Talk:Alternative successions to the English and British Crown

Stephen's heirs

Shouldn't there be something about the heirs of King Stephen? After all, he fought a civil war against Matilda in order to retain the throne for his heirs, and of course that didn't work. But it certainly might have, who knows? But Stephen was officially King was some time, so I don't see why we shouldn't put a list of his heirs general. There is already one, on his talk page that can be copied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.126.230 (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be his Salic-law heirs, to conform to the theory which led to his succession. AnonMoos (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Peter Pininski's claim

A final claim comes from Peter Pininski who claims descent from the legitimised descendants of Charles Edward Stuart alias "the Young Pretender", through the Rohan or Roehenstadt family. However, his claim is disputed by scholars who point out that the Rohans were a large family and it is easy to confuse its many members. "Marie Victoire Adelaide" may be confused with another member of the family called Marie Victoire, who is not descended from the Stuarts.

1. Charles I of England.
2. James II of England, third son of Charles I.
3. James Francis Edward Stuart, only son of James II, "the Old Pretender".
4. Charles Edward Stuart, eldest son of James Francis, "the Young Pretender".
5. Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany, only surviving daughter with his mistress Clementina Walkinshaw. Legitimised in 1784.
6. Charles Edward Stuart, Count Roehenstart, illegitimate son of Charlotte, raised in secret but later claimed legitimacy and the throne as an adult.
7. Marie Victoire Adelaide, illegitimate daughter of Charlotte, raised in secrecy.
8. Antime, son of Marie Victoire and Paul Anthony Louis Bertrand de Nikorowicz.
9. Charles, son of Antime.
10. Julia-Thérèse, sister of Charles and married Baron Pininski.
11. Stanislas Pininski, elder son of Julia-Thérèse.
12. Leon Pininski, second son of Julia-Thérèse.
13. Ladislas Pininski, elder nephew of Stanilas and Leon.
14. Stanislas Pininski, nephew of Ladislas.
15. Peter Pininski, son of Stanislas (extant).

wouldn't this line be rendered null and void by the fact that Marie Victoire Adelaide, who Peter Pininski's claim goes through was illegitimate? If she was legitimized at some point, it should have been mentioned here.

References

The Yorkist Claim

This article omits the main claim for the Yorks. Titulus Regius, which officially recognized that Edward IV was already legally married at the time of his "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville. As such, any children born to Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville were illegitimate, and had no claim whatsoever to the throne. (Which also, incidentally, means Richard III had no reason to want either of his bastard nephews dead, as they posed no threat at all to him.)Richard III recognized his nephew Warwick as his heir. At the death of Richard III Warwick became the Head of the House of York, and its rightful claimant to the throne -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.89.10.156 (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick... AnonMoos (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The Lancastrian Claim

Similar to the Yorkist claim, this article omits the Lancastrian claim. The claim is that according to the will of Edward III, in the line of succession, John of Gaunt was before Philippa, the daughter of Lionel of Antwerp. Danishjaveed (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Who would be the Lancastrian heirs taking precedence over the Tudors? AnonMoos (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

That is already stated in the article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.143.138 (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Descendants of Catherine Grey who married Edward Seymour

Catherine Grey was the granddaughter of Mary Tudor, the younger sister of King Henry VIII. Catherine Grey married Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford. Catherine Grey's 11th great-granddaughter is Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (died 2002) the wife of King George VI of England (died 1952). Their daughter is Queen Elizabeth II of England.

September 16,2022 137.200.32.54 (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

italics or not

Throughout this article, the names of "would-have-been" monarchs are in italics.

There appear to be many errors about this, starting with Margaret Pole: she survived both her brother and her son, both of them italicized while she is not. Do I misunderstand something? —Tamfang (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Because prior to Mary I., there had never been an English queen sui regnant. Without that precedent, it follows the title passes through her to her son. And before you try to reference Matilda, daughter of Henry I., she was never queen of all England; at best, she ruled only part of it. Foofighter20x (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Colour Code

Would be helpful if the Monarchs were colour coded seperately 79.78.239.79 (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Descendants of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence

I would like to add this paragraph to "Descendants of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence" for further context: "However, the current Earls of Huntingdon descend from Sir Edward Hastings (1541–1603?), the fourth son of Francis Hastings, 2nd Earl of Huntingdon and Catherine Pole after the male line of their third son, George Hastings, 4th Earl of Huntingdon (1540 – 3 December 1604) died out with Francis Hastings, 10th Earl of Huntingdon. If a purely "male-preference primogeniture" line of succession were chosen, and the line of succession was determined or elected to be through Hans Francis Hastings, 12th Earl of Huntingdon (1779–1828) rather than Elizabeth Rawdon, 16th Baroness Botreaux (1731–1808), then the current heir would be William Hastings-Bass, 17th Earl of Huntingdon (b. 1948)." I decided to move discussion to the Talk page for more users to vote on this edit due a dispute with User:DrKay over whether or not this paragraph should be included.

This is incorrect. The article is about the crown, not the ducal title. While the later may be male only, precedent for the crown being inheritable via a female (though not allowing that female to rule) had been established in the 12th century. Foofighter20x (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I personally believe that further context should be added to this section due possible errors and confusion over the research presented in Britain's Real Monarch (2004), which is the main citation for the section currently. As it stands, there are also many issues with using Britain's Real Monarch alone as a source or citation, without additional academic sources or citations. In addition to this, there are also factors not mentioned in the section "Descendants of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence" that deserve addressing, including the current line cited by Britain's Real Monarch being Roman Catholic, even though current Acts of Parliament have decreed that a Roman Catholic may not succeed to the throne. The section should be expanded with more context, including more academic sources and citations, as I feel that the section is currently lacking. I also feel that the context about the Earls of Huntingdon and male-line vs. female-line succession is important. Obversa (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment: Obversa, the article has to be restored to its last stable version from the 18th of March per WP:STATUSQUO or the disputed content needs to be tagged. When your edits are reverted you cannot reinsert the info and then ask for consensus. Tagging the other party so they can provide their input, @DrKay. Keivan.f^Talk 19:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

What citations? DrKay (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

If the rightful monarchs were of Clarence's line, then the later laws prohibiting Catholics from the throne are, for the purposes of the Clarence succession, null and void, as having never received the assent of the rightful monarch, hence why that line included Catholics. Foofighter20x (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)