Talk:Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha

Page moved from Simeon II of Bulgaria

The present article page here seems to have a long history. What has happened? a copy-and-paste move, or what? Arrigo 08:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The former talk page is at: Talk:Simeon II of Bulgaria

This article needs to be largely rewritten in an NPOV manner. --SandyDancer 23:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go. --SandyDancer 23:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"We want our Tsar" claims, language skills of Simeon

• I think some useful information has now been removed form this article, particuarly regarding the languages spoken by Tsar Simeon and that, during his 1996 return, crowds cheered "we want our Tsar", why has this been removed? I would quite like a rational explanation. Perhaps the latter could included again with the qualification of it needing a citation.--Couter-revolutionary 09:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's your rational explanations

• the bit about the languages was removed as it was seemingly irrelevant and was certainly out of context in the section it formerly appeared in. Perhaps you could reintegrate it somewhere sensible?
• The bit about the crowds chanting "we want our Tsar" has never been backed up by a source (like many parts of the article), and fitted with the whole monarchist POV tone of the article a little too well...

Please try and look at this article from a NPOV. I note elsewhere on Wikipedia you are referring to the subject as "Tsar Simeon II of Bulgaria" - it may be your POV that he should be this, but he isn't and this article isn't going to slavishly follow a monarchist line --SandyDancer 09:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly this article doesn't say much about Simeon, "the man", as it were. As a result I think information about the languages he speaks would be useful. Refarding the "we want our Tsar" it may well fit the monarchist view but the flip-side is that it doesn't fit the Marxist/Republican view. I do not know of a source for it but if I do find one I would like these remarks included as they show the Bulgarian peoples perception of Simeon.--Couter-revolutionary 10:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

0-: who mentioned Marx?? Pal, saying loony things like that just discredits what you are saying. It really isn't the 1920s. Yes, of course the claim about "we want out Tsar" can go in if it is properly sourced. --SandyDancer 10:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like you're going to have much luck mate - [1] - Google only returns Wikipedia and its mirrors for the claim you are making - looks like someone made it up for insertion in this article. It did sound a bit iffy. --SandyDancer 10:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• We really must mention though the fact that he speaks many languages, it is also of note that he does so in an obviously aristocratic manner. This is a statement of neutral fact.--Couter-revolutionary 23:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral, fine, but unverified. If it isn't verified it can't go in. If you find a source saying he speaks Bulgarian in a manner which is considered aristocratic, put that in but make it clear that "[X source] commented" he speaks in that way. Don't state it as settled fact because it is almost certainly unverifiable. --SandyDancer 09:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I found the bit about "we want our Tsar" and have it sourced and included. --Couter-revolutionary 10:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A message to all, whether you like monarchy or not this artical must stay neutral at all times and should be based on fact, that is message to both pro and anti monarchy writers, whether we want to believe what the crowds were chanting, i was there on the day in those very same crowds and they were chanting "We Want Our Tsar", whether you want to add this or not is up to you, but this is fact witnessed by thousands of people, and no sorry anti monarchists they were not chanting down with the Tsar, one asks ones self why? if you dislike monarchy so much as certain writers have shown above, why are you so interested in the writing on the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.195.142 (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Republican referendum

I have added an edit that the monarchy was abolished after a Communist coup d'etat (which is an indisputable fact, but which is added for context), and that "allegedly 95.6% in favour of the change". The statistics are from the Wikipedia page on the subject, and the "alleged" is added because it is a reasonable assessment that it was a typically rigged referendum as seen elsewhere at around this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.56.220 (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

Shouldn't he have an infobox reflecting that he's an active politician, rather than monarch? --SandyDancer 10:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't think "rather than" is the answer, perhaps both. Afterall he was Head of State, which is higher than PM. --Couter-revolutionary 10:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

After he had died, he will no doubt be referred to here primarily as King and the article will reflect that. But while he is living and is an active politician, that has to come first. --SandyDancer 13:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the issue of what he should be called at the moment, I'm just telling you that he was the Head of State of a country. If he were President as a young man and returned as PM you wouldn't want to get rid of his Presidential infobox; so why do it just because he was King?--Couter-revolutionary 13:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I would want to get rid of the Presidential infobox in that instance actually, but don't feel too strongly about it to be honest. --SandyDancer 14:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• It is really quite disgusting that the first paragraph does not even mention the period he served as head of state to Bulgaria as Tsar, which let's face it, is a much more important position than a mere PM.--Couter-revolutionary 23:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Although on the other hand, he was much more of a real ruler when he was a PM. As Tsar he was a little boy who had nothing to do with what was actually going on in the country. Not that it matters so much now; of course, both facts should be mentioned. --91.148.159.4 23:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Disgusting's a bit a strong a word isn't it? Make an appropopriate edit if you are concerned, just don't put anything which say he is rather than was a Tsar / King / Monarch. --SandyDancer 09:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That's perfect in my opinion. --SandyDancer 10:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

King Simeon II of Bulgaria, never formally abdicated and as such under international law remains King of Bulgaria, even if he uses the Title or not. Simeon as King is based by Hereditary right and as Prime minister was based on election, hereditary state positions always take precedence over elected state positions or offices, europe can not and should not be treated like the US state offices, of the same name they are run quite differently, i am sick and tied of people over the sea thinking that their US system is world wide, because it is NOT! countries which are monarchies or former monarchies think and act very different, which in most cases have been around much longer than the US style systems i might add.

Moved from lead

(Up until The Great War, the Bulgarian Emperor was referred to as the "Kaiser" in English. This was most likely due to the German background of the Bulgarian Imperial House. Thus, the Allied forces sometimes said that they were fighting "three Kaisers and a Sultan".)

Quite irrlevant here, as he became a tsar long after "The Great War". Also, calling the Bulgarian tsars of the XXth century "emperors" is not really mainstream practice. Apart from that, the info could be suitable for other articles, if sourced. --91.148.159.4 23:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In Bulgaria, the Title of Tsar does not mean Emperor but King, quite different from the use of Tsar in Russia, please take note of this, the allied forces also called the germans !Huns! to give any reference to soldiers of the great war in this matter would be like asking donald duck about the boxer rebellion in china, no facts included i would say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.195.142 (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Page movements

Since this page has been moved from Simeon II of Bulgaria to its current title, shouln't the same be done with Michael I of Romania?? (see discussion at its talk page). GoodDay 17:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No Simeon was subsequently PM, therefore some think he's more famous as PM than as Tsar. King Michael has had no such subsequent position. --Counter-revolutionary 18:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorta figured on his Prime-Ministership (concerning the page movement), just wanted to be certain. Thanks. GoodDay 18:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. --Counter-revolutionary 18:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

To answer this I would say more people who quite clearly do not know what they are talking about, a shame that articals on monarchs and former monarchs are written and added by college educated anti-monarchists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.195.142 (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Simeon Sakskoburggotski

I think his bulgarian name should be mentioned; I don't see why it was suppressed. Wedineinheck 20:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's just to do with the English language WP lot. In the same way they call Emperor Karl (who everyone calls Karl!) Charles. Odd if you ask me. --Counter-revolutionary 21:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this article ought to be called Simeon Sakskoburggotski and I'm all for anglicization. The fact that he adopted his dynastic name as a surname to use a commoner/politician speaks to me that it ought to not be "translated" into English. On Charles/Karl, there is plenty of use for the English form of the name. Charles 22:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Simeon Sakskoburggotski is actually a more bulgarian-sounding name he specifically adopted to further his political career in Bulgaria. Saxe-Coburg-Gotha sounds too foreign for bulgarians.11:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it sounds foreign to anyone or not, it's a matter of what is most correct. This case particularly of a surname is much like if someone translated a LeBlanc to White or something like that. It's wrong. Charles 21:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A matter of "local usage" - English and Bulgarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi firstly, Simeon's surname is Wettin not Saxe Coburg und Gotha, that is a Title not a surname secondly there is no von before wettin, just Simeon Wettin, any member of the Ducal House of Saxe Coburg und Gotha, bears the surname of Wettin, that means all members, there is no such surname as " Saxe Coburg und Gotha" please take note, even if so called experts say otherwise, who quite clearly would not know there own surname it seems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.195.142 (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly not true. This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubertus,_Hereditary_Prince_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha guy calls himself "Hubertus Prinz von Coburg" and is called so in official records (I went to school with him, btw). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.199.15 (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Only former monarch to be elected?

It says that he is "the only former monarch in history to return to a position of power through democratic elections. His election victory came after 50 years of exile." What about Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia? Thanks, Happy138 (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sihanouk was restored and never elected; and in any case, he was returned to symbolic head of state, not head of government. KarlM (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Technically Otto von Habsburg could be included among the elected royals - have any of the dynastic heads of families of the former German states and of the Indian princely states (ie the persons who would be ruler if the relevant state were restored and the ruling family restored) been elected to any relevant parliaments? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The simplification that he is the "only monarch to be democratically elected as head of government" is even more debatable. Consider Prince Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte; and some changes of dynasty have been at least ratified by elections. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes but none of these examples are near Simeons position, as he was elected Prime minster of his former Kingdom, none of the above where, Sihanouk was just restored to a throne, which has happened many times in history, Otto, can not be included as he was not elected to any former habsburg lands, and i wish people would stop thinking that the Holy Roman German empire was hereditary it was only based on election, this shows with the election of Charles of Bavaria being elected Emperor in 1742, who was not a habsburg i might add, sorry had to answer this before, someone states about the holy roman empire being habsburg property which it was never, just that they were very rich and good at paying off the electors with habsburg gold, I would also say that the electing of Prince Louis Napolean, was to a local council ie as mayor, which is a very minor position, never state power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.195.142 (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What about the fact that Napoleon III got himself democratically elected in the 2nd French Republic, then styled himself Prince-President, and then founded the 2nd French Empire? ebrawer (talk) 05:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Napoleon III was not a former monarch who was elected to national leadership, but a member of a formerly ruling dynasty. Despite the comment above, the best predecessor for Simeon's election is, indeed, that of Norodom Sihanouk who abdicated as king, formed his own political party which proceeded to win the popular national vote, and which then chose to make Sihanouk the Prime Minister -- not the restored King -- of Cambodia. That is often how parliamentary democracies select the leader of government, rather than by direct election. FactStraight (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

British King?

I removed the claim that he is a claimant to the British Throne. See [[2]] to see who is. Happy138 (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

German?

Any word on why he has a German name? Sca (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Answer: Simeon Wettin, is from the German Ducal House of Saxe Coburg und Gotha, being of the ernestine line of the House of Saxony.

if this is really part of his name, it should be used in English and Bulgarian, no? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The Surname of Wettin , Not Saxe Coburg und Gotha should be used.

Hi firstly, Simeon's surname is Wettin not Saxe Coburg und Gotha, that is a Title not a surname secondly there is no von before wettin, just Simeon Wettin, any member of the Ducal House of Saxe Coburg und Gotha, bears the surname of Wettin, that means all members, there is no such surname as " Saxe Coburg und Gotha" please take note, even if so called experts say otherwise, who quite clearly would not know there own surname it seems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.195.142 (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

German nobility has no surname. Consequently, they are called by their major possession (whether forfeit through revolution does not matter). Our Duke is "Franz von Bayern" (not Wittelsbach) in his very passport issued by the republican government! Hence, Wettin may be the original dynasty name (but dynasty names vary - you could also even here say "Wettin-Ernestine (or Albertine?)" or (yes) Gotha etc.). But his major possession is - first - Bulgaria, and hence his name is "Simeon of Bulgaria". If for some reasons a name other than Bulgaria is wanted - it is quite unsatisfactory to say "Who is King of Bulgaria? Xy of Bulgaria" - then the next possession in line is used which is Duke (in the sense of family-member) of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. --77.4.73.124 (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's look at this again!

I'm sorry to see this discussion having gone stale since 2010 (a section above) and 2011. It seems plausible that his actual surname in our days - as a very famous Bulgarian polician Simeon Sakskoburggotski - is what the name of this arcticle should be. Surely that must be the most frequent used in reliable sources nowadays? As a person of deposed royalty, his modern surname has certainly never been Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (without of, and in English yet!). That would be like translating Ingrid Bergman into Ingrid Moutainman or Angela Merkel into Angela Borderperson. Why would we translate any modern persons surname into English? Simeon's dynastic membership is "Wettin", but I'm sure it has never been used by him, or published by anyone, as his surname. This man must be known either by his current modern legal name, or by the legal (at that time) historical name and titles he had before he was deposed, Simeon II of Bulgaria. Nothing else makes any sense to me. However, can we just discuss (1) frequency and (2) what this person's legal name actually is, in that order, and not get into arguing all kinds of personal opinions that will never hold up anyway in the land of Wikipedia? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Change back to 'Simeon II of Bulgaria'

Now that Simeon is no longer prime minister, we should move the article title back. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree — by Wikiisunbiased (talk • contribs) 20:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

NO! I strongly DISAGREE. (Shouting intended). Simeon Borisov Sakskoburggotski (or Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha if we must use the English version) actually accomplished something. H.M. Tsar Simeon II was a child king who lost his throne before he even knew he had one. When he entered Bulgarian politics, Simeon chose to do so as a republican citizen not a monarch. When he took office as prime minister he swore to uphold Bulgaria's republican constitution. Specifically, he chose not to use his royal title even while his party utilized the title, his children used their claimed titles, and his websites still mentioned his monarchial claims. The dual king/citizen situation has existed for a decade with his official name being Simeon Borisov Sakskoburggotski. There is no indication that Simeon has changed his preferences with regard to his name nor that there has been any legal change to his name in Bulgarian law. While he left politics following his party's defeat in the most recent election, we have no way of knowing what the future holds (regardless of his current intentions, event might change his mind). In a few years, he might return to office as prime minister, president, or in some other capacity. Is wikipedia going to rename this article every time Simeon enters or leaves public office? That would be silly. Simeon II of Bulgaria already links to this article, so there is no danger that users will be unable to find it. The details of his changing status and name are explained in the article. What purpose is served by moving this article back to Simeon II of Bulgaria? The wikipedia obsession with the royal status of former monarchs risks turning biographies into platforms for romantic fantasies. Contrary to the claims expressed by some posters above, my fellow Americans actually seemed more concerned with royal "privileges" than Europeans. This is not the place for monarchist or republican ideology. When Simeon, who is still a relatively young person with several decades of potential life ahead of him, passes to the great beyond, the article can be moved to his best known name (which might well be Simeon II of Bulgaria). Until then, it should remain at his last officially used designation, which is, like it or not, the Bulgarian version of Mr. Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. While his royal rank is fascinating to some, Simeon II's reign was really the story of his mother and his uncle, Kyril. Simeon himself was just a child. The most important parts of Simeon's biography are that he gave up his comfortable life in Spain, returned to a Bulgaria he barely remembered, won election as the prime minister of a republican state, and tried to improve the lot of his people. Lets not lose his actual accomplishments under a mound of romantic language concerning royal rights. Johnwilliammiller (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

SPELLED TSAR NOT CZAR

For you Americans, it's spelled Tsar NOT Czar, a common mistranslation of the SLAVONIC title Tsar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiisunbiased (talk • contribs) 20:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Really, I thought the Bulgarian was цар. I am also surprised to learn that "Tsar" is a "Slavonic" spelling. I wonder why a Slavonic word would be written with the Roman alphabet. Thanks for your information. You might want to take your observation to the article Tsar. Johnwilliammiller (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, many Slavic languages use Latin alphabet either exclusively or alongside Cyrillc alphabet. Being a Slav myself, I have to say that tsar does sound much closer to цар than czar. Of course, my personal opinion (just like personal opinions of other users) are completely irrelevant. We should use whichever spelling is most commonly used in English language literature. Surtsicna (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE DO NOT MOVE THIS ARTICLE

Simeon Borisov Sakskoburggotski (or Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha if we must use the English version) actually accomplished something. H.M. Tsar Simeon II was a child king who lost his throne before he even knew he had one. While his royal rank is fascinating, Simeon II's reign was really the story of his mother and his uncle, Kiril. Simeon himself was just a spectator. The most important parts of Simeon's biography are that he gave up his comfortable life in Spain, returned to a Bulgaria he barely remembered, won election as the prime minister of a republican state, and tried to improve the lot of his people. Lets not lose his actual accomplishments under a mound of romantic language concerning royal rights. Johnwilliammiller (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be moved back to Simeon II of Bulgaria as that was the highest position he held. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely the fact of the matter is that Simeon's status as former child-king was the principal reason he was able to get himself elected prime minister? john k (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If the article is to have a "surname", it should not be anglicized. The article should be at Simeon II of Bulgaria or Simeon Sakskoburggotski. Seven Letters 17:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I've not seen that form used in English. john k (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Like any article, this one should be titled with whatever name the subject is most commonly known in English. For references within the article, it appears that most news sources in the recent past have referred to him as "Saxe-Coburg", not as "Simeon".   Will Beback  talk  22:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Citizenship/Nationality.

What is the differance between "Citizenship" and "Nationality" here? 37.144.53.146 (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"the only monarch in history to have become the head of government through democratic elections"

What about The Co-princes of Andorra, specifically the French one? I know it's different, but it seems that the current phrasing cannot exclude the co-prince of Andorra. --Ahyangyi (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it should say "direct democratic elections". I don't think the Andorrans have any say, really, in who their co-prince is. Seven Letters 01:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is,one of the co-princes of Andorra (the French President) is directly elected - just not by the Andorrans. Needs thought. 213.205.240.72 (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

"Second Lieutenant"?

Upon his graduation from Valley Forge, into whose Army was he commissioned a Second Lieutenant?

He would not have received a US commission as he is not a US Citizen. Was he given some sort of Bulgarian commission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.131.236 (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Title of Kardam and Boris (and the young Simeon)

Prince of Tarnovo and not prince of Turnovo, because Tarnovo it's a bulgarian city in the north central part of the country from where the title comes. And Turnovo it's a village in the municipality of Bosilovo in the Republic of Macedonia.GaboPV (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Above please!

Please see renewed discussion above re: rather ridiculous name of article, invented by WP. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 4 August 2017

The following is a closed 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: not moved DrStrauss talk 09:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha → Simeon Sakskoburggotski – The current surname is an unknown WP invention - see several sections on this talk page. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. —Guanaco 05:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Also please see my comments here --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. CNN, Encyclopædia Britannica, Time magazine, Daily Mail, Balkan Insight, and Simeon's own official site are just some of the sources using this name. Opening contention that the article name is "an unknown WP invention" is easily disproved. DrKay (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest we also strongly consider media in his homeland, not just English media. What I'm proposing is that we either use his legal surname under which he has been in their government or his historical regnal name, not this English concoction. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Which would be contrary to English Wikipedia policy in more ways than I care to list. Arguments above (to one of which you linked) are similarly contrary to policy, to the point that I wonder whether any of the contributors have bothered to read the policy at all. Andrewa (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: It seems like a logical argument, and I note we already have an article named Sakskoburggotski Government, but we need some actual data to show that is "Sakskoburggotski" being used more often than "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" (and preferably recent evidence). 106.68.212.41 (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. We use English here. The proposal is based on an error of fact... the claim that the current title is a Wikipedia invention... which was disproved above. Andrewa (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Sakskoburggotski appears to be the Bulgarian spelling of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is used in many English sources, as per SergeWoodzing. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Perhaps the title of the article at Sakskoburggotski Government should be reconsidered if this RM fails. It's entirely possible that the common names of the government and its head are different in English, but as indicated above, more likely that they are the same. Worth a look IMO. Andrewa (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

Infobox (2)

We should have his former position of Tsar of Bulgaria, placed at the top of the infobox. Being 'head of state', was the highest position he had. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent move

I support the recent move making the article name his name as a legitimate Bulgarian monarch. The WP invention "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" for an English transtation of his surname (or whatever it's supposed to be) is nothing he has ever used, regardless of any frequency in British media. Ideally, the article should be under his actual legal surname, by which he is widely known in many languages today as a politician, but this move was an acceptable alternative. If we keep translating modern legal surnames to English, because we think that's fun and find some such stuff in Google books, we'll end up with Swedes called Southermount for Söderberg, Germans called Silverstone for Silberstein, etc etc etc etc etc. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Article title (again)

When he passes on, then can we move the article title back to Simeon II of Bulgaria? Having been king, is the highest office/position he's ever held. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Servare et Manere content

All right, let’s walk through this slowly, if we must. Before we begin, Jingiby, let me say I don’t particularly like being accused of disruption. I’m an editor in good standing who’s been here since 2006, I’m sure you know of me, and I expect at least an assumption of good faith, if nothing else.

Having gotten that out of the way: Servare et Manere is basically a one-man organization run by Marek Sobola, who has a penchant for handing out medals, such as the Tree of Peace Memorial Plaque, or planting the Tree of Peace (World War I). Over the past few weeks, I’ve made an effort to ensure that all of Sobola’s spam gets deleted: those red links were blue until recently.

It’s fairly obvious why such spam has no place in this article. A Sobola-run website is not a neutral source when it comes to attesting something about a medal he handed out. Neither is the King’s website quotable for a medal he received. A self-published book by Sobola clearly fails the reliability test.

Have I explained whatever needed explaining? — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Jingiby (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)