Talk:Belgian nobility

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Belgium Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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]

(

velut luna 11:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

wel indeed, if things like

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.

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.

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

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

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

]