Jump to content

Talk:Count Nikolai of Monpezat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

For a August 2005 deletion debate see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Prince Nikolai of Denmark — Preceding unsigned comment added by NSR (talk • contribs) 06:27, 24 August 2005‎ (UTC)[reply]

No, this article should not be deleted at all. Prince Nikolai happens to be the first grandchild of Queen Margrethe II and her husband, Prince Henrik. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.59.220 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prince Nikolai of Denmark. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

I think this article should use a more recent photo, such as one of those released by the court for HH's 18th birthday last summer. But I don't know how to do that. Can someone else change the picture? These are the photos one of which I would like to see used: http://kongehuset.dk/foto-video/hh-prins-nikolai-18-aar

Royalcello (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)royalcello[reply]

I agree H.K.H45 (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Custody

[edit]

I found quite a few Danish articles stating that the parents have joint custody, but I think the most important source is the one I added from the Danish Royal court website. It clearly states the fact. I think this now resolves the issue of citations on the page and perhaps the notice at the top can be removed. I will leave that to others to decide. Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

[edit]

Some more recent pictures of Prince Nikolai here: https://www.instagram.com/p/B1seyiWgMu_/. Would these be usable in the article? 2angelgoats (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can you add a picture of the Count can you help. H.K.H45 (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking to add up to date photo of His Highness

[edit]

Can someone tell me how to add a photo H.K.H45 (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 January 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Clear consensus for the move. (closed by non-admin page mover) echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– See arguments below. Elme12 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems reasonable to assume, looking at the cited source, i.e. the Danish Royal Court's announcement, that the name format for this article, and the three articles of his brothers and sister should be the same as what we're using for his grandmother's cousin Count Ingolf of Rosenborg. That name format leaves others free to call him either Count Rosenborg (formally correct for a count of nobility, i.e. a non-royal count) or Count Ingolf (less correct but flattering). Thoughts? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support I am absolutely in favor of moving to “Count Nikolai of Monpezat”, that is in accordance with other counts of European royal families (see Countess Eloise of Orange-Nassau, Count Claus-Casimir of Orange-Nassau and Countess Leonore of Orange-Nassau) and it also seems to be the official format followed by the Danish royal house. Furthermore the current format suggests that they hold a substantive title, which is not the case. When a title is unique and not shared, the style is usually “X, Count of Y”, whilst “Count X of Y”, indicates that it is a non-substantive title that is shared, which is the case here. I have requested the move of the 4 articles. Elme12 (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as typically the X, Title of Y is used for peers or nobles who hold substantive titles, whereas Nikolai and his siblings hold the title by courtesy. As already mentioned, the move would put them in line with the children of Dutch royals who hold comital titles, and with their own kin who are Counts of Rosenborg. Piratesswoop (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. These are courtesy titles held by cadets not substantive titles. DrKay (talk) 08:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree. It seems reasonable. Sirslayercort (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As stated above, they do not hold a substantive title (in which there would be only one "The Count of Monpezat" and the format “X, Count of Y” is applicable), but this is instead a nobility title held by all who are entitled to it. In this case, the format "Count X of Y" is the appropriate one. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am neutral in this discussion, as far as Count Nikolai's Wikipedia entry is concerned.
However, I'd point out that the concept of a "substantive title" is an arbitrary term, with no actual dictionary definition. It would likely violate Wikipedia's principle of 'no original research' for Wikipedia itself to erect a definition for 'substantive title'.
According to the Wikipedia Talk Page for the entry 'Substantive Title', one possible definition seems to a be a title that is unique, and held by only one individual at a time, as opposed to multiple holders at the same time. According to that definition, 'Count of Monpezat' is a non-substantive title, since it is held by multiple members of the family. But another possible definition of 'substantive title' states that it is a title with a basis in the law ( as opposed to a 'courtesy title', which is defined as one with a basis in traditional or customnary usage, rather than law). Under that definition, 'Count of Monpezat' could be a substantive title, as it was conferred by the Queen of Denmark as an hereditary title for her descendants, and is apparently recognised as such in Danish law. Windemere2 (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the definition of “substantive title” is well established or not, there is a difference in Wikipedia page titles between individual titles and shared titles as shown by the mentioned precedents. Leonor, Princess of Asturias holds a substantive (or unique) title, whilst Prince Joachim of Denmark doesn’t (he would otherwise be styled as “Joachim, Prince of Denmark”). I could find no exception to that unwritten convention on Wikipedia. That’s also the rule that seems to be followed by the Almanach de Gotha. Elme12 (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Leonor, Princess of Asturias' is a unique title for herself alone, and is evidently recognised as so in Spanish law as well. So she can be considered to hold a substantive title.
Kongehuset.dk, the official website of the Danish royal family, uses both 'Prince Joachim' (under his photo) and 'Joachim, Prince of Denmark, Count of Monpezat' (in his narrative biography). The website also refers to 'Count Nikolai' under his (Nikolai's) photo, but 'Nikolai.....Count of Monpezat' in his (Nikolai's) narrative biography. It would seem, therefore, that a case could also be made that these are substantive titles, though that might be questionable. It depends upon interpretation of the term 'substantive title'.
There doesn't seem to be a clear definition of what constitutes a 'substantive title', and so it might be best to refrain from using that term. However, it might be reasonable to change Nikolai's entry on Wikipedia to 'Count Nikolai of Monpezat' based upon it's being a shared title rather than an individual title, and use 'unique (individual) title' compared to 'shared title' as the Wikipedia standard for such entries. Windemere2 (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with most of the arguments made here, but I think I should also point out how the children have been referred to on the official website. For example, the entry for Nikolai reads HE Nikolai William Alexander Frederik Count of Monpezat, is the son of HRH Prince Joachim and HE Alexandra Countess of Frederiksborg. This is similar to the entries on Felix, Henrik, and Athena, where the title follows the name. The same format appears to have been used for the Danish versions as well (1, 2, 3, 4). While this may not necessarily be the correct form of address, it is how the royal household has chosen to refer to them, and on Wikipedia we tend to follow what the sources, even if they occasionally go against the convention (The most recent example being the debate about using either Camilla, Queen Consort or Queen Camilla as a page title). If there are secondary sources that follow the format Count/ess X of Y when referring to these children or if there are instances in which the suggested format has been used on the official website as well, then there would be a strong case for this move. Keivan.fTalk 21:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the move the page as it is now fits with what the royal house of denmark has on there offical page about HE and his siblings H.K.H45 (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Can anyone add to this article a (legal) source underpinning the decision of H.M. the Queen to take away original names and titles of count Nikolai and siblings? Nowhere I could find such a source. I have serious doubt if the Queen had the right to unilaterally take away from her (adult) grandchildren name and identity that they had borne since their birth. There certainly is no ground in the Constitution of Denmark. The right to name and identity is protected by international law. There must be a specific and binding law that has been applied. The Court has claimed that similar changes of name and identity happened in other monarchies, notably the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. In the UK not even princess Diana (after the divorce) and prince Andrew (prince since his birth) were stripped of their princely titles. In the Netherlands not one member of the royal family has ever been stripped of a name and title given by birth. Stating the contrary is untrue. I would very much appreciate a reference to a legal source which justities the Queen’s action. Best regards, Guust Guust van Bisselt (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right they are still legal prince and princess to denmark as they are in line to the throne they have been asked not to use them that is want prince Nikolai meant when he said in his statement that he will be proud of the years he was ALLOWED to use the title they still retain them H.K.H45 (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Titles are given by the Danish monarch without government involvement or any legal basis. Thus the monarch can remove or change them. It is very clear in Queen Margrethe's statement that he is no longer a prince of Denmark. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The royal act of denmark states that those in line to the throne are prince or princess to danmark they got their titles at birth the ones giving in 2008 were by gift of the queen if you read one of HM statements after she asked for the titles to laspe she said she hoped her wish would be respected H.K.H45 (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the act of 1953? I can find nothing about titles in it. DrKay (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry i was talking about denmarks Grundlov H.K.H45 (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the Danish Constitution Grundloven about titles. Queen Margrethe clearly proclaimed last year that these grandchildren are to be styled as Excellency not Royal Highness and that their titles from 2023 are not to be princely. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need a title, at least not according to the law, to be in line for the Danish throne. What is important is your connection to Christian X. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He never had the style royal highness only Highness H.K.H45 (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What to believe about that is not clear and also obsolete now. The fact is that he is longer a prince, thus no longer royal. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The legal base might be Lex Regia from 1665. Depending on interpretation of the law the article in question could perhaps be Article 25? Oleryhlolsson (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First name or dynastic name?

[edit]

This article and the articles for his sister and 2 brothers should not now use only the subject's first name in article text as if thery were royalty. It is customary to write encyclopedically about someone in such a position as this by using the dynasty or geographic name at the end of the full name, i.e. Monpezat in this case. I have tried to update the articles a few times accordingly, since their name forms were changed by the sovereign as of January 1, but have been reverted each time. We are now back with an article where the names are given in text as if these children are still royal, which they are not. I will correct this again very soon, unless someone writes something convincing here as to why that should not be done. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS The Danish royal court is now calling him just "Count Nikolai" in text. Far be it from me to object to that, then, but just "Nikolai" alone will not due in Wikipedia's article text now after after January unless to differentiate him from other family members. "Monpezat" or just "he" would be our best choice. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So far, we have No sources simply refering to him as Monpezat so to adress him like that in the article would be highly unencyclopedic. In Denmark, at least for this generation, I don't expect that "Greve af Monpezat" or simply "af Monpezat" in general would be regarded as 'just' a family name but it would rather be seen as a title. Therefore he will most often be refered to either as "Grev Nikolai" (Count Nikolai) or as "Nikolai, greve af Monpezat" (Nikolai, count of Monpezat). He will most certainly never be adressed as "Hr. af Monpezat" (Mister of Monpezat) or "Hr. Monpezat" (Mister Monpezat). If(?) he follows the example of the daughters of Count Christian he will only use the name Grev Nikolai on his Danish yellow card or his credit cards just as the afromentioned daughters used Komtesse Camilla or Komtesse Josephine on their yellow cards and credit cards (before they got maried). I see the way he is adressed in this article as merely Nikolai throughout most of the text not as an attempt to indicate that he is still royal or a prince, but merely as a way of adressing that he had another status prior to 1 January 2023 that was different from his present status. Therefore when the article comes to descripe him and his life after 1 January 2023 it would be most proper to adress him as "Count Nikolai" which I now have done a single time in the article accordingly. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Technically speaking though, according to the Danish law of names, he has now "af Monpezat" as a name (not merely "Monpezat") and he can pass this name on to any future spouses or children of his and even an unmaried partner, if they have lived together for more than two years or have a common child that also bears this name. The title "Greve" on the other hand can only be passed on to his sons from a legitimate mariage. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to refer to him as "Count Nikolai" going forward. Also i will not be making anymore edits to H.E page due to a conflict of interest.H.K.H45 (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Wessex

[edit]

Shouldn't this be changed now that James is Earl of Wessex and not Prince Edward. 2A00:23C6:4A6:9201:F968:4F26:FB72:7D33 (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Count_Nikolai_of_Monpezat&oldid=1231090049"