Talk:Philippe of Belgium

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

moving[edit]

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.

unnecessary[edit]

  • 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)

Baudouin's Heir-Presumptive?[edit]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Calls for Philippe, to step aside[edit]

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)[reply]

Move "Philippe, Duke of Brabant" to "Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant"?[edit]

Should the title of this page not be changed from "Philippe, Duke of Brabant" to "Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant"? This is already done for the page of Princess Mathilde, Duchess of Brabant. It is accourding to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Demophon 20:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant → Philippe, Duke of Brabant — Following the example of other heirs to the throne, Philippe and Mathilde's titles should just be Philippe/Mathilde, Duke/Duchess of Brabant —Morhange (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support - Other crown princes do not have Prince in their articles. For example, Felipe, Prince of Asturias and not Infante Felipe, Prince of Asturias; Charles, Prince of Wales, not Prince Charles, Prince of Wales; Willem-Alexander, Prince of Orange, not Prince Willem-Alexander; Guillaume, Hereditary Grand Duke of Luxembourg, not Prince Guillaume, etcetera. Is there any special case for Philippe & Mathilde to have Prince/Princess in front of their names? According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other royals: If they hold a princely substantive title, use "{first name}, {title}".Morhange (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Morhange. Let's see if there is an opposing case, and if not, move. Weak Oppose My memory was in error: I thought we used Andrew, Duke of York; but we use Prince Andrew, Duke of York. So here, and per discussion. 00:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think that's because Andrew (and Edward) are not heirs to the throne? All the other heirs to the throne don't have "Prince" in front of their names. Like if the king was feeling generous and gave Prince Laurent the title Count of Flanders, he would be at Prince Laurent, Count of Flanders, like Prince Charles, Count of Flanders. Like with the Spanish royal family, Felipe, who is heir apparent, is at "Felipe, Prince of Asturias" while his sisters are at Infanta X, Duchess of X . Morhange (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There really is no different... Philippe, like all of his siblings, is a Prince of Belgium. Same for Charles, Prince of Wales, as a Prince of the UK. We created a convention which really should have been uniform either way (title prefixed for all or none) but now we have one where we basically pick and choose. This discussion doesn't seem to be suited here, let's wait for the outcome of the move and then go to WT:NCNT. Charles 17:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - follow pattern of heirs to other thrones. A concern has been expressed elsewhere that somebody might not know that "Philippe, Duke of Brabant" is a prince; the same could be said of Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and many other sovereign princes. I'm in favour of moving to this format for other princes as well (e.g. UKGBNI royal dukes). Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We also need to change and/or clarify the conventions. The form "Prince X, <Title> of Y" is unnecessarily long and not does not contribute much to the identities of the article sujects, in my opinion. I support removing it for all royal holders of ducal/comital/etc titles. Charles 17:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This discussion was already made a time ago. The form "Prince X, <Title> of Y" is much more logical and correct. First, Prince Philippe is "Prince of Belgium", secondly with a honouring and substantive title named "Duke of Brabant". He's not the reigning duke of the Duchy of Brabant. Demophon (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A change in the naming conventions wouldn't limit that format to reigning dukes, but to holders of the title. Just because a discussion was made "a time ago" does not mean all is frozen perpetually. Can you explain the logic and correctness of "Prince X, <Title> of Y" at WT:NCNT when that discussion begins? Charles 17:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons cited by Demophon. Also, "prince" is a title more associated with royalty than nobility in English, so where an heir uses such a title (Prince of Asturias, Prince of Orange, Prince of Wales) it is less likely to confuse than when the only title in the article name is one that is as identified with nobility as royalty, or more so (Count of Barcelona, Count of Flanders, Duke of Brabant). Wikipedia should be reducing that confusion, not aggravating it, yet rarely does an article explain why a royal prince is known by a noble title. FactStraight (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The current title is simply wrong. He is not "Prince Philippe", he is "Prince of Belgium". Unlike the British system (Prince Andrew, Duke of York) royal titles are not connected to the forename. He is "Philippe, Duke of Brabant, Prince of Belgium", not "Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant". Obviously he is referred to as "Prince Philippe" in short but that does not make it technically correct. Känsterle (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, in the royal order approving his marriage, he is referred to as "His Royal Highness Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant, Prince of Belgium."--Ganchelkas (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The order approving his marriage was not written in English. French-language usage is an appropriate determinant in French Wikipedia, but not English Wikipedia. Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to several official Belgian government websites he is referred as: "Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant, Prince of Belgium" [1] or "Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant" [2]. Demophon (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. He is most commonly referred to as Prince Philippe, e.g. at [3]. Timeineurope (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm against it. But Prince Philippe is referred to as such by the royal palace, as in the link above. Timeineurope (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not obvious and what is this about it looking odd? Charles is just that, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales. Repetition or not, it isn't needed. Charles 13:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So if this was the Scottish wiki, then Charles' article should be at Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay instead of Charles, Duke of Rothesay? Philippe is heir to the throne and like all of the other heirs to the throne, Duke of Brabant is his heir's title. There needs to be a guideline for this. You can't have all the other heirs at X, Prince/Duke/Count of Y, and have Philippe be the one exception. Morhange (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per naming conventions and that he is also referred to as Prince Philippe. - dwc lr (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe not for long. Did you read that the conventions may change? Charles 13:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but I would be opposed to a change. - dwc lr (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Knowing that though it might be best to oppose the move without citing the Naming Conventions which may change anyway. Charles 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prince Charles is often referred to as Prince Charles instead of the Prince of Wales. Morhange (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not by the court. The Belgian royal palace, on the other hand, does use 'Prince Philippe'. Timeineurope (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other royals is the article not titled correctly at the moment "If a prince(ss) holds a substantive title that is not princely (a peerage, for instance), use "Prince(ss) {first name}, {title}". Prince Philippe holds a Ducal title not a Princely one unlike the majority of currents heirs who hold princely titles. - dwc lr (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an example of making a move to institute a change. Charles 17:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would this same rule apply for someone like, say, Infante Afonso, Prince of Beira, who is the heir apparent to a monarchy that is no longer reigning? Should he be directed to Afonso, Prince of Beira? Morhange (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope so, but let's discuss it at WT:NCNT. Charles 17:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Gryffindor (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title should comply with Albert II of Belgium, Baudouin of Belgium, Leopold III of Belgium, Leopold II of Belgium and Leopold I of Belgium, and also with Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands. It is fairly clear that Philippe of Belgium is a king. Before anyone suggests it, I should say that Philippe of the Belgians would make a very bad title. A territorial designation can only refer to a territory, never to people. That is why nobody would ever refer to a "Napoleon of the French". Surtsicna (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Gryffindor (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed rename[edit]

This is not a formal rename debate, but I think it might be worth floating the idea briefly. Basically, I would argue for a rename to Philip of Belgium on the grounds that Léopolds 1-3 have Anglicized article names anyway which causes no confusion. Given that the "of Belgium" is shoved in anyway, it would avoid the arbitrary choice that needs to be made between French and Dutch versions. What does everyone think? Brigade Piron (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm cautious however, is Philippe an established norm? Endrū Hejs (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing notability[edit]

This guy is the King of Belgium, and thus, should logically be notable, but this page basically is... he went to college, got married, and joined a trade board, where he was involved in some stuff which isn't really described.

We have this huge list of information here, but very little to actually tell us why this guy is important. The trade board stuff seems like it should supply some meaty material, how he has effected the world. Heck, why was he given the honors which are listed down at the bottom of the article?

This guy is a head of state but this article seems to suggest he has never done anything of consequence at all. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't. Honors are routinely given to kings and crown princes just for being a king or crown prince. It provides PR for the giver, or strengthens the ties between royalty and nobility and the like, but no actual achievements are needed for them. Doesn't mean that we have to establish notability, he is king and has received plenty of attention for that reason alone. Notability is not the same as Achievements. Fram (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

Why does this article name give preference to the french version of his name instead of remaining neutral by using the english Philip? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.73.213 (talk) 10:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be shown that, in the English language, the majority or reliable sources prefer Philip to Philippe when referring to the king of the Belgians then we should move the article. Do you have any evidence? Greenshed (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

Last time I checked. Philippe's title was King of the Belgians, not Seventh King of the Belgians. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last time i checked the official page of the Royal house, he is the Seventh King of the Belgians, so i donùt know where you live, but clkearly not in Belgium. You are so wrong, please stop the wrong info pushing.--Carolus (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that source only says he is the "seventh King of the Belgians", not the "Seventh King of the Belgians" as if the number was part of his title. And we do not use a number that way in info boxes. It can be used the same way as the Beligain Royal court uses it, in text, and without a capital letter "S".
It looks to me like you are inventing details, that you have been asked before not to do that, and that an administratator may need to block you to get the request taken seriously: You need to be more careful. Please do not invent any details and add them to Wikipedia articles without correct sourcing! Best wishes. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He's done the same thing at Albert II of Belgium & Baudouin of Belgium infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The practice is not to add numberings to either the infobox or intros for monarchs. However, if it will end the dispute, numbering in the intro will suffice, I guess. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that policy is because most monarchies are so old that it's hard to affix a definite number? B'ing's their court calls him the seventh I found it relevant in our text. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It just hasn't been the practice on Wikipedia, for monarchs. See the Dutch, Luxembourg & Jordanian monarchs (short lists, each) for examples. Also, the numbering scheme is at odds, as there's Kings/Queens. Presidents & Prime Ministers have 'no' gender titles. What would Elisabeth become? the eighth Queen-regnant of the Belgians? or the first Queen-regnant of the Belgians? GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eighth monarch, or whatever their royal court opts to call her, when the time comes. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS "queen regnant" is a job description, not a title. We often tend to forget that on WP. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS 2, I would immediately promote the word and title "Quing" if I were King of the World. Sad to say, (1) I'm not and (2) it has already been usurped. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian descent[edit]

User:Carolus added the unsourced statement "Unlike his father and grandfather, Philippe is the first Belgian King with actual Belgian ancesters: he is a direct descendant of count Jacques Coghen."

Albert II and Boudewijn are great-grandchildren of Prince Philippe, Count of Flanders (born in Laeken in 1837), grandchildren of Albert I of Belgium (born in Brussels) and children of Leopold III of Belgium (born in Brussels). If you have, in a country only going back to 1830, three generations of ancestors born in Belgium and going back to 1837, then you have "actual Belgian ancestors". I have accordingly removed the unsourced, wrong statement. Fram (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly reasonable. Surtsicna (talk) 10:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Philippe 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

King of the Belgians with a capital k[edit]

Please see and discuss the principle here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Typographical error?[edit]

@JacobBryssen: What's the use of this modification? To add a typographical error (two commas in a row)? --Leducernest (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the typographical error. All other articles about Belgium I have seen use the Belgian languages in the order first Dutch, then French and then German. I made this modification for consistency with other articles. JacobBryssen (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the typo. I switched the order of languages for consistency with all other articles about Belgium, which also use the order Dutch-French-German for the Belgian languages. JacobBryssen (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So many versions of his name in various languages[edit]

It is my view that the names of people in our time (as of about 1900) are never translated, i.e. exonyms are not used as were used previously for historical persons whose names did not have legal spellings registered with the governments of their countries. Today, we all do. So what's with all the various names in the lead? Looks ridiculous for a modern person. I will remove all but his legal name, unless someone can come up with a reasonable argument to keep all that clutter. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. He is the king of a three-lingual country, and all three versions are generally accepted ones. E.g. the Dutch-language full version is used by the official Dutch TV NOS[4] or Dutch newspapers[5], but also Flemish newspapers and magazines[6]. The same goes for the French version in French-language sources. As far as I know, his "legal" name actually is all three different names (I know that e.g. the King and Queen used to have multiple passports, one in each language!). Fram (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On a closer look, the Belgian Royal court calls him "Philippe" in the German version of his bio there, so at least that one has to go. If "Filip" in NL (as per court text) is an alternative name in regular use, it should be bold in the text as an a.k.a. not italicized as a translation --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that Philipp should be Philippe, I hadn't looked at the German version. The official German-language broadcaster of Belgium gives his full name in German[7], as "Philippe Léopold Ludwig Maria". The German version is much less often used, but then again the German community is way, way smaller than the other two. Fram (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Belgium has three official languages. The king is thus known by different versions of his name in different official languages. You will notice that he is called Filip in the Dutch version of his official website and Philippe in the French version. His cypher combines the letters P and F. It is possible that his legal name is or was in French only (judging at least by this Dutch-language announcement of his birth) but the Dutch version of his name is widely used and thus relevant. I am not sure whether he really is called Philipp in the German-speaking part of Belgium; he is called Philippe in the German version of the official website. Surtsicna (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms[edit]

The coat of arms shown in the article does not match the official design in the royal decree of 2019 on the armorial of the Belgian royal family. Shouldn't it be corrected? 177.76.164.205 (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC of interest[edit]

(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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philippe_of_Belgium&oldid=1204195132"