Talk:Princely Family of Liechtenstein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
European Microstates This article is within the scope of the WikiProject European Microstates, which collaborates on articles related to European Microstates. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles of Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] royal vs princely

At the very beginning of the article, you call them "royal." Is this the case? Are they royalty? I think they are Serene Highness and of Princely status only, but not royalty. --Ashley Rovira 02:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two relevant, current usages of the term "royalty". One meaning is "member of a family headed by a king or queen". The other is "member of a family headed by a hereditary sovereign". The first is technically correct, but the second is in wider, common and journalistic usage. The problem with ignoring or rejecting the latter usage is not only that it relegates to royalist jargon a word already in much broader use, but there is no satisfactory substitute for "royalty" in the second meaning. "Princely" does not work, because the vast majority of princely families were merely noble, and never sovereign or semi-sovereign. "Dynastic" doesn't work because it is too poorly understood in this context. "Royalty" clearly conveys to most people membership in a reigning or formerly reigning family, and that is why it has passed into ordinary language with that meaning. Moreover, within monarchist jargon, royalty is still used to refer to members of deposed kingly dynasties, while being withheld from still-reigning dynasties such as the House of Liechtenstein and the House of Luxembourg. Thus, those who are in the order of succession to real thrones are refused, by this jargon, the description "royal", while cadets of families which lost their thrones 150 years ago (House of Orléans, Hanover) are still referred to as "royal". Since any time these individuals' actual titles are used, it becomes obvious who is and who is not technically entitled to HRH, it is not necessary to pedantically adhere to a narrow jargon in Wiki. The reference to the Liechtenstein dynasty as "royalty" should remain. It's just too late to put that genie back in the bottle. Lethiere 20:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There are several articles about minor members of the Liechenstein princely family that add little or nothing to the basic biographical data already included on the Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein page. It would be neater to move all the basic family biographical data to the Princely Family of Liechtenstein page and redirect all the minor articles, such as Princess Georgina of Liechtenstein, to that page, which could link to articles on those few family members (such as Hans-Adam II) who merit an article to themselves.

[edit] redundant links

there are several links on this article that are redirected right back to this article... if someone could go through and clean this up please? I do not know these people well enough to know who has their own article or not... - Adolphus79 09:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General Cleanup

I went through and cleaned up a bunch of stuff. Reformated the page a little. Created more links to things. All in my efforts to kiss-up to the government of Liechtenstein! :) Wilybadger 01:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disgusting

Even though I don't agree w/ putting males before females with no consideration of birth order, I guess I can understand the whole traditional aspect of the sexism in that case. But completely ridding the line of all women for the fact that they are women is repulsive. Yes, I am a guy.

Talk pages are not platforms for your personal views.;;; Please discuss this elsewhere. Jake the Editor Man (talk) 18
56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)