Talk:Prince Joseph Wenzel of Liechtenstein

message: Shouldn't Joseph and his sister and brothers be at Prince Name of Liechtenstein?  As Joseph will, for now, one day be The Prince of Liechtenstein, shouldn't we have him listed as we do the grandchildren of other reinging monarchs who will one day be King/Queen (Princess Catharina-Amalia of the Netherlands, Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway, Princess Elisabeth of Belgium, and Prince William of Wales)?Prsgoddess187 21:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of article 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Princevonliech.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: This can't be right under any recognised English rule of succession. Any claim deriving from Isabel, Countess of Bedford would come after the descendants of Edward III's sons. Both the UK Royal Family and Jacobite claimants descend from Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence, John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster, and Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York (Edward's second, third and fourth sons to survive infancy). The idea of elder daughters preceding younger sons only dates from 2015, when the Commonwealth Realms brought the new succession rules into force. These changes a) aren't retrospective (it only affects males born after 28 October 2011) and b) wouldn't be recognised as legitimate by Jacobites, let alone someone who thought this claim was superior (and thus presumably doesn't think there was ever even a personal union until whenever Isabel's descendants' claim married into the Jacobite line). I'd say this should be deleted - see Succession to the Crown Act 2013 for the non-retrospective nature of the UK succession changes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B3B6:FF00:826:DFD3:C37F:32B8 (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The entry now contains Jacobite claims which are highly fanciful, and inappropriate for an entry on someone who is eventual heir to a sovereign state Ncox001 (talk) 08:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and have reverted the changes made on 20 June 2023 which gives WP:UNDUE prominence to the irrelevance of the Jacobite succession as well as far too much WP:FANCRUFT genealogy. 11:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Conceptually superior claim to the English throne" - incorrect claim 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Should there be a mention of the fact that he a member of the Jacobite line of succession? 51.37.98.236 (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jacobites