Talk:Grace Kelly

There was really little actual danger that Monaco would revert to France, though I don't doubt this was evinced as a reason for selecting a fecund bride. A childless prince of Monaco can adopt an heir, and has been able to do so from 1882 to 2002. In 2002 the treaties between France and Monaco were revised to make it clear that even in the event of the death of a prince without an heir, biological or adoptive, the principality would not revert to France, but would remain independent (though in all likelihood it would become a republic). -- Someone else 03:57 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

Would you please update the article to add that? You're right that it's no big deal, but isn't part of the purpose of any encyclopedia to convey some of the social context that makes history more than mere timelines? -- isis 04:47 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

I'll give it my shot, please do polish it up! --Someone else 07:15 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

The article is wrong in its claims about Ranier's inability to divorce a wife if she proved 'barren' or about the need to marry a catholic wife. Ranier's family (no, not the younger generation, his precedessors!) led notorious sex lives, regularly having affairs, extra-marital children, multiple divorces, etc. (I think I read somewhere that one of Ranier's parents or grandparents was illegitimate and 'legitimised', but I could be wrong. It was something I read nearly 15 years ago. Was it Ranier himself? ) So the idea that Ranier III had to marry a good catholic girl who could give him children is poppycock. If she couldn't, then as a head of state he could request a Roman Catholic Church annulment or even a Pauline et Petrine Papal Divorce. If it is to enable a catholic monarch to get an heir, the Catholic Church has a long history of bending, twisting and breaking its own rules to help that happen. (They'd have given Henry VIIII his requested annulment if it wasn't for the fact that his Queen didn't want the marriage annulled, her nephew the Holy Emperor made sure His Holiness new that, and that nasty things might happen to His said Holiness if he allowed the Emperor's aunt to be dumped. So the pope promptly changed his mind, say No way, Henry, Henry made a rude gesture back, seized then monasteries, broke from Rome . . . and the rest his history).

As to Someone Else's comment about in the event of their being no heir, Monaco would become a republic, that is exceptionally unlikely. They would be 99.9% certain to keep a monarchy, even if they had to put an add in the Wall Street Journal - 'Wanted, Prince of Monaco. Good Pay. Nice Palace. (Pink). Must be willing to be called Grimaldi. WiIlingness to marry Brittany Spears a bonus.' For a president would be useless to them. A royal would get them acres of international coverage, bring in rich businessmen to invest and rub shoulders with royalty, etc. Monaco's royals regularly get into newspapers, magazines, onto TV, etc. A President of Monaco would be hardpressed to get to page 40 (three lines mention) in the New York Times and never get them onto Fox, the BBC or MTV. In those situations, monarchy counts in getting you coverage far beyond your own actual status. Monaco without a royal would be pointless, a Switzerland by the sea. They might as well merge with France as become an irrelevant republic. Or maybe invite the Comte de Paris to become their prince. JTD 06:52 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

---

Monaco doesn't have Salic law, and never had it. It had primogeniture with preference for males, just like the UK, Denmark and Spain. There were fears that the dynasty would become extinct, not because a lack of males, but a lack of children - until a constitutional change in 2002, only direct descendants of the reigning prince could succeed to the throne, siblings and their descendants were excluded. Hence my correction of this page. Erwin 14:36, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Contents

1 Gay icon? 2 What is the significance of........? 3 Strange compromise 4 Death of GK 5 Gay Icon Project

Gay icon?

User TheCustomOfLife is helt-bent on categorizing Grace as a gay icon? What sources may he have for this? Rienzo 19:21, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have no particular problem with her being included in such a category, but it would do wonders in overcoming objections if the content of the article actually said something about her being a gay icon, and explained why. --Michael Snow 17:31, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more! If Grace Kelly should be labelled a gay icon, I and others with me demand an explanation for this. As yet we have no proof at all. It is NOT NPOV to label celebrities arbitrarily! This means that if I in my twisted way FEEL that George W. Bush is my private gay icon for all times, then I will label him as such! Rienzo 22:29, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't know whether Kelly is beloved enough by a segment of the gay community to be considered an icon -- she's not the first actress to spring to mind. But we do all realize that a "gay icon" is someone beloved by a segment of the gay community, rather than someone who is gay and also an icon, right? Grace Kelly may be a gay icon without being gay. Many people are/were. -- Scarequotes 23:59, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

Dammit guys, this is the stupidest edit war I've ever seen. If you have some evidence for why Grace Kelly should be categorized a "Gay Icon" why don't you put it here on the talk page instead of just obnoxiously returning it to the article over and over? I searched google for "Grace Kelly" and "Gay Icon" and every single page is about Judy Garland or Ethel Merman or someone else and only mentions Kelly tangentially. --Chinasaur 04:46, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Rienzo 05:01, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I first categorized her as such, and I tend to agree. I was asked if there was any proof, and I only had an opinion as such. I've been at peace with removing her as a gay icon days, if not weeks, ago. Mike H 01:47, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for piping up Mike H. How many people do you know of who see her as a gay icon? I would've thought it would show up on Google somewhere if it were really a widely held view. I notice you referred people to your talk page sometime earlier in this argument, but I didn't see anything there that would clear this up? --Chinasaur 03:51, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Arkady Rose wanted to let us know: "Grace Kelly is a gay icon, whether you like it or not." I think we all agree that it doesn't matter whether we "like it or not". It matters whether anybody is going to produce any evidence for this being a widely held view. I've never heard of it and I live on the edge of the Castro. I'm sorry if this is condescending, but so far I don't see much reason to give people on the gay icon side of things the benefit of the doubt. I got to this argument late, but from my perspective it appears pretty clear that the anti-icon people have asked repeatedly for some intelligent discussion of this point and the pro-icon people have repeatedly refused to engage in anything more intelligent than an edit war (Mike H aside). --Chinasaur 03:51, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your words! I have asked e.g. David Gerard repeatedly for his reasons to label Grace as a gay icon, but he just reverts my edits arbitrarily. This shows that he hasn't got any proof at all that Grace is a gay icon! David Gerard endorses POV in Wikipedia! Rienzo 10:10, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What is the significance of........?

In the middle of the fourth paragraph there appears the following, (Donna Reed won for her role in From Here to Eternity.) Doesn't make sense, and also lacks obvious relevancy to the article. Shall I delete it, or can someone make it grammatical and relevant? Moriori 00:10, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

I believe the point is that the quality of the performance in From Here to Eternity somewhat excuses Kelly's failure to win on her Oscar nomination.--Chinasaur 07:19, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nope, that's NOT what it says. Furthermore, what does a reference to Donna Reed have to do with an article about Grace Kelly? The text does not establish a connection.Moriori 08:35, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

I know it's not what it SAYS. But wouldn't you agree that's probably the point? Change it for more clarity if you would like, or cut it. Either way seems fine to me. Normally people don't make excuses about only getting an Oscar nomination, so I don't think it's necessary to mention who actually won the award that Grace didn't. On the other hand, I can imagine someone asking "only a nomination? why didn't she win?", in which case the answer is in the article. --Chinasaur 17:46, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead and cut it. I think I originally stuck it in there, mostly because the text said that Kelly won the Oscar, which was incorrect. The explanation may be overkill and a little vague, but I admit I don't see how it's ungrammatical. -- Scarequotes 21:53, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

Okay (to both of you). Points taken. However I think there is a clearer way of conveying the intention of the message, so I have done a little edit. (I'll know you didn't consider it an improvement, if it's rv'd). Cheers Moriori 22:49, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

Strange compromise

Some people see Grace Kelly as a gay icon, but there is no proof of her actually being one.
That's an odd statement to have in an article. It shouldn't be terribly hard to figure out if someone's an "icon" or not, because being an icon would tend to imply some adoring fansites, message boards, and other such. If we can't prove it, wouldn't that mean she isn't much of a gay icon? And if it's not true, why is it worth mentioning in the article? Isomorphic 01:45, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, that text added by Rienzo doesn't belong in an article. But I think Rienzo's subsequent removal of the gay icon category tag (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Grace_Kelly&diff=4647516&oldid=4642429) with the blatantly false edit summary correcting spelling error is a more serious offense. Still, I don't see how the people who are adding this tag can keep doing so when 1) the article doesn't explain what would make Grace Kelly a gay icon, and 2) people have requested evidence to support the claim here on the talk page, and none has been provided. My own attempts to explore the question have reached pretty much the same conclusions as Chinasaur above. --Michael Snow 16:52, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just to note - sometimes one goes into editing an article to fix a spelling error, marks the edit summary, and then discovers that, say, a category you don't think should be there is there again, and remove it too, and forget about the edit summary you already wrote. That is, assuming that a spelling mistake was also corrected. At any rate, until anyone can provide support for the gay icon status besides that she was "fabulous," it shouldn't be in the article. john k 18:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more! Grace Kelly is NOT a gay icon, and she will NEVER be one! Rienzo 01:10, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Death of GK

Regarding the urban legend of Grace Kelly having died on the same stretch of highway in Monaco that had been featured in To Catch a Thief, see this blog post (http://www.garyrobinson.net/2004/11/my_wikipedia_ed.html)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 21:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)