Talk:Princess Marie Antoinette of Schwarzburg

False title for her son
The attribution to her son, Count Friedrich Magnus zu Solms-Wildenfels, of the title "Prince of Schwarzburg" is mind-boggling in the many levels of error it propounds. First, there is no evidence that he claims, uses or even knows of this title. Second, "Prince of Schwarzburg" was the proper title of the sovereigns of a nation of that name until 1918, which ceased to exist from that date. Third, the application of semi-Salicism to his mother in order to deduce and state in Wikipedia that Friedrich Magnus inherited this title through her after the aboliton of the monarchy of Schwarzburg is not only a biased point of view, but seriously and deliberately misleads readers of this encyclopedia into believing non-truths: Semi-Salicism is a complicated kind of inheritance rule, which existed in several different forms: to know which is applicable here would require a scholarly and legal analysis of the law adopted in 1896 as contrasted with German Private Princely law. At best, Friedrich Magnus is a pretender to the throne of the abolished Principality of Schwarzburg. Fourth, the rationale for this article is openly taken from the Schwarzburg pages on François Velde's website Heraldica.org. While his speculations on the claim of Friedrich Magnus are scholarly in nature, neutral and well-sourced, he does not declare this man to be Prince of Schwarzburg, if for no other reason than that Velde's historical research led him to conclude that another man, Philipp, 5th Prince zu Stolberg-Wernigerode would have a very strong claim to the principality, if it existed, and to the title, if there were any lawful authority to adjudicate his rights in comparison to those of Friedrich Magnus. The arguments on these potential claims may be of interest, but any conclusions are entirely speculative and impossible to consider definitive. For Wikipedia to be used (apparently by promoters of their own/favorite websites and by a notoriously unreliable and biased replica of history's most authoritative series on royalty/royal titles) to disseminate royalist disinformation as if it were fact is a disservice to this encyclopedia, to royal scholarship and to history. FactStraight (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)