Talk:List of monarchs of Liechtenstein

message: The image :Image:Franz I.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:File:Franz I.jpg
*:Image:Johann I.jpg
*:      Image:Franz Josef I.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Franz I.jpg

message: Do we have an official source for the style cited in the article for the Prince of Liechtenstein? According to this source  his official style is Most Serene Highness, rather than simply Serene Highness. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serene Highness or MOST serene Highness? 

message: The first four in the list were not Princes of the present Principality of Liechtenstein, just Lords of Vaduz and Schellenberg and their Princely title didn't pertain to the present territory. They were not sovereign Princes. Only Anton Florian became Prince of what we today call Liechtenstein and a sovereign Prince. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that matter? Does the current principality exclude the first four princes from its list of past sovereigns, or enumerate the subsequent princes as if the first four didn't exist? I think not. It is common for territories to shift while titles and official entities are considered part of the same continuous series: many of the pre-Napoleonic realms had completely different territories afterward. FactStraight (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think it does because it's not about the territory, The territories of Vaduz and Schellenberg were what is now called Liechtenstein. It is about the fact that the very state these people governed didn't exist as such (as a sovereign state within the HRE) during the rule of the first four. That should at least be mentioned. The first four Princes ruled the territory as feudal lords, not as sovereign princes of a country within the HRE. Only Anton-Florian became a "Reichsfürst". Previously the title Prince of Liechtenstein was not the title of a sovereign Prince, but of a Bohemian magnate. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly the shift in territories and status should be mentioned, since it's part of the history of both the lands in question and the dynasty. But the present nation of Liechtenstein's ruler is Hans Adam II, the first of that name having been one of the first four you name in this comment as not having really been a sovereign ruling the same lands as today's principality. If today they consider the title and realm as continuous, on what source do we base a refusal to accept that continuity? Let's be careful of trying to be more Catholic than the Pope. As in the vexed case of Wikipedia's ongoing dispute over the so-called "Kingship of Croatia", Wikipedia editors put themselves in danger of unilaterally "correcting" history, when those involved saw or see the matter differently, and record it thusly. Let's stick to giving the specific facts -- including the continuity that is claimed by the country and its dynasty -- and leave it to the readership to note any discrepancies. FactStraight (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first four in the list 

message: Hans-Adam II doesn't "reign" since 2004, when he made his son Alois regent. Since then, Alois reigns despite his father being still head of state. Has Wikipedia an own definition? --212.186.7.98 (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Your understanding of the word is wrong. Please take a look at Reign. Only a monarch can reign. Alois is the regent. Hans-Adam II is the monarch. Thus, Alois does not reign. Hans-Adam II has reigned since 13 November 1989. Since 2004, Alois has been exercising princely powers on behalf of his father, who is still reigning. Surtsicna (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, so in WP definition, reign can only he/she who's officially the monarch. I see, thank you. --212.186.7.98 (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "reigning"