Talk:Albert II of Belgium

message: Jtdirl removed the following:
(Redacted)
which had been added by User:195.144.90.46. Jtdirl stated on that user's talk page, "They are extremely serious allegations for which no evidence has ever been produced." Which is pretty much exactly what the contributor said in the first place! I am not replacing the statement myself, as I hadn't heard about this, but if there were such rumours, and if they were well-known, then they should be mentioned in the article. Articles should be as complete as possible. -- Oliver P. 03:30, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Shouldn't this be at Albert II of the Belgians? Mackensen (talk) 14:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good. Mackensen (talk) 15:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Personally, I don't think that matters. His majesty's official title is "King of the Belgians", after it has been changed on purpose from "King of Belgium" somewhere during the last century, in an effort to make clear that the King should be there for his people, and not the other way around. Ignoring that here seems wrong to me Yoe 16:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I dunno what the hell you're talking about love, but the title has not been "changed on purpose" in the last century. Belgina Monarchs have NEVER been styled 'King of Belgium'. Since it's inception in 1830, the title has always been 'King of the Belgians'. Indisciplined (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason is that Belgium is not a single entity, rather the sum of three linguistically-identified province groupings,, Francophone Wallonia, Neerlandophone Flanders and Germanophone Luxemburg (although not the Principality of that name), so defined in a 1968 referendum. The political machine is similarly aligned, fracturing the political landscape into many small parties which result in endless governmental coallitions. It is therefore far more rational to talk of the Belgians as an alliance held together by a Constitutional Monarchy rather than as a single Nation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.50.39 (talk) 04:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: *We may write the King's public relations secretary (or whoever is responsible for dealing with the public), and I am sure that they will be able to provide us with a decent portrait of the King in an official pose and attire. 
We are unable to find a picture better than this disgraceful one because the official sources (such as the royal family webiste) have only tiny and quite outdated photos of the king (when posing alone). As for images from elsewhere - we basically don't even need non-public domain photos (i.e. from news agencies etc.), since they wouldn't represent the King in offical attire and pose - which is the only way to represent a monarch in an encyclopaedia. Those that do represent him in such manner are definitely in the PD, as perscribed by Belgian law. Such photographs can only be obtained, I think, from official royal or government sources by writing to them, as mentioned above. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Contacting authorities

message: Recently, Albert fell a broke his hip. Can someone add this to the article (with appropiate citation)? GoodDay 20:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Health

message: Do we really have to give his full name in three nearly identical forms at the very beginning of the article before even saying who he is?  Even having to include the Dutch and, especially, German forms at all seems essentially superfluous - the guy is a native French speaker, and his full name is never used by anyone anyway.  But certainly having to include all three forms, none of which are ever used, as the first piece of information in the article is genuinely ridiculous. john k (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  full name 

message: I have moved this paragraph to its own section near the bottom of the article, although even that might be too much emphasis for information from this patently unreliable source. (The real story was over the reaction to it, not the allegations themselves.) It does not belong in the "Marriage and family" section by any stretch, since -- even in the unlikely event it was true -- an unacknowledged illegitimate child is not part of the family. 192.31.106.34 (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: When I look at pictures of her I think that she looks a lot like her grandmother Queen Astrid. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boel allegations 

message: Are his godparents so significant that they need to be mentioned in the opening paragraph ? Isn't that odd ? -- Beardo (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Being godparents seems to be a big thing in those (royalty) circles. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Godparents 

message: I don't think the King and the Duke of Brabant are in line to the former throne of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha. During World War I King Albert I and his descendants were removed from the succession in that Duchy. 87.208.3.170 (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is right. The Portuguese branch however is extinct now. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Indeed. You are right about that, but the whole issue became moot just one year later when the Duchy was abolished. By the way, I have removed the Saxe-Coburg part from the succession box in the article since reading your comment. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have also removed the Belgians from the article about the succession in the Wettin monarchies. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saxe-Coburg & Gotha 

message: I have just removed a completely unsourced, massive BLP violation from the "marriage and family" section. Without clear and extremely specific direct sourcing for each fact in that paragraph (and by that I mean every fact must be referenced to a reliable source, and inline references must be given, and those references must be to specific pages of reliable books, newspapers, or websites and not just to the book or newspaper or website in general), this must not be re-added. Our rules for biographies of living persons are very clear in this: no matter how well-known editors think such "facts" are, they absolutely must not remain under any circumstance unless they are clearly sourced, with footnotes attached to the sentences in question, to reliable, disinterested third parties.  --NellieBly (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed BLP violation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Albert II of Belgium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928084048/http://www.quirinale.it/elementi/DettaglioOnorificenze.aspx?decorato=34952 to http://www.quirinale.it/elementi/DettaglioOnorificenze.aspx?decorato=34952
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928084127/http://www.quirinale.it/elementi/DettaglioOnorificenze.aspx?decorato=11919 to http://www.quirinale.it/elementi/DettaglioOnorificenze.aspx?decorato=11919
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Albert II of Belgium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://1.t.cdn.belga.be/picture%3A954544%3Apreview%3Awatermark
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927235346/http://almanachdechivalry.com/_wsn/page3.html/ to http://almanachdechivalry.com/_wsn/page3.html/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Albert II of Belgium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160313043808/http://falkadb.forseti.is/orduskra/fal03.php?sub=leita&term=albert to http://falkadb.forseti.is/orduskra/fal03.php?term=Albert&sub=Leita
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Albert II of Belgium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170202101220/http://img1.kasjauns.lv/galerijas/evelina_kopa_ar_viru_ilvesa_prez/ilvesi-7.jpg to http://img1.kasjauns.lv/galerijas/evelina_kopa_ar_viru_ilvesa_prez/ilvesi-7.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: argues that Delphine Boel is not Albert II's daughter. What say you all? GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never say that! I said that Delphine Boel isn't legally Albert II's daughter, she is the biological daughter only. The legal father of Delphine Boël is still Jacques Boël, there is a trial in June to determine if Delphine Boël can legally be the daughter of Albert II. Indeed, the court have to decide if the prescription has not yet arrived. In Belgium, this is not the DNA who decide the filiation, it is the law. If you want the truth, you can go on the  WP:FR and the website of de Belgian Monarchie. btw --Helsing90 (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: She still belongs in the infobox with Albert II's other children, no matter what the court decision is. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  GoodDay I see what Helsing90 tried to say, but in all honesty, it is a bit far fetched. I have updated it. So by law, she is not yet "his" daughter (he is not her "legal" father, but this is really far fetched. This has to do with legal issues such as an inheritance and so on. Biologically she is 100% sure his daughter. So she deserves to be on this page. In my opinion she deserves to be in the infobox, but with a note. The link Helsing90 gave about the monarchie: sorry, but common, that is a shitty link. The chances of that link ever include her are slim to none as she is born outside his official marriage and I doubt they are going to add her on that website.Garnhami (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The note is unhelpful. It does not clarify anything but merely marks her as illegitimate, which is wrong. The parameter says "issue", which, by definition, includes all biological children. If she is a biological daughter of Albert, she belongs there. Surtsicna (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Surtsicna it is not that I do not agree she has to be there, she does, however it is a bit more complicated. I have added it to the text anyway. If you think a note is not in place, ok... however I do not agree on it. I also have no clue why the links you gave me should demonstrate that a not is not appropriateGarnhami (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Reading 's post at the talkpage of Delphine Boel, I'm beginning to get the impression that his opposition is mostly based on emotion. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: GoodDay it is not about «emotion», it is about the truth! Delphine Boel has a good reputation in Belgium, so it is not the question. But the law is the law sorry! --Helsing90 (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is arguing that she's a royal or that she's in the line of succession. She belong in this article's infobox with Albert II's other children, legal or not. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is she Albert II's daughter? 

message: In response to a request made at WP:RFPP, I've applied full protection for two days to allow a cooling-off period. It is doubtful this could be extended, however, so the next 48 hours should be constructively used by the involved parties at some serious effort at resolution such as opening a WP:RFC on the paternity question. Chetsford (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Full protection

message: I don't see Albert's full name anywhere in the article. According to a google search, Britannica says his full name is: Albert Félix Humbert Théodore Christian Eugène Marie of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Usually on pages of royalty, at least, somewhere is told the person's full name any middle name(s) listed. 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:544F:E012:2320:EFE4 (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full name 

message: (non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC of interest