Talk:Prince Karl Emich of Leiningen

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Disinheritance 

message: 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)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text: Thanks, I understand. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Russian claim 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "This article is about" notice 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Eilika, and Karl Emich's entire claim