the heiress-apparent). Furthermore, the paragraph fails to mention Philippe's possible replacement (who was this 'more liberal' Royal?). This is why, I've re-written the 'removal calls' into past-tense form. GoodDay 19:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move "Philippe, Duke of Brabant" to "Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant"?

Should the title of this page not be changed from "Philippe, Duke of Brabant" to "Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant"? This is already done for the page of Princess Mathilde, Duchess of Brabant. It is accourding to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Demophon 20:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant → Philippe, Duke of Brabant — Following the example of other heirs to the throne, Philippe and Mathilde's titles should just be Philippe/Mathilde, Duke/Duchess of Brabant —Morhange (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support - Other crown princes do not have Prince in their articles. For example, Felipe, Prince of Asturias and not Infante Felipe, Prince of Asturias; Charles, Prince of Wales, not Prince Charles, Prince of Wales; Willem-Alexander, Prince of Orange, not Prince Willem-Alexander; Guillaume, Hereditary Grand Duke of Luxembourg, not Prince Guillaume, etcetera. Is there any special case for Philippe & Mathilde to have Prince/Princess in front of their names? According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other royals: If they hold a princely substantive title, use "{first name}, {title}".Morhange (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Morhange. Let's see if there is an opposing case, and if not, move. Weak Oppose My memory was in error: I thought we used Andrew, Duke of York; but we use Prince Andrew, Duke of York. So here, and per discussion. 00:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I think that's because Andrew (and Edward) are not heirs to the throne? All the other heirs to the throne don't have "Prince" in front of their names. Like if the king was feeling generous and gave Prince Laurent the title Count of Flanders, he would be at Prince Laurent, Count of Flanders, like Prince Charles, Count of Flanders. Like with the Spanish royal family, Felipe, who is heir apparent, is at "Felipe, Prince of Asturias" while his sisters are at Infanta X, Duchess of X . Morhange (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
      • There really is no different... Philippe, like all of his siblings, is a Prince of Belgium. Same for Charles, Prince of Wales, as a Prince of the UK. We created a convention which really should have been uniform either way (title prefixed for all or none) but now we have one where we basically pick and choose. This discussion doesn't seem to be suited here, let's wait for the outcome of the move and then go to WT:NCNT. Charles 17:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - follow pattern of heirs to other thrones. A concern has been expressed elsewhere that somebody might not know that "Philippe, Duke of Brabant" is a prince; the same could be said of Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and many other sovereign princes. I'm in favour of moving to this format for other princes as well (e.g. UKGBNI royal dukes). Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support We also need to change and/or clarify the conventions. The form "Prince X, <Title> of Y" is unnecessarily long and not does not contribute much to the identities of the article sujects, in my opinion. I support removing it for all royal holders of ducal/comital/etc titles. Charles 17:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose This discussion was already made a time ago. The form "Prince X, <Title> of Y" is much more logical and correct. First, Prince Philippe is "Prince of Belgium", secondly with a honouring and substantive title named "Duke of Brabant". He's not the reigning duke of the Duchy of Brabant. Demophon (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • A change in the naming conventions wouldn't limit that format to reigning dukes, but to holders of the title. Just because a discussion was made "a time ago" does not mean all is frozen perpetually. Can you explain the logic and correctness of "Prince X, <Title> of Y" at WT:NCNT when that discussion begins? Charles 17:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons cited by Demophon. Also, "prince" is a title more associated with royalty than nobility in English, so where an heir uses such a title (Prince of Asturias, Prince of Orange, Prince of Wales) it is less likely to confuse than when the only title in the article name is one that is as identified with nobility as royalty, or more so (Count of Barcelona, Count of Flanders, Duke of Brabant). Wikipedia should be reducing that confusion, not aggravating it, yet rarely does an article explain why a royal prince is known by a noble title. FactStraight (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. The current title is simply wrong. He is not "Prince Philippe", he is "Prince of Belgium". Unlike the British system (Prince Andrew, Duke of York) royal titles are not connected to the forename. He is "Philippe, Duke of Brabant, Prince of Belgium", not "Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant". Obviously he is referred to as "Prince Philippe" in short but that does not make it technically correct. Känsterle (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, in the royal order approving his marriage, he is referred to as "His Royal Highness Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant, Prince of Belgium."--Ganchelkas (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The order approving his marriage was not written in English. French-language usage is an appropriate determinant in French Wikipedia, but not English Wikipedia. Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
According to several official Belgian government websites he is referred as: "Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant, Prince of Belgium" [1] or "Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant" [2]. Demophon (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. He is most commonly referred to as Prince Philippe, e.g. at [3]. Timeineurope (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What's your opinion on Princess Diana? Charles 00:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm against it. But Prince Philippe is referred to as such by the royal palace, as in the link above. Timeineurope (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The other heirs have princely titles, and we put them at Charles, Prince of Wales because (a) it's obvious from that that they're royal and (b) Prince Charles, Prince of Wales would look odd. As Prince Philippe's title is ducal, there's no repetition and so the initial "Prince" should remain. Proteus (Talk) 12:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not obvious and what is this about it looking odd? Charles is just that, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales. Repetition or not, it isn't needed. Charles 13:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • So if this was the Scottish wiki, then Charles' article should be at Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay instead of Charles, Duke of Rothesay? Philippe is heir to the throne and like all of the other heirs to the throne, Duke of Brabant is his heir's title. There needs to be a guideline for this. You can't have all the other heirs at X, Prince/Duke/Count of Y, and have Philippe be the one exception. Morhange (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per naming conventions and that he is also referred to as Prince Philippe. - dwc lr (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe not for long. Did you read that the conventions may change? Charles 13:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes but I would be opposed to a change. - dwc lr (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Knowing that though it might be best to oppose the move without citing the Naming Conventions which may change anyway. Charles 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Prince Charles is often referred to as Prince Charles instead of the Prince of Wales. Morhange (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Not by the court. The Belgian royal palace, on the other hand, does use 'Prince Philippe'. Timeineurope (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other royals is the article not titled correctly at the moment "If a prince(ss) holds a substantive title that is not princely (a peerage, for instance), use "Prince(ss) {first name}, {title}". Prince Philippe holds a Ducal title not a Princely one unlike the majority of currents heirs who hold princely titles. - dwc lr (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is an example of making a move to institute a change. Charles 17:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Would this same rule apply for someone like, say, Infante Afonso, Prince of Beira, who is the heir apparent to a monarchy that is no longer reigning? Should he be directed to Afonso, Prince of Beira? Morhange (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I would hope so, but let's discuss it at WT:NCNT. Charles 17:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.