Talk:Lilian, Princess of Réthy: Difference between revisions
summon wildbot |
m WildBot was summoned |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|listas=Baels, Lilian |
|listas=Baels, Lilian |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{User:WildBot/tag}} |
|||
What was the first name of Cardinal Van Roey? -- [[User:Zoe|Zoe]] |
What was the first name of Cardinal Van Roey? -- [[User:Zoe|Zoe]] |
||
Revision as of 04:50, 31 May 2010
 | Biography: Royalty and Nobility B‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
What was the first name of Cardinal Van Roey? -- Zoe
She was never queen-consort, only princess-consort, shouldn't the name of the article be therefore different? like, Lilian, Princess of Rethy or something like that? see Albert, Prince Consort. Gryffindor 15:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- She was, however, the consort to a king regardless of her title. It's an exception to the rule I'd say, but I would support renaming the article to Lilian, princesse de Réthy or Lilian, Princess of Réthy as she held that title as her own, regardless of its technical legality. Charles 17:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Unbalanced & disputed content
Not only does this article take a peacock tone toward its subject while completely lacking inline citations, but it asserts a narrative (The Queen Mother's role in the romance, the rationale for the alleged religious ceremony and for the (illegally) subsequent civil marriage, the reasons Lilian did not bear the title of queen, etc) that is nether proven nor agreed upon. Worse it asserts as fact that opposition to the marriage, and its importance to the Question royale later, resulted from the machinations of Leopold III's political enemies rather than from the immediate, widespread view of many Belgians that the marriage was simply inappropriate. Lethiere (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)