Talk:Belgian nobility

Prince higher than duke?

Quote: "Members of the following houses bear the title of Duke (Duc in French,Hertog in Dutch). It's the second highest title in rank and was never granted by the Kingdom of Belgium."

I'm assuming the reason why Prince is held higher than Duke is because the ducal titles are non-native. The reason I bring this up is because this is an inversion of the European tradition whereby Duke is a higher title than Prince, i.e. Prince < Duke < Grand Duke/Archduke < King < Emperor < Pope. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List not complete

The list is not complete! Thanks to complete it with the link in the references. (I don't know how to do this) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thyld (talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate list

This list is somehow duplicated with the list available on this page : List of noble families in Belgium. They should be merged in order not to maintain twice the same list.

Regards. --Apn (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Apn (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonkheer in Belgium

It is clear that Jonkheer is used as an honorific for all untitled members of the Dutch nobility in the Netherlands. The article currently states that this is also the practice in Belgium (at least in Flemish). Is that correct? Are there any Flemish sources which confirm the usage? FactStraight (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonkheer (aka Écuyer in french) is the official title for belgian noble people who do not bear a higher title (i.e. Chevalier, Baron, Vicomte, Comte, Marquis, Duc, Prince). See (fr) or (nl) $5. Apn (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belgian nobility. 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/20070329190116/http://www.arenbergcenter.com:80/ to http://www.arenbergcenter.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 05:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carolus

This user is a notorious crook at the Dutch speaking Wikipedia and totally unreliable, if not some one who adds only false information. This is also what he did last month on WP:EN. On WP:NL he is for that reason blocked. Verifying everything that he adds is undoable: everything he contributes should be reverted. Paul Brussel (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is very kind, to handle things here in my face.--Carolus (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense

This article, going through it, is full of nonsense and totally unreliable. There is so much that is false here, that it would take hours to completely rewrite it and delete all the nonsense. So this is just a warning that no one should believe most of what is written in this article. Paul Brussel (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can prove exactly what is wrong, you can put it here, and i will provide a source if you want. Nothing of the updates i added, cannot be proven whitout source, or you realy think that a family like Stein d'Altenstein was from Belgium? Or the Prince of Rheina-Wolbeck never existed?? If you cannot prove that i am wrong, just leave it. Just deleting a mjor part of someones contributions does not show any respect at all. you are free to correct, but not to delete whitout any serious discussions. --Carolus (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it is all nonsense, but a lot of it clearly is. For example:

"When an important family died out, the rights of a Heerlijkheid passed to their children, as occurred with many titles. "

Usually, when a family "dies out", it is because they have no children of course... Now, I haven't checked whether Carelus added this bit or not, but he surely readded it after Paul Brussel removed it. Fram (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains so much mistakes and complete nonsense that it is to be mistrusted completely. There are families listed that are not noble at all, or have never belonged to the nobility of the Kingdom of Belgium. Carolus is known on WP:NL to have added in the course of the years so many rubbish, that he is blocked there. Now he introduces again that all members of the D'Udekem family are counts, although most of them are jonkheer, which is by the way according to Belgian law a noble title. Dries van Noten is not baron yet, since the letter patents have not been issued. Thomas de Spoelberch has nothing to do with collaboration in the Second World War, being born decades after 1945. There is no Belgian noble family called Shin de Pyeongsan. And the families Renoz and Du Pré are real Belgian families with no foreign origin at all. The reference is nonsense; most of the literature mentioned is outdated and not reliable. For most of this unreliable information, Carolus is responsible and all his contributions would need verificaion. Paul Brussel (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wel; perhaps you might be suprised, but i might agree with some point about Shin de Pyeongsan. If you would look into the history, however, you might see, i did not write this part, and i am not resposible for this. I never heard about that family, but if in understand the context, this is an strange family living in Belgium, probaly true, the colleague, who wrote this, however used a source, as you can see. I ddid some chagements that this sentence looks the way it was written. Thomas de Spoelberch exact date of conviction i cannot find, but probaly you have noticed that the article has not been corrected. I know other english people will correct some sentences, when things i write are unclear for english speaking persons. So, the point i write is correct, and not "complete nonsese" as you like to call this. So if you have more examples please ask.--Carolus (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed that example (from three articles) as it was a rather extreme WP:BLP violation. Please don't ever insert such blatant violations of that policy again. Apart from that, you may want to address my example of nonsense you (re-)inserted above. Fram (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHAHAHA, you so funny, please see Nl: Thomas de Spoelberch. And tell the author there there they commited violations.--Carolus (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Carolus: I won't tell you what to say- but massive shouty HAHAaas, etc., are only likely to get either your competency or your collegiality questioned. You need both here- know what I mean? — fortunavelut luna 11:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wel indeed, if things like this or this are perfectly normal without any source? Why am i to blame?--Carolus (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a huge difference between, like you do, adding false information based on not mentioned or outdated sources or adding information (without mentioning sources but being correct) as is done e.g. for the latter: the history of the marqués de los Velez is well sourced by the annual Elenco de Grandeza y títulos nobiliarios Españoles, of which I am sure you are not disposing of (contrary to me). So, indeed: you are to blame for using not reliable or outdated sources, or even when using good sources, nevertheless adding completely wrong information. Paul Brussel (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Since the last volume of the Elenco of 2017 (ordered weeks ago) I picked up at the post office today, I added a reference concerning the Marquis of Los Velez. Paul Brussel (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot be blamed for using, (in your personal only short vision) of outdated sources, you can be blamed for sources that cannot be verrified. I suppose and advise, sir, that you just start putting the right sources and stop commenting about the mistzakes. Apperently you claim to be the only one in this world to have acces to all the superior sources. Good luck. --Carolus (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I claim is that you have proved, after having followed you for years now, that you don't have (immediate) access to the main sources on nobility, while my library contains thousands of volumes on nobility, from the Almanach de Gotha from the 18th century till the recent Gothaisches genealogisches Handbuch, and that you are inserting false information by lack of reliable sources, notably as it concerns Belgian nobility: you don't dispose e.g. of the Annuaire de la noblessse de Belgique (1847-1950) and not of all the volumes of the Etat présent de la noblesse belge (1960-present). The most worrying is of course that, whilst suggesting having consulted the main sources, you introduced all sorts of errors in e.g. the article on the D'Udekem family: you made them all counts, which they aren't, you had civilianly married Henri, head of the house (which is untrue) and you made of jonkvrouw Françoise de Maere d'Aertrycke a baroness. All proves that you have to be mistrusted in almost every addition you make here. Paul Brussel (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps check the policy instead of laughing, if you want to continue editing here for much longer. If you again insert such violations without inserting a good, reliable source about the claim in the same article, your editing career here will be over once and for all. It doesn't matter whether what you include is true or false to be a WP:BLP violation. Note that "Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved.". Fram (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what does "blatant" means? i do not understand?--Carolus (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Today I cleaned up a bit, deleting false or not nuanced 'information' in this article, as did User:Apn (who is an expert in Belgian nobility, but mostly working on WP:FR). However, there is still a lot to be done, especially since this article has no reference to the main sources on Belgian nobility. Paul Brussel (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wel, you are right, was that the only mistake?--Carolus (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that between how you left it (with the BLP violation already removed) and how it is now a few days later after three of us have removed most of the nonsense, the article changed like this, I don't think discussing your "only" "mistake" is in any way useful. The article was filled with mistakes, errors, nonsense, misinterpretations, and unintelligible things from top to bottom. Fram (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prince de Bethune Hesdigneul

According to the Etat présent de la noblesse belge (last: 2003 and 2015) this title is extinct in 1976. However, in recent volumes of the Belgian Carnet mondain, a relative of the last prince, Henri (1945), is mentioned as prince; it is unclear what the basis is of this title. Paul Brussel (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Own Research?--Carolus (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This remark is based on public and mentioned sources. Paul Brussel (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you do not answer the question, so it is your interpretation=own research.--Carolus (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Paul Brussel (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carolus, WP:OR only applies to articles, not to talk pages. People are free to post "it looks to me" or "this seems unlikely" or "I think that" posts to talk pages, but that kind of information only should be added to articles if they are reliably sourced. Feel free to challenge things with WP:OR claims if they get added to the main space, but here your question is misplaced. It is better to ask "do you have good sources for this" instead, or "interesting, where did you find this"? Fram (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So accualy you proof me right, thanks fram for your help :)--Carolus (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carolus, you are the one filling enwiki with wrong information, and you are the one who doesn't understand or acare about the policies here. Don't try to be cute or claim that I "proof you right" (sic), you are, as usual, terribly wrong. If you want to improve the English Wikipedia, the best thing you can do is stop editing here and find some other website to post your ideas on. Fram (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, have good luck with other people, you cannot make me stop, unless i express, i do not contribute. Are you accusing me doing this?--Carolus (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, uninvolved editors will soon make you stop by blocking you, just like happened on Dutch Wikipedia. I have no idea though what the second half of your statement is supposed to mean. Fram (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wel, you have no idea what happened there, do you? --Carolus (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On Dutch Wikipedia? You have been indefinitely blocked from editing there. You'll probably claim some conspiracy by impatient admins or something similar though, it couldn't of course be caused by your edits and attitude. And there it can't even be blamed on a poor grasp of the language. Fram (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fram is of course quite right! Again this is proven by the information you just added in the article on the Marquess of Los Vélez. Without disposing of the right sources, you add information about the years the title was conferred to several persons. If you had consulted the Elenco (2017) you would have known that the current marques was granted the title only on 23 June 2010, not immediately after his mother died. So again: you add wrong information in WP because of lacking reliable sources, false information that was not in the article before you started editing today at 14:35. I will thus revert. So stop editing in articles on Spanish noble titles! Paul Brussel (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wel Paul; good luck in clashing the Spanish wiki; if you are always right, why don't you tell the spanish colleagues they are wrong. I suppose, you still have lots of work of cleaning here, good luck. If you are gonna clean the whole Belgian and Spanish nobility, well i honestly admire you for this.--Carolus (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You miss again the point: you are responsible for just adding false information in WP:EN! I don't contribute to WP:ES since I can't write in that language. Paul Brussel (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No i just copy other info eg. NL wiki, so i am not resposible for the, i do not invent these things. So i understand, you are going to give this article a whole make over? Wonderfull. I wass busy fixing redirects, so you can continue. --Carolus (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should only add information which you get from reliable sources, not just text from other Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and using information from other Wikipedia pages (in Dutch, Spanish, English, ...) is not accepted practice. Please read WP:RS before proceeding. Fram (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I normaly check the source first, that not ok?--Carolus (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the amount of incorrect information you add to the English Wikipedia, I doubt that you really do... You need to first check that your source is reliable, not some genealogy website or angelfire.com page or other website anyone can create or change; and then you need to make sure that you understand your source correctly, not just take some names and fabricate your own story from it. And finally, you need to add the source where you got the information to the article (in a way that people can actually find it without deciphering some obscure abbreviations you use, with names, dates, and pagenumbers or chapters). Fram (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carolus: no, I just removed the false information in that article you introduced. By the way, you should have noticed that in the Spanish article on the current Marquis of Los Velez the year of succession is indicated as 2010 and not 2008, so I don't know where you got the 2008 from... Paul Brussel (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marquess

There was a list of Belgian Marquesses in the article Marquess which was added to a new section called "In the Duchy of Brabant and Kingdom of Belgium" with Revision as of 16:12, 31 December 2017. I have linked the section to the list in this article, two very similar list is WP:CONTENTFORKING.

However apart from the 12 listed in this article, the Marquess article list also included:

I list them here so that others who know more about the subject can decide where if anywhere this list belongs in this or another article. -- PBS (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]