Talk:Jazmin Grace Grimaldi

message: Is it really that necessary to put what school she attends? I find it extremely frightening, given that she is still a minor, and her safety is a priority. Furthermore, why is it so important that people know where she goes to school? I think we should remove the line about where she attends school. Consider it. I won't remove it yet. Lets discuss it a bit first. Rbkl (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: School

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Her name actually still seems to be Grimaldi. - Nunh-huh 22:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grimaldi

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Cool, glad everything worked out. --clpo13(talk) 20:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: status

message: Now, it is mentioned she is an illegitimate child. But the adulterine part is not mentioned. Isn't that the reason she can't ever  be part of the line of succession? If yes, then it definitely should on the article. 85.217.42.90 (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  status #2 

message: The Hello Magazine reference has been on this page for 2 1/2 years (until CDRL102 decided to remove as not relevant).  The recent interview in Harper's Bazaar is also relevant because it is referenced as her "First Interview", and that it was conducted from the Palace in the Principality of Monaco.  It establishes (historically) the relationship between father and daughter and extended family (despite repeated labels of illegitimacy, which should only referenced with regard to Heir).  For the first time a legitimate publication was granted an interview (obviously approved by the Principality since took place at the Palace) that sets the record straight about the historical time-line and relationship between Prince Albert II and his two older children.  Many publications have also recently published photos of her with family members, such as; Princess Stephanie's children, also establishing a historical record of the relationship.  The article also states she attended the Christening of her recent Brother (true Heir) and sister.  It is relevant because so much gossip has painted a different picture of Prince Albert's parental responsibilities -- and his public image is of historical interest.  AbbyLawrence (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It was on here for 2 1/2 years until I read the page and felt that it shouldn't be there as I don't see it's relevance or encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't a gossip site. I cited the following for reasons against these paragraphs - "WP:BLP, WP:VER and WP:Relevance" CDRL102 (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media References 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Jazmin Grace Grimaldi. 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/20151012102335/http://jazminfund.com/ to http://www.jazminfund.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102062012/http://www.hellomagazine.com/magazine/1250/ to http://www.hellomagazine.com/magazine/1250/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100417005030/http://www.palmspringslife.com/Blogs/The-Life/June-2006/Jazmin-Grace-Grimaldi-cover-girl/ to http://www.palmspringslife.com/Blogs/The-Life/June-2006/Jazmin-Grace-Grimaldi-cover-girl/
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) 16:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What is a "partner"? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partner 

message: I believe that this edit is unconstructive, confusing a reader into believing that it is possible that Prince Albert, who is married, some day might marry Miss Grimaldi's mother instead. If nobody can come up with a good reason to retain such inappropriate wording, I will be reverting it again. While I'm at it, I'll also word the sentence so that the controversial word legitimate is clearly linked to the line of succession. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's not impossible. Prince Albert is married now, but he could become a widower, or have his marriage annulled, which would leave him free to marry at that time. And if he then married Jazmin's also-then-fortuitously-maritally-unencumbered mother, that act would not legitimate Jazmin. - Nunh-huh 00:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: A far-fetched & implausible possibility like that (bordering on WP:BALL) is not supposed to be used to base Wikipedia text. There is no rational reason to leave the question open. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a constitutional quirk. Unless a reliable source discusses it, it should be left to forums. Surtsicna (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible  marriage of her mother and Albert?

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect First American Princess. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Steel1943! Where is the discussion of this particular item.? All I see is a mass thinghy that already has been closed. Since Ms. Grimaldi is not (not) a princess, the redirect is highly inappropriate. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "First American Princess" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I rolled back 2 promotional edits with unacceptable sources. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Rollback

message: Some mischief is more humorous than other mischief. Sorry, I do know how excruciatingly inappropriate this comment is. But I just hadda. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Big laugh