Talk: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. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
[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)
