Talk:Simeon II of Bulgaria

On Simeon's return to Bulgaria

The official biography at http://www.government.bg/English/PrimeMinister/Biography/ has Simeon return to Bulgaria in 1996. --Palnatoke 18:39, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

He didn't return, he only came on a recognizance mision. Ditto in 1999. It was in 2001 that he came "for good"(?). --Vladko 16:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Debate

Isn't he the ONLY prime minister never to have taken part in a debate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.139.141 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 4 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Robert Walpole took part in election debates. I have amended the sentence. Adam 4 July 2005 06:57 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The question is-since there have been debates shown on TV, has there ever been another prime minister who has not taken part in a debate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.139.141 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think not. If anyone can show me an example... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.139.141 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 4 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I want to ask the person who non-stop erases THE FACT that simeon has never taken part ina debate:why do you do it?IT'S TRUE. anonymous from bulgaria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.200.15.141 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TO THE GUY WHO ERASES THE THING ABOUT THE DEBATES:

If you don't believe call every media in Bulgaria you want!They'll tell you!And why don't you answer when I ask you?Where are you from,North Korea???-Anonymous from BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.200.15.141 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,what are you some kind of Idiots? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.200.15.141 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page location

I'm wondering - is the current page location appropriate. Two points: 1) generally naming standard is to use the highest title someone attained, even if they cease to hold it. Thus Juliana of the Netherlands was there during her life, not at Princess Juliana of the Netherlands. 2) My understanding was that in Bulgaria, he is normally called "King Simeon" or "the King" in everyday speech. I think this page ought to be at Simeon II of Bulgaria. john k 4 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)

First of all, Simeon is not a king. The title of Bulgarian and Russian monarchs is called "tsar". About the second issue-Simeon is a typical Bulgarian name. Do you know other monarchs from other countries carrying the same name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.139.141 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who has written the above anonymous comment?

Anyway, John, I have had nothing to do with this particuar naming decision, but I can understand it from the viewpoint that Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Simeon Sakskoburggotski) is how he recently has wanted to be known. And it is used of him - as a Prime Minister, etc. Very similar case as Michael Ancram. This is also basically because he is alive. (I have no doubt that after his death, he will go to the heading fitting to the kingship... - and possibly also if he himself decides to be known again as former monarch, not as politician, when living.) I am quite ready to give a living person's own wishes some weight.
Personally, I regard that surname as artificial and bad form. I think that as monarch, he should not have a surname, and as politician, he should have made a more elegant choice. But those are my thoughts, and they do not change how he is known, nor how he wants to be known.
Juliana in both roles had clearly been an easy case, as our readers do not generally know that the heading gives signals - a heading Juliana of The Netherlands is an easy place also for someone who wants to find a princess of that name
Actually, thinking of a reader's viewpoint, these conflicts about headings are a bit ridiculous, sort of bureaucratizing that fits to archchamberlain-etiquettemasters, but actually the rules of headings are intended basically to pre-empt conflicts between articles crowding into same place, and to help disambiguate
re anonymous commentator's points, Simeon is basically a biblical name, as usual in Bulgaria as in many other countries. The title difference Tsar - King has no bearing in the heading, as none of those will be written in the heading. Explanation of such belongs to the text of the article, where there is sufficient space to explain both titles. 217.140.193.123 4 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)

As long as he is prime minister the page should be here. Once he leaves office he should be referred to as King of Bulgaria as per standard naming conventions. FearÉIREANN

^(talk) 4 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)

Well, I bet this will happen next week since he is going to get his ass kicked directly to Madrid from where he came!-Bulgarian citizen 5 July 2005 11:13 EET —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.139.141 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 5 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think he should be listed as Simeon Sakskoburggotski while he is active as a politician, then revert to Tsar Simeon II of Bulgaria after his death. Adam 05:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The right thing to refer to him is as 'Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha' since he is of German origin and he is not an active monarch. It would be closest to the truth. And it is true that he hasn't participated in debates. Why do you erase it?-Spartan,Bulgaria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.17.121 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid anonymous party-political edits will be reverted. Adam 23:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. We are debating what name to use for him. If you want to mount personalised rants against the former prime minister and king, join a political party or write to newspapers. Don't write them in encyclopædias. FearÉIREANN

\^(caint) 00:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I made it clear about the name. Why are you not talking about this then? And why do you think you're competent enough to say that the information is untrue? You can read, for example, an interview with politician Sergei Stanishev of May 18, 2005 in which he comments on the issue.-Spartan, Bulgaria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.17.121 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone clarify what is going in Bulgaria? Who, today, 1 August, is Prime Minister? Was Stanishev ever sworn in as PM? Has Sakskoburggotski resigned or is he still in office? Adam 07:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Stanishev was sworn as Prime Minister, but the proposed cabinet hadn't yet undergone a vote. The National Union Attack locked away three of their deputies who had voted in favour of Stanishev, and so the cabinet was voted 117 'in favour' and 119 'against'. So, now it's up to the second largest party-NMS II to create a cabinet. As far as Sakskoburggotski is concerned, he de facto remains Prime Minister until a new Cabinet is formed. Generally, that's all.-Spartan, Bulgaria 18:18, 3 August 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.17.121 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain why Sakskoburggotski has not been a candidate for the National Assembly at either this election or the previous one? Can one be PM of Bulgaria without being elected to the legislature? Adam 12:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Adam,

I'm afraid everyone in Bulgaria is asking this question. However, no one has dared to answer it, and, very surprisingly, the media also haven't raised it. Sakskoburggotski also refused to participate in debates, although he was invited by several political leaders. When a journalists asks the members of the party over these issues, they just smile and say "Uh...The time will come" or sth. like that. As of your second question-yes, one can be Prime Minister without having been elected to the parliament. This in order to make it possible for people who are not related to any party to become members of the government. - Deyan from Bulgaria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.17.121 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I have placed full results of the election at oblast level at my website if anyone is interested. Can someone in Bulgaria help me? The oblast of Sofia-Grad is divided into three districts for electoral purposes. Can someone direct me to a map showing those districts? Adam 00:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason Adam has deleted references to the Bulgarian Royal Family being in line to the British throne, because they are "not on the page" of the order of succession. The order of succession to the British throne does not END at the bottom of the Wikipedia page - there are some 4000 people on the list, and the Bulgarian Royal Family ARE in the line of succession, and there should be mention of it in Wikipedia. Rhyddfrydol 21:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Presuambly we should therefore add such a box to every biographical article at Wikipedia, since logically the entire human race is somewhere in the order of succession to the British throne - and indeed all the other thrones as well. This is absurd, and I will continue to delete absurdities. Adam 00:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not absurd - King Simeon and the Bulgarian Royal Family are direct decendants of Electoress Sophia - and this should be recognised. Rhyddfrydol 18:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why? In 2001 Boris was 2,805th in line of succession to the British throne. By now he's probably about 3,000th in line. I think this meets any reasonable definition of unimportant information. Adam 00:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the succession information does not need to appear on the page, but the idea that the "entire human race" is in the line of succession is just plain wrong. Under British and Commonwealth law, the line of succession comprises the non-Catholic descendants of Sophia, mother of George I. It therefore contains a finite number of people, so that it would indeed be a fairly simple (if time-consuming and rather tedious) thing if Wikipedia decided it wanted to mark every heir to the British throne as such on their page.

Referendum for abolition of monarchy

There is a weird term used for the referendum - "rigged". Webster says it means "equipped with sails", and I can hardly apply such a term to a person (though ships are referred as "she" :-)). So am going to remove it.

I have heard about "dispute" whether the referendum was correct, fair, etc. The problem for me is that all those were coming from people losing a lot on such a change - the royal family (obviously), former politicians (more or less puppet under Boris III reign), and people otherwise affected by communist regime (seizure of land/property). However I have never heard about real facts, as we are hearing them now.

I fully agree the regime was not very democratic at that time but the problem is that royal family was who put Bulgaria in so called First and Second National Disasters (1st: Balkan/WW I; 2nd: WW II). So the nation being tired of externally pushed royal family seems quite reasonable. And I am well aware that in the school I was taught "official" communist tweaked history.

Back to the question - who can provide any real facts (not POV) on this referendum? I think importance of it is big enough to be worth few more words. Thanks, Goldie (tell me) 09:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In reply: You should buy a new dictionary. "Rig: to manage or manipulate in some fraudulent or underhand manner." (Shorter Oxford). Which is what communist regimes in eastern europe did with both elections and referendums in the postwar years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Carr (talk • contribs) 10:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Unsigned, are you assuming such behavior as a direct consequence of them being communist regimes in general, or you have some specific facts about Bulgarian referendum? I would be grateful if you direct me to them. BTW: are you selling dictionaries? The fact that I do not know your language does not automatically mean I am stupid. 10x, Goldie (tell me) 15:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you "do not know [our] language," perhaps it would be better not to make corrections on the basis of your limited knowledge of it.

As to the substantive question, is "rigged" an accurate way to describe the referendum? I am not knowledgeable enough about this subject to say for sure. I would strongly suspect it was rigged, which is not to say that the monarchy wouldn't have lost anyway. But I have no specific knowledge. For now, we should simply say that supporters of the monarchy have generally said that the referendum was rigged, since we don't know whether or not this is factually true. john k 15:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Adam is venting his frustration on other Wikipedians, and lacking facts is abusing the discussion. Yes, sweetheart, I do have Oxford dictionary (both Student & Advanced, and am reading it rather often) at home but right now am travelling abroad and have access only to online Webster (how many words do you know in Bulgarian?). However I do understand Wikipedia as information source and not as an essay in High English, or a display of self-esteem.

Thank you for the calm answer, John. As I wrote, it is interesting to collect some information on this subject. I've posted already same question on Bulgarian Wikipedia. If I get an answer there I will integrate it here. -- Goldie (tell me) 23:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not signing my earlier posting.
I don't know any Bulgarian, which is why I don't presume to edit the Bulgarian Wikipedia. If Bulgarians choose to edit the English Wikipedia, they must expect their English to be corrected.
Your stupid sarcasm is quite unnecessary and unhelpful.

Adam 00:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was born after the referendum so I cannot claim either that it was "rigged" (I know the meaning of this word) or not. From what I have read in the contemporary newspapers, I can see that there were no political forces calling for the preservation of monarchy, and that there were Western observers in the country. Moreover, almost simultaneously a similar referendum was held in Italy (another defeated Axis country). The result was that Simeon's relatives lost the Italian throne, and not even they claim that the referendum was "rigged".--Vladko 05:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I would not be surprised if the monarchy would have lost a fair election. But that does not mean that the election in Bulgaria was fair. The western powers had no especial interest in kicking out Umberto II. His defeat was clearly a result of the repugnance felt by many in Italy at the House of Savoy's collaboration with the Fascists. On the other hand, the Bulgarian monarchy was much less tainted by associated with the Nazis. At the same time, there were Soviet troops in Bulgaria, and the Soviets (and their Communist allies) were very keen to get rid of the monarchy, and not known to be scrupulous about respecting democratic rights to self-determination. Whether or not a majority of the Bulgarian population supported the monarchy (as I said, I have no idea, and it seems probably that they did not), it seems highly unlikely to me that the Soviets and their Bulgarian communist allies would really have left the decision in the people's hands. And one can certainly rig an election one was going to win anyway. john k 05:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template

This is extremely ugly: Born: 16 June 1937; Died: Living [[{{{5}}}]] Someone should fix the template so that it doesn't say "Died" when someone is still alive. Adam 22:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Monarchical titles, Section 7, the correct article title should be Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha until his death. Upon death, the article title should be changed to Simeon II of Bulgaria. He's alive and well :) Any objections? The name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is well-known and widely used, although he's indeed more often called Simeon II, and that's why I'd like to discuss the move first. Todor →Bozhinov 14:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You concede that he is more well-known as Simeon II. I feel the same as it currently stands is fine. Charles 16:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CleanupConfusing

Someone who knows more about this should separate more on the post-Prime-Minister (Defeat) phase of Simeon II's career. Cwolfsheep 02:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fix the featured article blurb

In the feature blurb on the main page it says he is THE ONLY monarch to regain power through democratic means but in the article itself it says he is ONE OF ONLY A FEW. Please fix it.L0b0t 15:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure he's "one of a few". I don't know if Napoleon III counts, really. If I recall correctly, he was president and then monarch (Emperor). That's quite different than the other way around. Have I erred? I don't really know much about Cambodian rulers. I'll have a peek though. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Norodom Sihanouk is pretty clear but mainly I was just hoping to get some agreement between article and featured blurb.L0b0t 23:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threw me at first, too, but then I realized it was OK. (And it wasn't a Featured Article, it was an On This Date. ;-)) The text said that he was the only monarch to regain power by election to a different office, which disambiguates his situation from both Sihanouk (re-elected King) and Napoleon III (elected first, emperor later). I think this list ignores people like Emperor Bokassa, though. --Dhartung | Talk 00:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You learn something new every day. Thanks for taking the time to help. L0b0t 03:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De nada! Just for completeness's sake, I ran a Google search on "regnal titles" and "political offices" (the headings for succession boxes) and found Zog of Albania, Alexander of Bulgaria, Napoleon I, Sir George Young, 6th Baronet, and Henry VIII of England. (There may be a few more that don't have boxes.) Zog is the most interesting case. But Simeon remains unique as defined above. --Dhartung | Talk 04:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Age at ascension

"Simeon II of Bulgaria or Simeon of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (born June 16, 1937) is a Bulgarian politician and former king, as the last Tsar of Bulgaria from 1943 to 1946. "

listen, i don't know anything about this guy, but doesn't it looks strange that he was tzar during WWII at the age of 6!?!?. expecially that he was PM just a couple of years ago. please make sure this data is correct. tnks84.94.98.27 08:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Simeon's father Boris III of Bulgaria died in 1943, Simeon did indeed become Tsar at the age of six. I am pretty sure that Bulgaria's was under the rule of regents, but Simeon was "The Tsar". Prsgodd e ss187 11:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this 1943 Bulgarian bank note :-) - Evv 21:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of this article to Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha

Please see the guidelines on naming of ex-monarchs here. [1]

Specifically, Rule #7 which states:

"Former or deposed monarchs should be referred to by their previous monarchical title with the exception of those who are still alive and are most commonly referred to by a non-monarchial title; all former or deposed monarchs should revert to their previous monarchical title upon death; for example, Constantine II of Greece not ex-King Constantine II or Constantine Gluckberg, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom not the Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor, but Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha not Simeon II of Bulgaria."

You will see I have placed in bold the relevant section, but please read the rules in detail if you have reservations about my proposal. I am going to be bold and do this as I think its the correct course of action, based on pre-existing guidelines and also common sense. --SandyDancer 14:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sad, sad day. Just look at what his Party's called, maybe then you'll see how he is better known.--Couter-revolutionary 14:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems he's known as several things, but he certainly isn't a King, is he? --SandyDancer 16:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least do a move right when you do it. You didn't even move the talk page. Charles 18:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and this was the first time I carried out a move. --SandyDancer 18:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The move page features a check box to include the talk page in the move. I wouldn't worry too much because there have been worse cases (masses of triple/quadruple redirects with talk pages redirecting to other talk pages). I'm going to revert the move of this page and try to move it all as one thing. Charles 00:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried and couldn't. SD, you should contact an administrator and explain the situation and ask for him to match the talk page to the article. Charles 01:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]