Talk:Prince Karl Emich of Leiningen

"Religion change" section
I have recently added a "Religion change" section describing religion conversion, and user FactStraight undid it on BLP grounds. Though Karl Emich didn't make any corresponding announcements, there is no BLP violation because the announcement was made by Monarchist Party which is official political party and its announcements should be treated as a reliable source. If undoing is repeated, I'm going to start Wikipedia mediation process. --ssr (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's an excellent idea to seek verification on the accuracy and WP-compliance of an alleged translation of a minor political party's claim about the religion and political aspirations (Tsar!) of an individual who has not been quoted in the independent media on this issue. We have no way of knowing if the website is accurate, official or reviewed by any more than one person. As entered into the article, this information falls far short of the mininal standard for inclusion in a BLP article on English Wikipedia. FactStraight (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The individual has not yet made any announcements, they might follow in future. But I'm not agree with the attitude of "no way of knowing if the website is accurate" — the website belongs to political party which is oficially registered by country's legitimate authorities. Its news releases are legitimate political statements. The "Tsar aspirations" come out of Imperial Laws. This may be seen as a language issue: do you speak Russian? The development is fresh, and not many sources reported on that, but the sources are reliable and the story is notable. The proofs are in Russian language, I have not seen English ones so far. But this is not a reason to remove notable information from Wikipedia. Should we seek Russian language mediators? Trust me, notability requirements are met, Party statements are notable, Tsar aspirations come from historic researches, but the sources are currently only in Russian language. Let's go to mediation and do some translations. --ssr (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree with your view about Wikipedia's content ("It may contain information from any types of sources or comments with no sources. It may fail to contain what you may want to see. It may contain untruthful information (report it)...If one want to treat Wikipedia as an authoritative source but find a 'nonsense' instead (maybe also wanting to 'punish someone' for this), stop using the project or change your approach. Traditional encyclopedia format couldn't withstand permanent actualisation. We can see now this format can be merged with mass media format. It leads to weaker 'scientific authoritativity' but stronger freedom of speech {right to have errors until they are corrected}. Wikipedia is made for reading by public what is written by public for free and fair use — not 'authoritatively' written for making 'serious researches', academic and business reports, juridical definitions."), as you have articulated here. Therefore I cannot agree that in a BLP article, an assertion about someone's change of religion and associated claim to a long abolished throne, which has not been publicly confirmed by that person and which is asserted instead by a self-described political party's website advocating his public role, is sufficient proof to include in Wikipedia. The burden of proof for keeping information in a Wikipedia bio is on the contributor who adds it, not on those who remove it, expecially in a BLP case, which this is, and which therefore must abide by 1. no self-published source other than by the subject of the bio, 2. no obscure, isolated sources for claims about public figures and 3. exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing. FactStraight (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion! I have asked for a mediation at WikiProject Russia. --ssr (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is clearly not a language issue, but rather a reliable source issue, and the source does not appear to me to be a sufficient source by Wiki standards to demonstrate conversion. But what is significant is that the Monarchist Party recognises the Prince as the legitimate heir to the throne, and it is a sufficient source that they claim he is Tzar; that should be mentioned shouldn't it? I've made an amendment. cwmacdougall 1.55 3 Sept. 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, this is quite what is intended! --ssr (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that this source does not establish that the subject of this article converted to Orthodoxy along with his third wife and their child, nor that he considers himself the rightful claimant to the throne over his cousin Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia. It should, however, be mentioned that this group supports him as rightful pretender, provided that the group's significance can be established: when it is says that the Monarchist Party is "registered" in Russia as a political party, how is that different from it being a publicly declared political club? Does it endorse candidates for public office in Russia who thereby have the right to be on the ballot when elections are held? If so, they are a notable entity, if not, not. FactStraight (talk) 05:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In the article Monarchist Party, it can be seen the party is not just a club but an official entity recently registered and licensed in Russian Ministry of Justice with full ballot capacities. It is a new development and not yet stated in the party's article, but the party is currently participating in mayoral elections in Ekaterinburg set to September, 8. Should I add this information in the party article urgently? --ssr (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you can accurately translate it, I think it is important to both this article and the Monarchist Party article to add information distinguishing it as a political party which is recognized by the Russian government -- from a political club -- whose websites are self-published like blogs. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll do it soon. --ssr (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Disinheritance
Karl was disinherited because his 1991 marriage violated the "1897 family edict which stipulates that its members may only marry aristocrats of equivalent status". His disinheritance was automatic - it did not occur "shortly after his 1991 wedding". Nor was it because "his mother, father, and brother Andreas disapproved of her birth". It was not a matter of preference but family law.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * German dynasties, whether reigning, deposed or mediatized, never automatically or by house law stripped a male dynast of his title or rank for contracting a morganatic marriage (Even in the Austrian House of Habsburg, where dynasts usually did lose title and status after an unequal marriage became known, this was never a direct consequence of violating the house law, but resulted from legal agreements extorted from the archduke to renounce his imperial privileges -- neither the law nor the Emperor had the authority to impose that consequence upon him against his will, e.g. Ferdinand Burg" {1868-1915}, "Johann Orth" {1852- ?}, "Leopold Wölfling" {1868-1935}). In a marriage which violated house rules (such as those mediatized families were allowed to adopt), the consequence was that the wife and children were deprived of the husband's title, rank and entailed inheritance (e.g., Prince Victor of Hohenlohe-Langenburg, Archduke Johan of Austria-Tuscany, Prince Alexander of Hesse). Therefore Karl Emich's second wife and their children (but not his first or third wives and his progeny thereby) were not entitled to share any dynastic rights he possessed to the extent the house rules applicable under the monarchy were enforced. The bitter feud which erupted upon his second marriage resulted in disinheritance of much of his parents' "discretionary"' fortune and his non-use of the Fürstliche title which his younger brother assumed when their father died, but there were no dynastic consequences to him directly resulting from violation of §§ 4 and 25 of Leiningen's 1897 house rule (which was only enforceable to the extent it complied with the inheritance law of the Grand Duchy of Baden and, by the way, did not specify that wives had to be "aristocratic" let alone "of equivalent status", rather leaving that assessment up to an arbitration committee of 3 members of "disinterested" mediatized families in cases of dispute between the dynast and the Prince) -- and that would have been true under the German Empire. FactStraight (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The Russian claim
One wonders what the rationale behind his Russian claim (if there is any) looks like. It's not mentioned in the article why the brother of his mother Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich of Russia and his progeny would be disqualified. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @Gerard von Hebel They don't disqualify Vladimir, only his progeny. They consider Vladimir's wife Leonida to be morganatic. --89.178.115.110 (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I understand. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"This article is about" notice
Does the "this article is about" notice really add anything useful? "Nicholas III" doesn't even redirect to this article, so I'm not sure who the notice is meant to help. Oooooooseven (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Eilika, and Karl Emich's entire claim
Karl Emich's mother, Duchess Eilika of Oldenburg (1928-2016), whom he uses to claim the head of the Romanov Family from, was the daughter of Nikolaus, Hereditary Grand Duke of Oldenburg, son of Frederick Augustus II, Grand Duke of Oldenburg none of them where members of house House of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov. None of them have any more concrete of a claim to Charles Frederick, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp and his Russian ties than any other living member of the House of Holstein-Gottorp.

The only evidence that he has any bearing on the House of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov is: He says so... even though his own genealogical records don't match his claims.

why is Wikipedia treating his claim as being head of the House of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov as factual? why is Wikipedia treating him as an actual claimant?

Scu ba (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)