Talk:Line of succession to the British throne/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Does this article really need over 1000 names?

What is the point of having anyone past 1000th in the line of succession? These people will never succeed to the British throne. I don't even think there is a need to include people past the 100th. Failing all that we should at least remove those who are skipped in the line of succession. The size of this article is ridiculous the Wikitext is 306KB and the actual page is 77KB. Editing this page in Firefox is practically impossible I'm not sure about IE but I can't imagine that it does it easily. If anyone needs to know anyone past the 1000th or 100th person in line they can easily follow the link at the bottom which has the list all the way up to 4000. As has been previously mentioned, the accuracy of this list can't be guaranteed for any date after the original publication of that list. It would be a pretty safe bet that some people on this list have died in the last 6 years. -- Gudeldar (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree, but I'm sure there is some historical consensus in the archives for the longer list. If not, then go ahead and chop it off at say 1K and ssee if anyone complains.Mbisanz (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be ridiculously long either. It is constantly out of date, there could be errors undetected for years (someone was removed two years after they had died) and it is just unwieldly. Charles 00:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

We should get rid of some of the people on the list. It is completely and utterly unrealistic that 1500 people could inherit the throne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by What!?Why?Who? (talk • contribs) 22:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, is that THE Charles... Charles, HTH The Prince of Wales? Probably not. Anyway, the official list on the Royal web site only runs to 40 names... although it should be 41 because they left off a baby who was born in the fall of 2007. Even a list of 40 is probably too long, since it would take an incredible catastrophe to get even down as far as #41, and if such a catastrophe ever happens, what remained of the British government would likely turn over the head of state job to someone more prominent than (say) Zenouska Mowatt (who happens to be the 17 year old granddaughter of Queen Elizabeth's first cousin and who is #41 on the list.) Timothy Horrigan (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's not HRH, he's just our Charles. And it is intriguing that Master Albert Windsor does not appear on the Royal site — do they know something we don't? They've added Severn, but not Albert — are we to assume they've made a mistake and we know more than the Palace? I'm starting to think that keeping to quite a low figure might be an idea — I might host a fluid list on my own webspace, but that would be curio, not encyclopædic. I just received Hardman's Monarchy, which has the line of succession up to 50 printed in the first appendix (it's publishing date is November, so it hasn't got Severn, but also hasn't got Albert... Again, does he know something we don't?) DBD 17:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably they have it that way because Albert's either already been baptised (just hasn't been made public yet) or because there's no point (for them) in putting him on the list because he'll be baptised a Catholic sometime soon. Morhange (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Albert was baptised as a Catholic, his father Nicholas converted to Catholicism, that's why he does not appear in the palace's list of succesion

User talk:krischnig) 14:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion, we should use the longest list possible. Who cares if these people will never inherit? I am one for being as complete with information as possible. If size is a problem, why don't we just cut the list of skipped people and make another article that would list those who were skipped and where they would be? Emperor001 (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we do need all theese names they may not inheret but they are still in line and that matters this is a page on who is in line for the British throne it needs to be as thourough as possible and needs to stay longCharlieh7337 (talk) 02:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This list is becoming impossible to keep accurate. It should be capped at 1000 at the very most. — Chameleon 06:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am perplexed when somebody who has not edited this article in the past six months (and as far as I am aware, never) claims that "this list is becoming impossible to keep accurate". The people who edit the article are doing a fine job (that's coming from somebody who used to edit the article often, but recently has concentrated his efforts elsewhere). Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the longest article on the English Wikipedia. Farside6 (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

On June 7, Fatty streak was over a megabyte, thanks to vandalism. Also, Wikipedia:List of missing journals, while not an article, used to be well over 400KB before I split it.

On a related note, there has been intermittent discussion about splitting this article. The need is much less now that registered users can easily edit the top section and anyone can using the &section=0 convention, but editing some of the "outer-ring" sections like "1 Line of succession" or "1.1 Descendants of George II (1683–1760)" is still a pain and may break some browsers. There are workarounds, such as temporarily promoting an "inner-ring" or "deeply nested" section to a top-level section, making the desired edit, then reverting the inner-ring section back to where it belongs. If we did split this article, logical splits would be to break out some of the medium-sized "Descendants of ..." then transcluding them into the main article. However, I don't think this is necessary. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I agree the list is too long and should be split, but rather than at a specific number, to me it would be more logical to stop it where it exhausts the list of descendants of a particular monarch. For example, the 54 descendants of George V, or the 176 descendants of Queen Victoria. Nudge67 (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to mention so many people. They will not become king or queen soon. Also, why do we mention all the people who are skipped? They aren't in the line of succession, so why are they in this article?--What!?Why?Who? (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Why does it say that the list is incomplete and it would help if its expanded?--What!?Why?Who? (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There are 497 descendants of Queen Victoria in line for the succession, not 176. We mention those who are skipped because there are cases, such as with Ileana Snyder, where the parent is Catholic but the children are not. Morhange (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The list of 497 descendants of Queen Victoria is incomplete. Two whole daughters and their descendants were missing. It is senseless to try and maintain a list of well over 5000 names if it is not even accurate for the descendants of Victoria. I cut it off and re-organized it around the nine children of Victoria. Pacomartin (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

N^th position

• From the archive:

I'm going through linked articles and adding the N^th position to all current and extended members of the British royal family, down to the Fifes. After that, I'm going to go through every other article and, where applicable, removing these listings from people who aren't members of other reigning royal houses. With numerous births and deaths, having to go through each and every time and change these numbers is a pain. For people after the Fifes, unless they are members of reigning houses or a current pretender to a throne, where it is mentioned they are Nth in line to the British throne, I'm going to remove the number and just mention they are in line. Morhange (talk) 07:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I would remove the positions from every other royal article as it is applicable... It really is a pain maintaining those and they can go inaccurate for months. Keeping the numbers down to the Fifes though is reasonable. Charles 07:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There was also a discussion on this very topic a few months ago and everyone, as far as I can remember, agreed, but I cannot find it in the archives. I think it might have been held elsewhere. Charles 07:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I figured reigning families, as they are more prominent, and there would at least be interest to see where they were in the line of succession. At least reigning monarchs/heads of house, I think. Morhange (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe interesting to some, maybe not to others, but it still has the issue of being inexact and then bothersome at times. It also isn't entirely relevant to who a person is, etc. The most I would do is say "so and so is also in line to succeed to the British throne" with an optional "and is approximately 750th in line". Charles 07:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't made it to the archives yet, Charles. /Archive 3#Succession boxes on other pages. -- Jao (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh my, thank you! Sadly, I can't use old age as an excuse because I'm not old! ;-) Charles 23:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd cut back even further, and stop after the Lascelles. Less work to maintain, and more logical (numbering all descendants of George V). Doops | talk 13:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I just figured the Fifes, since they were considered extended members of the BRF, since Maud was a princess, and there are just four more. I numbered the Norwegians, since they are a reigning family, although I think only numbering the king and crown prince/ss of reigning families and pretenders would be best, since it trims down significantly the maintenance. Morhange (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Still though, it is more than needed, really. If the removal of the numbers can be, and is, justified for all other members of a pretender's family, why must we maintain these for the pretenders as well? It becomes inexact. Really though, pretenders may be important, but it is not because of the number they have in line of succession to the British throne. Charles 01:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think cutting out after Marina Ogilvy's children would be perfectly appropriate. Who wants to keep track of whether any new Lascelles's are born, or marry Catholics, or whatever? john k (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is a case where exceptions (pretenders, etc) still make a mess of things and are fairly hard to track down. A no-nonsense cutoff would be the vest approach to this matter in maintaining articles. Charles 00:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Original research

I believe that most of this article constitutes original research, for these reasons:-

1. After the first 40 or so places, it is not backed by the official British monarchy website or any other reliable source,

2. With a list of this length, it must be quite difficult to keep track of births and deaths, and I suspect it is often inaccurate,

3. There is the unresolved issue, discussed at some length, of whether Greek Orthodox people should be on this list,

4. There is also the unresolved issue of at what point someone becomes a Catholic for the purposes of succession laws: birth, baptism, or first communion. PatGallacher (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The CONSENSUS of other editors is that this is not the case. The opinions of one single editor should not be given undue weight.

1. This page is largely based on the published research of William Addams Reitwiesner; he is one of the most noted genealogists in the world and is definitely reliable (probably more so than www.royal.gov.uk).

2. All Wikipedia articles about current topics are somewhat out of date. It takes time for information to be published in other sources, and then for editors to summarize that information here.

3. The consensus of other editors is that Greek Orthodox people are in line of succession; at the time of actually succeeding to the throne a Greek Orthodox person would have to convert.

4. The consensus of other editors is that a "papist" is anyone baptised in a Catholic ceremony, or received into the Catholic Church. Noel S McFerran (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I endorse Mcferran's summary of the consensus Chrislintott (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

To reply:-

1. Consensus does not have the ability to overturn fundamental Wikipedia policies e.g. no original research, reliable sources. It does not have the authority to declare that the earth is flat or that the Apollo moon landings never happened. It does not have the authority to declare what a court would decide in various hypothetical situations which have never been dealt with by a court of law, and which have not been widely discussed by legal academics.

2. It is worth quoting Rietwiesnear at some length: "Many other "Order of Succession" lists will omit certain persons who are, or are believed by the list compiler to be, Roman Catholic. The reason for these omissions is that the two parliamentary Acts state, in similar language, that anyone who performs certain actions (such as "professe the Popish religion", "marry a Papist", "be reconciled to or ... hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome") "should be excluded and ... made forever incapable to inherit possess or enjoy the Crown". To date these clauses have never been invoked to prevent someone from succeeding to the Crown, so their precise meaning (as far as the Succession is concerned) has never been determined. Because of this, the list below does not attempt to assert which, if any, of the descendants of Electress Sophia have been rendered "incapable to inherit ... the Crown" under these clauses." So he leaves some important questions unresolved.

3. As the British Monarchy website represents the view of the powers that be in the UK, it is bizarre to treat any other source as more authoritative.

4. Reitweisner's website simply states who the descendants of Sophia of Hanover were as of 1 Jan. 2001, it must have changed considerably since then. Even with the list on the Wikipedia website, you must have about 20 people added to and leaving the list every year.

5. While of course some problems can exist with any Wikipedia article dealing with current events, in this case they are more marked than normal, since e.g. after a general election or a change of govt. there are enough reliable and easily accessible sources about the changes to make, not so in this case.

6. The consensus in relation to Greek Orthodox people appears to me to be wrong, but that is not the crucial issue here, unless someone can find a reliable source that says otherwise the consensus is original research.

7. Since I wrote my earlier comments I realised that there were some interesting issues in relation to Albert Windsor. As far as I am aware he was never in the line of succession on the British Monarchy website, but they did add Viscount Severn soon after birth. So implicitly according to this, the most reliable source, Catholic infants are effectively excluded simply by their parents' intention to bring them up a Catholic. People (not me) have already raised the theological issue of whether people are baptised a Catholic, or simply baptised a Christian. PatGallacher (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Endorsed, particularly in relation to religion - forming consensus here does not trump OR or legal interpretation - citation should be provided as to legal interpretation of the appropriate statutes - editorial consensus or otherwise in determining who is eligible to succeed to the Throne or not on religious grounds is OR, simply. You cannot just point to the law and say "it says X", where "X" is not clearly defined. Achromatic (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that most of this article is OR. In addition to the points made above, I would add that

• the Reitwiesner website seems to be a personal homepage and thus does not meet the qualification for a reliable source in Wikipedia. If Reitwiesner has published his work elsewhere (e.g. in book form) then this should be given in the references
• Even if Reitwiesner is accepted as a source, the modification of his published list when births, deaths, etc. are reported is clearly a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position and thus still OR, particularly if complex and unresolved religious questions are involved.
• Regardless of OR concerns, this article needs citations. For each entry in the list, there should be a footnote saying where the information comes from (whether it is direct from Reitwiesner's website, or a combination of Reitweisner and some other published report of a birth, death, conversion, etc.) Grover cleveland (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• You think we should list nearly 1,400 references for all these people? Morhange (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If the article's is big enough for a 1400 people, then it's big enough for 1400 references. As an alternative, say something like "all entries, unless otherwise noted, are from Reitwiesner", and only give individual refs for the rest. Grover cleveland (talk) 02:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I added some statistics at the beginning. I would reccommend that this list simply be cut off at descendants of Victoria. If it changes by an average of one person every four days, it would be a full time job to keep it updated. Albert Windsor was born to a royal who was married at the Vatican. The royal family simply considers him to be Catholic from birth. Pacomartin (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-Protestants in line

User:PatGallacher has repeatedly claimed that one has to be Protestant in order to be in line of succession ("The list includes several people who are probably members of the Greek Orthodox church, who are not skipped. By my reading of the law of succession they ought to be skipped, since the succession is restricted to the PROTESTANT descendants of Sophia of Hanover.") Other editors have maintained that (while papists are excluded) one need not be Protestant TO BE IN LINE, but one must be Protestant in order actually TO SUCCEED. User:PatGallacher has also used the word "authoritative" in reference to "the British monarchy website". Currently this website lists in seventh position an individual who is not a Protestant (i.e. somebody who has not yet been baptised). I hope that this settles the matter. Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, as far as I am aware Albert Windsor was not included in this list during his brief period between birth and baptism. My official record from my maternity hospital described me as a Protestant, even though I was not yet baptised. So it seems that for some purposes the religious status of infants is decided by their parents' intentions on how to bring them up, not baptism. I can see some arguments for this approach. PatGallacher (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

With apologies to the seriousness of the issue, and to Monty Python for Every Sperm Is Sacred, "The one thing they say about Catholics is: they'll take you as soon as you're warm". In all due seriousness, though, anyone here's "readings of the law" doesn't really count for much - it's a textbook definition of OR. Achromatic (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is Pat Gallacher's obsession with Eastern Orthodoxy. I presume that there are plenty of atheists, agnostics, and other secularists in the table — what about them? Doops | talk 20:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not an obsession, I was simply pointing it out as the issue where the problems seemed to be the most glaring. Doops correctly points out other areas where there could be problems. PatGallacher (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

But think of all the original research we'd have to engage in to figure out just who is in or out of the table by your standards! So much for Elizabeth and her windows onto men's souls. Doops | talk 21:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! We shouldn't be engaging in original research. So we shouldn't be going beyond what is in reliable sources. PatGallacher (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Catholics have permanently lost their place in the succession; but Greek Orthodox & Rastafarians & Atheists, although they cannot ascend the throne, have not lost their place in line — their place in line is 'saved for them' (as it were) in case they become Protestants again. So since we report facts here in the Wikipedia, not mere speculation, it's not our business to go around removing people from the list based assumptions of what could happen in the future (in the event, extremely unlikely to begin with, that dozens of people all died at once). To do so would be the essence of original research. Doops | talk 22:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Parliament defines, by statute, any alterations or exclusions from the succession. Roman Cathoilics are specifically excluded under a law the Act of Settlement 1701, which SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES Roman Catholics rather than restricting succession to protestants. This is not 'concensus' or 'Original research' -THIS IS THE LAW. Would Pat Gallacher please re-read the sections of the act he has quoted - they are ALL about excluding Catholics, not restricting the succession to Protestants. There is no legal impediment that prevents a Muslim or Rastafarian person assuming the throne and exercising the full powers and responsibilities connected with it, because no law has ever been passed to prevent it. We don't have a written constitution, and such matters are settled by individual bits of legislation dealing with immeadiate issues, without thinking about the broader implications. The acts that PatGallacher refers to deal with a specific issue at the beginning of the 18th Century - excluding the two sons of the deposed monarch James II from the throne as, legally, they had a superior claim under primogeniture but were unnacceptable to Parliament as Catholics. Therefore, Parliament passed a law to exclude Roman Catholics (also neatly excluding the Catholic descendants of Charles I's daughters), which has never been repealed. If future circumstances presented themselves, and Parliament wished to exclude some other group, they would need to pass another law to do so, as the wording of the current law deals with Roman Catholics only. Unless there is a danger of that happening, MPs usually feel they have better things to do. Indisciplined (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Er... I respectfully disagree with your assertions that "ALL [the sections of the Act of Succession are] about excluding Catholics, not restricting the succession to Protestants" and "[t]here is no legal impediment that prevents a Muslim or Rastafarian person assuming the throne and exercising the full powers and responsibilities connected with it, because no law has ever been passed to prevent it." You're correct that s.1 of the Act of Settlement "specifically excludes Roman Catholics rather than restricting succession to protestants", as you say, but s.3 goes further, and states "[t]hat whosoever shall hereafter come to the Possession of this Crown shall joyn [sic] in Communion with the Church of England as by Law established". ^talkGiler 10:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think people are confusing 2 different issues. A Roman Catholic is prohibited even if the offered to convert to Protestantism. As soon as someone converts to Roman Catholicism or marries a Cathiolic, they are barred from the succession, and this cannot be reversed as the law currently stands. This disability is unique, and is laid down in legislation. The reasoning for this is connected with the politics of the late Stuart era - i.e excluding James II's son and male-line grandsons. No other religious group is excluded in this way - the wording of the legislation is absolutely specific to Roman Catholics. It may be morally wrong, but the law is CLEAR. Indisciplined (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Non Protestants who aren't Roman Catholics don't give up there place in the line of sucession but arguably can't take the throne but If they have Anglican Children they can inherit through the non-Roman parents. To Clarify, Its only 'Roman' Catholics that are forbidden, not any other kind of Catholics (Who would normally be called Protestants). Its Mainly Academic but its should be noted.(86.31.191.242 (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC))

Although Roman Catholics are specifically mentioned under the Act of Settlement the act clearly does restrict the Crown to a Protestant line. Please see this link to the Government websitewhich shows the actual act as it stands on the statute books today. Section 1 uses the words "Protestant Line" three times, saying "...a further Provision to be made for the Succession of the Crown in the Protestant Line for the Happiness of the Nation and the Security of our Religion...". It also states "...Provision of the Succession of the Crown in the Protestant Line...". As well as saying "..is hereby declared to be the next in Succession in the Protestant Line to the Imperiall Crown and Dignity of the Realms..." ThinkingTwice (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

User:PatGallacher wrote, "Consensus does not have the ability to overturn fundamental Wikipedia policies e.g. no original research, reliable sources." The consensus of other editors is that this article is NOT original research, and that it is based on reliable sources. One single editor (particularly one who does not have a history of editing this article, or has shown any expertise in the subject) does not have the right to override this consensus. Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Converting from Catholicism

I was wondering what would happen if one of the persons skipped on the list because of being a practicing Catholic, suddenly reverted to Protestantism. For instance, if Lord Nicholas Windsor decided to give up Catholicism, would he be added back into the line of succession? Prsgoddess187 22:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As most people interpret the law, no — the incapacity is permanent. (See Act of Settlement 1701.) Mind you, I'm sure that if the situation ever occurred with somebody close enough to actually have a chance of inheriting, Parliament would be asked to pass legislation clarifying the matter one way or the other. Doops | talk 22:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I never realized that the removal was permanent, but like you say, I am sure that if someone high enough in the LoS converted than reconverted, they would find a way to change the Act. Prsgoddess187 23:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

But does the incapacity apply from e.g. first communion, baptism, birth, or even the moment of conception? PatGallacher (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Most sources think baptism or conversion (whichever is applicable). Personally, I have my doubts about whether infant baptism actually incapacitates (after all, there's a religious argument that babies are baptized Christian, not Catholic; and a legal argument that it's iniquitous to hold infants to their guardians' decisions) but I don't make a big deal about this because that would be original research. Doops | talk 05:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Where are these "most sources" which say that? Your doubts are interesting, I share them myself, but to reject them without any source is original research. PatGallacher (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I want to point out that here's a question for which no right answer exists, and no right answer CAN exist until some UK court considers the matter and settles it, creating a precedent. But that will never happen: there isn't such a thing as a 'line of succession' (it's a theoretical construct) so (although I am not a lawyer) I'm pretty sure if somebody sued to 'regain' his spot at #30 or whatever the court would dismiss the case as being about nothing. Only if somebody were actually dispossessed by the interpretation — i.e. somebody were actually passed over — would he have grounds to bring suit; and of course long before such a thing happened Parliament would have intervened and passed legislation clarifying. So I really think that this is a question for which no answer is ever likely to exist.

My opinion, at any rate, is a purely personal one; I just came up with it out of thin air. Everybody else — from nearly all other Wikipedia editors to the websites this page cites as sources to various articles I've read over the years in the British press (not articles ABOUT this subject, but ones which mention it in passing) to the Royal Family website — seems to assume the contrary. Doops | talk 16:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

don't know that a UK court decision would even settle it. You may find that *if* some one were to be passed over on the grounds of religion, that regardless of parliaments intervention, they might try to take the matter to a european court, even with little grounds. they may even take it to the royal army... it is the crown after all. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.174.152 (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it declared that NN Long(b. 2007) becomes a Roman Catholic?

Miss Morhange excluded NN Long(b. 2007). Is it declared that she becomes a Roman Catholic? Her cousins(currently 70, 71, 72, 73) are Lutherans, despite all of Princess Ragnhild of Norway's children have married catholics. --Motsu (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I took the baby off because in all probability, since her father is Catholic, she would be baptised Catholic too. This may not be the case, but I don't know where we could find a source to say either way :( Morhange (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Miss Morhange (and I'm sorry...). However, I expect that the Norwegian news will be given about her christening as well as her birth. --Motsu (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Article split

Would anyone have any objections if I begin to split this article up into subsections (ie. Line of Succession to the British Throne/Descendants of NN, freeing up some space on the main article and replacing it with a link to the new subsection? PeterSymonds | talk 14:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep the first 100 or so on this page, and split the rest, certainly. MBisanz ^Talk 14:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I object. For one thing (this is not my only concern), how would the numbers on separate pages be continuous? Noel S McFerran (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at Peter's edits and it appears that somehow he has maintained the numerical sequence. MBisanz ^Talk 16:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but I think you should add a numeric list of the sub-articles, so that people realize what the correct order is. Happy138 (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks for that. Will get onto it. PeterSymonds | talk 17:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but has anyone else realised that, whenever anyone is born or died, then the numbers at the start of every page thereafter in the order will need changing? That's going to be tiresome. DBD 18:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I did consider that, and it's a valid point. However, the article was simply too long and quite confusing in its former state. Whenever someone is born or dies, they will be edited in/out, so the numbers could be changed when that occurs. Perhaps a hidden note at the top as a reminder? PeterSymonds | talk 18:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I've just realised the shortfall in my argument! Can pages be linked in some way? So that when something happens to one page, it happens on all that are linked? I'm not sure. PeterSymonds | talk 18:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Subpages (using the '/' notation) are not valid in article space. The sub-articles should be titled as normal articles are, and they need to have introductory prose just as normal articles do. Powers ^T 18:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. A better format would be Descendants of NN in the line of succession to the British Throne.--Pharos (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would just get cluttered. It's more convenient to have everyone on the same page, even it it is long. You may be looking for a specific person, what if the casual browser, for example wants to know at what number the members of the Danish Royal Family are. Would they know that they are descended from Prince Arthur? Would they want to go through four different pages before being able to find any of this out? How would the pages be split? By common ancestor? Descent from George III? Descent from Queen Victoria? Anyway, wasn't there talk of doing this a month or so ago? Morhange (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that the splitting had already been done. I don't know about the way the article looks now, honestly. It's much easier to have people on the same page, that way, we don't have to go through each and every article when a person is born, or dies or becomes or marries a Catholic. That becomes very tedious. Morhange (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the principle of splitting the page; big pages cause problems for users with older browsers, and the guidelines are there for good reasons. However, this isn't it the solution - it makes it very difficult to find something specific if you don't know their descent, something which I'm guessing isn't on most of the individual pages. Not sure what the solution is, but I wish someone more competent than me would revert this. Chrislintott (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What about getting an admin to rollback to the point when I started, but cutting the page down? Maybe have the descendents of Queen Victoria, and give an external link to the rest? PeterSymonds | talk 19:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It'd be a shame to lose the information...is there an easy way to create an alphabetic index? Presumably that might have to be maintained off-wiki but if we could have lists by surname for people that would solve the problem of people looking for specific members of the list. No idea if that's allowable, though Chrislintott (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen alphabetical indexes used so I presume it's allowed. That may be a better suggestion. PeterSymonds | talk 19:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

So that leaves people with an option to click through chronological pages or look for somebody by surname. That sounds good to me - I'll get out of the way after noting that the first set of people will remain on this page, so we don't need to argue through what the senior royals' surname is or isn't. Chrislintott (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of making more pages, we should just get rid of entries after 50.--68.192.47.94 (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

New idea

How about returning them all to the original page, but where there are now links, put a title, with the details hidden. Whoever wants to see them will click "show". What do you think? Happy138 (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That would certainly clear up major confusions of the page as it stood. PeterSymonds | talk 20:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot believe no-one's thought of that before! I'll look into how/whether it can/should be done... DBD 23:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

My efforts have proven problematic — it seems that the 'flow' of the <ol> (and therefore the continuity of the numbering) is interrupted by the method I've used to create a collapse... DBD 23:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There's another way to do a collapse, isn't there? At least I thought there was one... Morhange (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I daresay m'dear, I daresay. I'll keep looking. On the morrow. DBD 01:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

PeterSymonds made a very bold edit today. I have now reverted it. Now is the time for discussion to achieve consensus. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As regards the technical difficulties, those who are in favour of a change should figure these out in their own sandboxes. Then they can tell the rest of us here to take a look at their user pages without messing around with the current article. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The good intent was there, but I can see the problems it may cause. At any rate, something needs to be done about the article, I believe. I wonder if there is a template or something that can add a number to each number in a list, which would make it easier to break it up a little bit. Charles 04:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Two ideas I've had on this issue

1. Eliminate the indented people who are NOT in the line of succession, replacing it with something like "skipping 26 ineligble persons"

2. setting a hard cap of say the first 500 positions.MBisanz ^Talk 07:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. For example, in the descendants of Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom, there are over 50 or so names but only one of them is in the line of succession (Catholic Spain descent). Is this necessary? None of the names are wikilinked and are not important enough to have articles. We could just say that 50 or so people are not in the line. Or we could hide them, so if people want to see them they can click "show". PeterSymonds | talk 10:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly favour hiding them instead of deleting them. If you just say '50 people' then it's hard for anyone to know - if they want to add someone - whether its already been done or not. If someone is searching for someone without realising they've been skipped then they should be able to find them. Chrislintott (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well this is the line of succession to the British Throne, not the list of people who could be king :). In any case, my biggest issue with this page is it sheer size, even cutting it to the first 1000 places would be a drastic improvement. MBisanz ^Talk 14:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that hiding lots of the names wouldn't reduce the size acceptably? Chrislintott (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My fault, I wasn't clear, I meant page size. If anything, adding the expansion boxes would increase page size and be the opposite of what I prefer. MBisanz ^talk 14:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Juan Carlos of Spain is among that list of Beatrice's skipped descendants. I daresay he's important enough to have his own article :) Morhange (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem with the size?

This article presently attracts some attention because it is approximately 322 Kbytes - the longest Wikipedia article. The article on Wikipedia:Article size discusses some of the issues with length. It talks about readability - but notes that lists are an exception. It talks about technical issues with editing, and notes that the possibility of section editing has removed most of these problems. It talks about some web browsers which have display problems for articles over 400 Kbytes - not a problem with this article. It specifically states, "Avoid arbitrary splitting mainspace articles unless there is a demonstrated technical problem loading the page on at least one major browser." I can't see that this article's length is currently a problem. Can somebody show why they think there is a problem? Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The main section (the first) is extremely unwieldy and severely needs section breaks, minimally. Powers ^T 16:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've edited this page dozens and dozens of times in the last year; I'm not aware that Powers has ever edited this page. I won't say that editing is easy, but the fact that there is ae a number of dedicated editors who maintain the page at the current high standard shows that it can be done. As far as I am aware there is no way of breaking the list into sections without losing the numbering sequence. For a list such as this, the numbering sequence is one of the most important things. Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You asked what the problem was; I told you. I didn't mean to imply it was easily solved. Powers ^T 21:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful, Noel - several times on this page, you make reference to people voicing an opinion as "not being people who have worked (significantly) on this page". Editors are entitled to express their opinion, and an editor who has made but one, or even no, edits to an article is as entitled (within the grounds of consensus, etc) to do as much as any other. I must say, that having read for the third time you remark on someone as "not being noted as an editor of on this page", particularly in reference to how many times you have edited it, would be stepping very close to WP:OWN. Achromatic (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

When other editors comment on how difficult it is to edit this page - but haven't ever tried to - it's perfectly reasonable for those of us who do edit this page to cite our own experience and point out that it is possible. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to add sections without disrupting the numbering. I just added one between positions 1037 and 1038. Adding more would certainly be a good idea, but I'll let those who know the topic better decide where they should be. Pruneau^talk 11:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Photographs

Currently this article includes several photographs of those in line (Charles; Kings of Norway, Sweden, and Spain; Queens of Denmark, the Netherlands, and Spain). I suggest that all be removed. With the exception of Charles, there are other people who are more important to the line of succession than European sovereigns; it seems to be just a curiosity. I suggest removing all the photographs. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

- They make it easier to locate those who are mentioned at the very end of the article (other European soveregins).Norwegianzealot (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Splitting out misc sections

Two of the miscellaneous sections at the bottom have been split out as separate articles. This is probably a good idea since it helps (at least a bit) with the large article size. I would suggest moving the section on Other monarchs in the line of succession to the split page List of other royal and princely houses in the line of succession to the British Throne since thye contain similar information and monarchs are heads of royal houses by definition.

The other page Family branches of the line of succession to the British Throne is more problematic since it simply sets out information already included in the main page in a, IMHO, hard to read schematic format. I'd suggest simply deleting it as unnecessary but thought I should ask here since there is no point listing it for deletion if there is a consensus that it is encyclopedic and useful. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Length

From: Talk:Line of succession to the British throne Whilst I understand some might say that the only value to a list like this is if it is complete, at what point do we realistically say "Stop"? The current list is some 1,300+ entries long. Do we say 100? (Probably not, too few), 500 (perhaps), 1,000 (a realistic maximum)? After all, ultimately, isn't every British subject somewhere in the line of succession (or am I channelling a Neil Gaiman short story here)? Achromatic (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As said before, the Line Of Succession To The British Throne is restricted to the descendants of Sophia of Hanover. This is, I've heard, about 4800 people, probably much less when you discount the Catholics. As I've also said, a law should be passed that limits the line of succession to descendants of George V (as has similarly happened in Denmark and Sweden), but since such a law has not been passed, all Sophia's non-Papist and legitimate descendants are legally in the Line of Succession, so there you go. Lec CRP1 (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the education! Thanks :) Achromatic (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete?

It would seem the list in this article is incomplete. The order of succession contains over 4000 names.

www.wargs.com/essays/succession/2001.html

Ordinary Person (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that everyone knows this, but we already have a big enough problem with the article being too long to begin with. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Those skipped

If we want a smaller article, why don't we move the names of those who are skipped to a new article titled List of individuals skipped in the British line of sucession or something like that? Emperor001 (talk) 20:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't need a new article, we should just delete those people from the list since they aren't in line anyway. If there is an argument that they need to stay on the list to keep track for non-Catholic descendants I call bull, that's just reason to shorten the entire list itself. Charles 17:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask why those who are described as skipped, without explanation, are skipped - I was very interested to read the article, but it didn't fully explain that! --Nunners (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

They are either baptised Roman Catholics or people who have married Roman Catholics. There are also some people on the list who are skipped because they are the illegitimate issue of someone on the list, and though were later legitimised by their parents' marriage, this still makes them exempt. Morhange (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Length

Absurdly long, not very encyclopedic, please think about chopping several hundred names off the list. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I know it's long, but as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should strive to provide as much information as possible. As I've said before, if it's too long, cut the list of those who've been skipped and move it to another article. Emperor001 (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just thought I'd remind everyone... Skiasaurus (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I split the long section into easier-to-edit sections. A more logical split would have been a hierarchical split showing all "ancestor hierarchies" for any given lowest-level-section. My goal was just to make it easier to edit to to look neat and spiffy. Redo it if you like. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I like it being more edit-friendly, but now I think it looks more cluttered, admittedly... Morhange (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The longest page on the wiki! C Teng 20:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sectioned off roughly every other generation

I created sections for roughly every other generation. After Victoria's descendants, I got lazy and didn't section when I could have. Please feel free to add them. Also, when necessary, I created sections with only 1 generation. At the very end there are two nearly-empty mid-generation sections waiting for names. Please do not remove them unless you are replacing them with sections that conform to the rest of the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 07:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia

Wouldn't Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia, mother of the actress Catherine Oxenberg, figure somewhere in this list? In the general vicinity of the other Yugoslav royals? At least as someone passed over? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfsareeer (talk • contribs) 11:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything British in her ancestry, what are you thinking of? The ones listed here are included because of their ancestry through Maria of Romania, who was Elizabeth's father's cousin's consort. -- Jao (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

She comes in the next section to be added: Sophia → George I → Sophia Dorothea of Hanover → Prince Augustus William of Prussia → Frederick William III of Prussia → Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it out. I should, of course, have looked further before believing that a European royal were not in line to the British throne. -- Jao (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the geneology of Catherine of Oxenburg. It is one of the bloodlines that was not spelled out. { G } F ( BIRTH ) NAME { 0 } X ( 22-Sep-61 ) Catherine Oxenberg { 1 } M ( 7-Apr-36 ) Princess Elisabeth of Yugoslavia { 2 } M ( 11-Jun-03 ) Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark { 3 } P ( 22-Jan-72 ) Prince Nikolaos of Greece and Denmark { 4 } M ( 22-Aug-51 ) Queen Olga of Greece { 5 } M ( 8-Jul-30 ) Princess Alexandra von Sachsen-Altenburg { 6 } M ( 28-Jun-99 ) Herzogin (Duchess) Amelia von Württemberg { 7 } M ( 22-Apr-80 ) Princess Henriette von Nassau-Weilburg { 8 } M ( 28-Feb-43 ) Princess Carolina of Orange-Nassau { 9 } M ( 2-Nov-09 ) Princess Anne of Great Britain and Ireland, Princess Royal { 10 } P ( 30-Oct-83 ) George II, King of Great Britain and Ireland [1727-1760 ] { 11 } P ( 28-May-60 ) George I, King of Great Britain and Ireland [ 1714-1727 ] { 12 } M ( 14-Oct-30 ) Sophia, Electress of Hanover Cut it off at descendants of Victoria. People may be able to maintain a list of 500 names or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacomartin (talk • contribs) 18:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about Princess Alexia of Greece...

It says that she was skipped and when I clicked on her name and saw that her husband has a Spanish-looking name I guessed why. But can someone confirm whether or not her children are "papist"? Since if they are, should they not be skipped? GiovanniCarestini (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Alexia's husband is Roman Catholic, but their children are Greek Orthodox. See here, here and here which say how the children were baptised according to the Orthodox rites. Morhange (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you also happen to know about Duchess Marie of Wurttemberg (skipped around 558) and her children? I understand that her husband's mother, Princess Diane, is Catholic, but is the entire family as well? GiovanniCarestini (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Marie, her husband Friedrich, and their three children are all Catholic. There are published articles about the baptism of each child. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Honorifics

I think the honorifics (HM, HRH, etc.) should be removed as a violation of WP:NPOV. If nobody objects I will remove them. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could be more specific about why you think this is a violation of WP:NPOV. Do you also think it a violation of WP:NPOV for us to refer to somebody who has received a university medical degree as "Dr."? Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Here I am, objecting. HM and HRH aren't POV at all, you silly billy you! DBD 11:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And I object, too. Honorifics are officially designated titles and are an official part of a person's name. I would be curious to hear in what way WP:NPOV is being interpreted that makes it appear as if official honorifics (and HRH, HM, Hon. are indisputably official) are somehow expressing a point of view. 23skidoo (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nameless Girls

Four people on the list, Babies Long, Soltmann, Roderburg and Iuel are all still nameless. Are there any sources that could help point out names for these little girls? Morhange (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter Phillips

I see Peter Phillips and Autumn Kelly were married yesterday. From this reference on his and her page, she's now an Anglican. From what I understand of the Act of Succession, shouldn't Peter Phillips be excluded now, even though Autumn Kelly 'converted'? Could anyone confirm if he should still be in the list or not? Craigy (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, because at the time of their marriage, she was Anglican. I believe the exclusion only happens if the spouse is Roman Catholic at the time of the marriage. Morhange (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarity

It may help to improve readability if a colon (:) is added in front of to show certain divisions. I will give an example:

HRH The Prince of Wales (The Prince Charles; b. 1948), son of Queen Elizabeth II

HRH Prince William of Wales (b. 1982), son of The Prince of Wales

HRH Prince Henry of Wales (b. 1984), son of The Prince of Wales

HRH The Duke of York (The Prince Andrew; b. 1960), son of Queen Elizabeth II

HRH Princess Beatrice of York (b. 1988), daughter of The Duke of York

HRH Princess Eugenie of York (b. 1990), daughter of The Duke of York

HRH The Earl of Wessex (The Prince Edward; b. 1964), son of Queen Elizabeth II

James, Viscount Severn (legally HRH Prince James of Wessex; b. 2007), son of The Earl of Wessex

Lady Louise Windsor (legally HRH Princess Louise of Wessex; b. 2003), daughter of The Earl of Wessex

HRH The Princess Royal (The Princess Anne; b. 1950), daughter of Queen Elizabeth II

Peter Phillips (b. 1977), son of The Princess Royal

Zara Phillips (b. 1981), daughter of The Princess Royal

Victoria → Edward VII → George V → George VI → Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon

David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley (b. 1961), son of Princess Margaret

The Hon. Charles Armstrong-Jones (b. 1999), son of Viscount Linley

The Hon. Margarita Armstrong-Jones (b. 2002), daughter of Viscount Linley

Lady Sarah Chatto (b. 1964), daughter of Princess Margaret

Samuel Chatto (b. 1996), son of Lady Sarah Chatto

Arthur Chatto (b. 1999), son of Lady Sarah Chatto

Victoria → Edward VII → George V → Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester

HRH The Duke of Gloucester (Prince Richard; b. 1944), son of Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester

Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster (b. 1974), son of the Duke of Gloucester

(I realize that the numbers have been lost, I copied this from the article and I don't know what happened) And so forth. I believe that this will make it much easier to read, as when I was looking at the list, there were several times where I became confused about who was the child of whom. Secondly, there are several parts of the article when it says either sister of or brother of, when it should say son/daughter of. The first instance I can find is number 34, where it says that Princess Alexandria is sister of the Duke of Kent. This is confusing and it should say daughter of Prince George, Duke of Kent. Just a few suggestions trying to be helpful. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Article length and technical browser limitations

The article is long at over 300KB. Some browsers are known to break when editing entire articles over 400KB. Fortunately, logged-in users don't have this problem now that they can easily edit the introduction as a standalone section.

When this article is complete and has all the 4800-or-so names it should have, this may be a real problem. At that point, I recommend splitting off any section bigger than 80% of the technical size limit, whatever that may be.

As a point of information, at 138KB, "1.1.5 Descendants of Princess Carolina of Orange-Nassau (1743–1787)" is the largest section at its indent-level today.

Note: The servers must have a sense of humor or maybe it's just karma, but as I was about to post this, I get an error screen that says "Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought that we don't have to provide a list of every single person in line of succession to the British throne. I don't know if this word is allowed but I think it is cruft. In my opinion, cutting it off at 100 or 250 would be much, much better and I would never visit this page again if it got to 4800 or so people. If we don't do it all, why can't we pare it back? All or something (better). Charles 03:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically, we have 3 choices: 1) make a concerted effort to have a complete list of 4800 names, 2) have an article called "Line of succession..." but only populate it as much as editors are willing to do so, leaving large sections un- or under-populated, or 3) rename the article to something else. #2 is the current state of affairs and appears to be the community consensus. Until someone actually makes an effort to make the list 100% complete, there is no need to tell him "no, we don't want that on Wikipedia."

Personally, I would love to see the complete list on Wikipedia. That way, if people didn't like it, we could have an honest discussion on whether to trim or delete it, and we would have some sense of its value to the project. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Old people

1402 and 1411 were born in 1908. Surely they must have died by now? (They're the oldest people in the list. And they're cousins.) Does anyone know? --Mark J (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

While 100 is old for sure, I don't think it qualifies them as automatically dead, I'm sure that there are many people over 100 who would object to being classified as dead :) -- Gudeldar (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide citations when adding-removing names

Normal citations are probably inappropriate for a list like this but please document it in the edit summary, here on the talk page, in HTML comments &lt!-- like this -->, or put it in the edit then edit-out the documentation. Otherwise, people won't believe you and will revert your edits. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing Orignal Research and Citations Missing maintenance tags

Do we still need {{Original research|date=December 2007}} and {{Citations missing|date=March 2008}}? An anonymous editor removed them but any removal should follow a discussion period and the removal point to the discussion in the edit summary. I've undone the edit for now. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The great majority of this article is clearly OR and also lacking citations. I've given my arguments for this above on this talkpage, and as far as I can see no one has tried to contradict them. Grover cleveland (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of people listed on this page appear in William Addams Reitwiesner's list Persons eligible to succeed to the British Throne as of 1 Jan 2001. It is patently false to suggest that "the great majority of this article is clearly OR". Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We are aware that this article does owe a good deal to Reitwiesner's list. The reasons why that does not clinch the argument have been gone over before, see above. PatGallacher (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

This is a genuine question, I'm not saying this is an error. I'm not sure if Charles Edward abdicated or was deposed as Duke but he lost his title somehow. Are we sure that his issue are still part of the succession? Mallanox 20:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Split

This article really should be split into different pages bases on the bloodlines. Its the longest article on en wikipedia.--Finalnight (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The mere fact that this article is the longest on English Wikipedia is not an argument in favour of splitting; something has to be the longest article. Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No to splitting, but congrats to everyone for making the longest article on Wikipedia :-) Craigy (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It being 200 KB over recommended splitting length is an argument in favor and please do not remove discussion templates from the page before they can be seen and considered.--Finalnight (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the section headers already put the framework in place to cleanly split it.--Finalnight (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This was proposed some time ago. Splitting the article makes maintenance difficult. Each time a person is born or dies, one would have to first search for which line of descent they belong to, then add or remove them, then update each other page with the new numbers. Despite the length, which is to be expected for an article like this, maintaining a series of 10 or more articles is easily a big pain. Morhange (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to create a transition point (perhaps 100 and above) to have a list of "notable" royals? I am not sure those who are hundreds away from the throne are notable.--Finalnight (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the Line of succession to the British throne, not the List of notable people in the line of succession to the British throne. Morhange (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok by that reasoning on the article scope and purpose, why are all the people who are not part of the line included under the disclaimer "skipped"? Removing them would shorten the list quite a bit. The title isn't List of people in the line of succession to the British throne and those who got skipped.--Finalnight (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Not true, because were it not for their Roman Catholicism, they would be in line. It also helps for families where the mother may be Catholic or married to a Catholic, like Ileana Snyder/Countess Ileana von Habsburg-Lothringen or Princess Alexia of Greece and Denmark, where they are skipped, but their Protestant (in Ileana's case) or Greek Orthodox (in Alexia's) children are not. Morhange (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, fine, I give up. Looks like this behemoth isn't reduceable. At least I was able to take out #2 on the list tonight. Best of luck in your editing.--Finalnight (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

About the only logical splits I could think of would be to turn this article into a "wrapper" article to several other articles called "Descendants of name," and put the place numbers for each for those eligible for the throne. This is not easy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Not all that difficult to get the page numbers to autoincrement from something other than 1:

100. Foo
101. Bar

However, it would mean using raw HTML instead of wikicode in the table. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It would also mean the numbers on all the sub-pages would have to be updated manually whenever someone entered or left the line of succession. IMHO this is not a very good idea. Alkari (?), 1 July 2008, 22:28 UTC

I am not in favour of a split for the reasons stated above. But I thought this list of the number of descendants in line (from the current table) may be informative.

Elizabeth II – 12

George VI – 18

Edward VIII NA

George V – 54

Edward VII – 83

Victoria – 496

Prince Edward Augustus (Victoria's father) – 496

William IV - NA

George IV – NA

George III – 528

Frederick, Prince of Wales (G III's father) – 1035

George II - 1341

Alan Davidson (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to split article by transclusion

This test shows what we can do with transclusion. It doesn't look like much, in fact, there is no visible change to the casual reader.

It does give rise to three new articles:

• User:Davidwr/test/Descendants of George II
• User:Davidwr/test/Descendants of George III
• User:Davidwr/test/Descendants of Queen Victoria

You will notice that in each article as well as the full list, the numbering is correct.

Other differences:

• When you edit a section, you will return to the article that actually contains the text, not the main article. This could be a bit jarring.
• When you edit a section that includes the entirety of another article, the preview will show the included article as well. This can be annoying.

If this looks good to everyone, I'll mimic this change on the current list. I'll probably rename them List of descendants of ... to be properly Wiki. I'll also add appropriate header and footer information including See also links. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks okay, though the TOC looks rather packed. Morhange (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed the TOC level from 3 to 6 to aide in breaking things up. I'll leave it at 3 when I do the real thing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)

I like it; very nice. As long as no-one cascade-protects the main article it should be fine. :D Thanks David. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This proposal would reduce the byte-size of the article so that there would not be regular complaints about large article size from people who have not read this talk page. It does not change the size of the article as displayed. The article would be more difficult for most wiki-editors to edit since few people know about transclusion. On the other hand, the article would be easier to edit by regular editors of this article who would be in the know. I think that it would be useful to add a parenthetical statement (which only shows in editing mode) explaining how this works and how to edit one of the sub-articles. Having said all that, I think that this is a good-faith effort to address some of the concerns expressed by other editors without destroying the integrity of the article. Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand the policy on subpages and transclusion, this is not supposed to happen. Transclusion is used when a section is used on different pages, to centralize the content (e.g. for a discussion, or with templates). This is a case where the transclusion would only happen on this article, creating effectively three subpages. Please check the section on subpages on Wikipedia:Transclusion: while it is incorrect that subpages are technically impossible, it is correct that they are not allowed (Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed uses point 3). The transclusion page also states that "it is the use of the template functionality of MediaWiki to include the same content in multiple documents". This is not what is happening here. Oh, and the article would not be noticeable easier to edit, in my opinion, since people usually edit per section anyway. Either reduce the length of the list, or truly split the list in different pages (see Wikipedia:Splitting) if for some obscure reason we do need to have the 1349th person in line for succession. Fram (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The disallowed use "Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia", is specifically about subpages, i.e. "pages separated with a "/" (a forward slash) from their 'parent' page". These pages are presently subpages (of User:Davidwr), but they would not be if the proposal were adopted. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I fear that that is following the letter of the "law", but not the spirit. Transclusion is used for content which should be the same on multiple pages (templates, discussions, ...): transclusion of content that is only displayed on one page is actually creating a subpage. These, by the way, will be three pages which will appear through "random pages" and as separate entries on "recent changes" and "what links here", but will not be good independent pages (no intro, context, ...) for someone coming across them in this way. This is a serious disadvantage of these pages. These are not pages that could be regarded as independent (i.e. pages that could be read on their own), so they are subpages, and go against the intented use of transclusion. For all these reasons, I do oppose this kind of semi-split. Fram (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly possible to use the <noinclude> mechanism to provide a separate header and footer for each of the articles. You talk about 3 different article for "randompages" etc. - that was part of my intent. Technically, we could make 2 template-space pages to hold the descendants of Victoria and George II respectively. The latter template would transclude the former. We could then create 3 mainspace articles called "Descendants of Victoria in line for the British crown", "Descendants of George II in line for the British Crown," and the current article. I view that as a cluttering of the template: space, which is why I proposed this solution. We could also create another template to handle the common parts of the introduction to all 3 articles. This would properly be in template: space. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that solution is even more complicated. What I propose (a second choice: preference goes to a list of about 200 people, and short decsriptions of the next groups: "next come the descendants of Prince X, Lord Y, and Sir Z of A") is to keep the first 200 or so on this page, and then to link to two or three other pages: list of pretendents 201-500, list of pretendents 501-1000, ..., each with an introduction and so on. No templates, no transclusion, just a simple split. Any reason why this is not acceptable? Fram (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In my view, the sensible thing to do with this article is not to split it but to cut out the original research and reduce it to a size which is supported by the British monarchy website or other reliable sources. If someone creates an article which is entirely original research then I may take it to AFD. PatGallacher (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the reliable sources is a book which, if previous editors were telling the truth, was the basis for the bulk of the names. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

1445th in line to the throne

This bloated article needs to go that far? --Allemandtando (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically, this should include all descendants of Sophia who are eligible for the throne. I've seen estimates that this is in the 4-6,000-person range. So, in the interest of being complete, the answer is yes, and we are well under halfway there.

The real question is, do we need an article called "Line of succession to the British Throne" and if we do, should it mean what the title says? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think an article on the line of succession which talks about the laws and rules etc, with a list of perhaps 50 odd, then a seperate article listing the descendants of Sophia. Astrotrain (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't we already have one of those? Morhange (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeez!

Why on Earth is this article so long? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are far too many names listed here. The length is impossible to manage, and harmful to readers/users on certain browsers. I propose that either:

• this list is toned down to a certain number of names (I would say 100, but I don't mind particularly on the exact value, so long as it's a lot less than now, and each name on the list is sourced).
• OR if people really desire this many names (though I can't see why) then each section in this article should be given it's own article to list all the names.

Deamon138 (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the numerous answers to this question which already appear above on this talk page. Wikipedia presently gives the complete list of those in the United States presidential line of succession; it doesn't just present the first half of those in line of succession - in spite of the fact that never ever has there been an occasion when things have gone beyond the first in line. The fact that there are more people in line of succession to the British throne than there are to the U.S. presidency does not mean that we should only provide partial information in the first case. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If some people are skipped (for various reasons) doesn't that mean that they aren't in the line of succession? Just a thought. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 06:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The reason for listing them is two-fold:

1. If not listed, other well-meaning editors will add them back in not realising that there is a reason for them not being listed.

2. In the case of papists and those who have married papists, their future non-papist legitimate descendants will be in line. Noel S McFerran (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. The likelihood of Catholics not baptising their (#1000 in line for the throne) children as Catholic seems unlikely anyway. I would argue that this article be reduced to the 40 listed on the royal site for clarity. Though I'm 100% sure that a number of people would disagree given the article we have! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In the 21st century it is certainly possible that Catholics would not baptise their children as Catholic. Indeed, in the top forty there are two children of a Catholic who were not baptised Catholic. Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering the amount of discussion on this talk page about it being too long, I would say that there isn't consensus to have any more than 40 names listed, unless 41+ are sourced. Right now they aren't. Is there any chance of that happening? Deamon138 (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be perfectly possible to add a footnote for everyone born before 2001 citing Reitwiesner's "Persons Eligible to Succeed to the British Throne as of 1 Jan 2001". That would make the page at least 50% longer than it currently is. I think that most editors would consider that undesirable. Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading the section above it seems consensus is that right now this is OR after the first 40 names. Comments there suggest it is debatable whether the Rietwiesnear source is a reliable source (it's way out of date for one thing), but at the moment that is irrelevant to me. To quote User:Grover cleveland from above, "If the article's is big enough for a 1400 people, then it's big enough for 1400 references."

How can it be original research, when one of the leading genealogists in the United States (William Addams Reitwiesner) has published this information on his website? Do you know how well-respected he is in contemporary genealogical circles? If you are unable to do any more extensive research, at least do a Google search before questioning whether he is "a reliable source". Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: it seems consensuss is that right now this is OR after the first 40 names - I may not have said so above, but I'm on the record now as strongly disagreeing, to the point that I'm willing to block consensus if anyone tries to say that there is consensus on the names 41 all being WP:OR. In particular, those names in the 2001 static listing should be considered as coming from a reliable, 3rd party source unless there is a reason to think they aren't or some good reason to think that this source is unreliable. That should cover just about everyone born before 2001. See my comments below and my recent edit to the article page for more details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There is of course the problem with size, in that it might break some older browsers, and yes citing a source would add to that problem, but that can be dealt with afterwards. The most important part is for it all to be sourced. Deamon138 (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Need for footnotes is now clear: Names before 2001 are presumed to be in Addington. Names in the top 40 are presumed to be in the official web site, and other names added before today are presumed to be in Theroff, Lundy, van de Pas, or Velde. Anyone added after today who isn't in one of those lists should be footnoted. By extension, anyone adding a name who IS in one of those lists should say so in the edit comments and be prepared to defend the claim. Barring errors in Addington, the only names on the list that won't be in that source will be post-2001 births, finding an online or newspaper reference shouldn't be too hard. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Noel, I did not describe Reitwiesner as an unreliable source, I said that others had suggested that above, but I went on to say, "at the moment that is irrelevant to me". It is odd that he doesn't have his own article though.

David, "I'm willing to block consensus if anyone tries to say that there is consensus on the names 41 all being WP:OR" I think this was just probably a typo on your part, because if there is consensus for something on Wikipedia, we do it, we don't become "willing to block consensus" if said consensus exists. But does this consensus exist here? Let's see:

• Editors who think this list is too many (so should be smaller or split), or needs to have inline sources if it's going to be this long: Gudeldar, Charles, Timothy Horrigan, DBD, Chameleon, Nudge67, PatGallacher, Achromatic, Grover cleveland, PeterSymonds, Mbisanz, Happy138, Pharos, Chrislintott, LtPowers, Eluchil404, Mynameisnotpj, Mglovesfun, Skiasaurus, Finalnight, possibly Caerwine (debatable), Fram, Allemandtando, Astrotrain, Sillyfolkboy, ALoan, Todd661, MacGyverMagic, Matchups, Colin. Total =~30
• Editors who think this list is fine as is or should have more names: Charlieh7337, possibly Emperor001 (debatable), McFerran, Davidwr, Chrislintott, Morhange, possibly Ordinary Person (debatable), Craigy144, possibly Alkari (debatable), possibly Dsmdgold (debatable), possibly Phoenix2 (debatable). Total =~11

As you can see, I may well be right about there being consensus for there being too many names in one article or that any huge amount of names like 1000 should all have inline sources.

"other names added before today are presumed to be in Theroff, Lundy, van de Pas, or Velde" Yes but which are each from? If it's not clear exactly which of those four sources it comes from, it is unsourced.

"the only names on the list that won't be in that source will be post-2001 births, finding an online or newspaper reference shouldn't be too hard" I highly doubt that a newspaper would mention if a newly born is the 1392nd in line to the British throne. (Wouldn't altering the information of a 7 year old source with new sources but keeping some of the old names be in violation of WP:SYN anyway?) It will be rare we would be able to get new sources for such high numbers, so I think that line you sometimes see on the top of lists in italics should be added, you know about it being "incomplete" and "may always lack certain standards of completeness" or whatever.

You guys shouldn't complain that I said it is OR at the moment: there has been a huge tag on here about this since December 2007. This mainly stems from it not having inline citations, and there is another tag on here about that since March 2008. Back in May 2007, this article completely failed an FLC (see here), with the main reason given being lack of inline citations. Moreover, Reitwiesner and two of the other sources were described as unreliable because they were from their personal websites. This doesn't bother me right now, but if we were looking towards making the list as best as can be, the sources wouldn't do. Anyway, this article hasn't improved since that FLC, if anything it has got worse (see here, be warned this may slow your browser a lot, another problem we have here). While it has gained 100kb of info, it hasn't gained the inline cites for the original 200kb let alone the next 100kb. Anyway, I say we should definitely have inline cites if we are going to have a list this long. I disagree that we need a list this long anyway: splitting or reducing would help. But at the end of the day we shouldn't have thousands of names lacking inline sources. Deamon138 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

First off, on lower-down names where the newspaper won't say "he's 1392nd in line" the newspaper will say "He's the son of Duke and Duchess so-and-so. He will be baptized at Westminster Abby on 2 October 2008." While technically you might be able to claim it's original research to conclude that since neither of the parents is Catholic the person will be inserted into the line of succession, that's about as original as 1392+1=1393. In other words, if it's WP:OR based on a hypertechnicality, then WP:IAR applies. Of course, the newspaper should be cited as evidence that this child is descended from someone already in line.

Second off, WP:CONSENSUS is based in large part on the strength of the arguments and by implication how strongly those in the minority will defend their positions. I can't find it now, but an earlier version of WP:CONSENSUS or a related page said something like you don't know if you've reached consensus until you do something and nobody objects. That same version said consensus was achieved when those in the minority had a real opportunity to voice their concerns and that those in the majority took those concerns seriously. In non-wikipedia contexts, consensus can mean "conceding" where everyone in the minority conceded that the decision of the majority is the best decision all things considered, where "all things" included the cost of delaying a decision. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if we accept Reitwiesner as an RS, how do we know that people on his list have not died or had children since it was compiled? With e.g. a Duke this probably would be recorded in the press, but many people on this list are a lot more obscure than that. There must come a point in the future when Reitwiesner cannot be regarded even as a good starting point, when might that be? While I accept that we can reasonably conclude that the child of 2 non-Catholic parents is unlikely to be brought up a Catholic, the OR issues in relation to religious qualifications are a lot more complicated than this, for a whole series of reasons which have already been explained. PatGallacher (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"While technically you might be able to claim it's original research to conclude that since neither of the parents is Catholic the person will be inserted into the line of succession, that's about as original as 1392+1=1393" Well it would be original research because you would be violating WP:SYN. If it's not mentioned explicitly in the newspaper/other source, then the subject is clearly not noted for being the 1392nd in line.

"In other words, if it's WP:OR based on a hypertechnicality, then WP:IAR applies." According to WP:IAR?, "A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be able to do that at all times. In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus." I shall expand on this point later on below.

"an earlier version of WP:CONSENSUS or a related page said something like you don't know if you've reached consensus until you do something and nobody objects" I believe you're thinking of WP:SILENCE. It's true that silence implies consensus, but this isn't applicable to this situation. Where is the silence now? There have been three users in just this section arguing against the status quo. That is not silence.

"Second off, WP:CONSENSUS is based in large part on the strength of the arguments and by implication how strongly those in the minority will defend their positions." I agree it is, I was just using the numbers above as a ballpark, as it does make me question whether there has been consensus. Even if consensus was reached in the past, consensus can change. Furthermore, I would say that if those in the minority are arguing against the status quo, then those in the minority are arguing quite strongly (that would be me, the fact that the same points keep being raised all over this page, and the fact that PatGallacher is arguing against the status quo still and has been since December at least, maybe more in the archives?). Now onto the strength of the arguments. Those against the status quo have listed policies such as WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, WP:LENGTH, WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE at least. Those for the status quo seem only to have listed WP:IAR. But as I said above using WP:IAR?, you can't ignore all rules if you don't justify why we should ignore those rules. At the moment it seems like those in favour of changing the status quo seem to have the stronger argument, unless there's any policies that you have mentioned but I've missed? Deamon138 (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Fish or cut bait: Either rename the article or strive to complete it

Would Wikipedia be best if it had a complete list of people in the line of succession to the British Throne, a list of the top 40 people in the line of succession, a list of the top 100, the top 1000, or some other number, or some number along with a list of rules that are used to complete the whole list. Once we answer that question, we can create the appropriately-titled articles and strive to complete them. The current title only works if the article is the complete list or the article is primarily about how the list is formed and, optionally, contains a manageable subset, such as the top 100 plus anyone else who is notable in their own right. Anything else, such an article that is primarily a list that is less than complete, should have an article title that reflects its content. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Within the past two days I reduced the unlisted names by 10%. It shouldn't take much longer. Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If it helps anyone, I have my attempts at tracing two missing chunks in my user area: User:DBD/Line of succession to the British Throne, Sophia Dorothea of Hanover and User:DBD/Line of succession to the British Throne, Archduke Frederick, Duke of Teschen — if it helps you, you can use it, I've included the links I use to create the listings... It's all prety self-explanatory DBD 10:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If the article only had (say) 40 names on it, why would you need to rename it? Firstly, we can never be sure that this list is complete, despite Noel's assurance that it won't take much longer. We can never be sure that this list is complete, since how are we meant to know if some person on this list has given birth or died? There would be far far too many names to check. That is not an argument against having all the names per se, just that if we thought we did have all the names here, we couldn't know for sure. Anyway, that is why I suggested somewhere above about having the "incomplete" italics comment on this list. Secondly, let's say we restricted this list and then renamed it. What would you rename it to? Line of succession to the British throne up to forty? But that "up to forty" bit would count as a "qualifier" in my eyes, and Wikipedia is explicit about us not including qualifiers unless there is a disambiguation problem. There is no other Line of succession to the British throne article, so there is no disambig problem. Hence, we don't need the qualifier, and if any limitation occurs on the numbers in this article, we can keep the current title. I mean forty names or a billion names (an exaggeration I know lol), either way it's contents would still be Line of succession to the British throne. Deamon138 (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly difficult to keep this article perfectly accurate - but the same could be said for many articles. It is perfectly possible for this article to be complete; the succession is limited to the descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hannover (i.e. a finite number of people). Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well yes it is a finite amount of people, but my point was that we can never be sure exactly how many finite people. One of the more obscure names on this list might give birth or die, (or even convert Catholicism, which would remove them from the list it seems, right?), and it might not get it reported in the media, so it would be unlikely we would find out until a lengthy period of time had occurred. Deamon138 (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

How exactly is that different from almost any other article about living people in Wikipedia? Sometimes deaths aren't known about for years. Williamb (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, we have a category "Possibly living people" to cover doubtful cases. Secondly, if someone is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia biography then there is the serious chance that their death will be reported, but many people on this list are not sufficiently notable. Thirdly, in order to keep this list up to date we also need to keep track of births of children to people of borderline notability, which are less likely to be publicised than their deaths. PatGallacher (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That sums it up nicely Pat. Just to clarify one point: at the moment 99% of the people on this list aren't notable enough for their own article. Deamon138 (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that anybody has suggested that there should be a Wikipedia article about all the people on this list. Most of the facts in a Wikipedia article are not notable enough for an article specifically on any of those facts.

But the fact that many of these people are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article does not mean that there are not sources about their births, marriages, and deaths. The people who comment on this talk page but do not contribute to this article are clearly unaware of the many sources available to those of us who do contribute to the article. There are the print works by Eilers (Koenig), McNaughton, Addington, and Willis, as well as the online works by Theroff, Lundy, van de Pas, and many others. A number of editors belong to online discussion groups which regularly report on the births, marriages, and deaths of royal descendants (based on published sources in many many newspapers). One of the best and most complete of these is the Royals Portal Forum. I urge other editors to familiarize themselves with the numerous published sources before making comments which merely show their lack of familiarity with the topic of this article. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"I don't believe that anybody has suggested that there should be a Wikipedia article about all the people on this list. Most of the facts in a Wikipedia article are not notable enough for an article specifically on any of those facts." You're right, no-one has suggested that. Me and PatGallacher were replying to Williamb, that the fact that they aren't notable enough for their own article is ONE of the reasons why a birth or death might not get reported for a while.

"But the fact that many of these people are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article does not mean that there are not sources about their births, marriages, and deaths." We never said there wouldn't be sources, only that they are less likely.

"The people who comment on this talk page but do not contribute to this article are clearly unaware of the many sources available to those of us who do contribute to the article." Noel, that is a serious case of WP:OWN which you have been warned about on this talk page repeatedly. We have every right to comment on the talk page and not edit the article. We are volunteers after all. Please follow the example of Davidwr who doesn't try to "own" the article when he comments. Thank you. Besides, if there are many sources available to you, where are they? They are certainly not cited in this article. I see a handful of sources at best.

"There are the print works by Eilers (Koenig), McNaughton, Addington, and Willis" Where are they? Why aren't they cited in the article? Are they updated on a regular basis, or are they static?

"as well as the online works by Theroff, Lundy, van de Pas, and many others." I believe these have already been shown to be unreliable because they come from personal websites.

"A number of editors belong to online discussion groups which regularly report on the births, marriages, and deaths of royal descendants (based on published sources in many many newspapers)." If you belong to such discussion groups, then where are the newspaper sources you have been collecting? If you have belonged to this, then why haven't you been citing said newspapers as names were added? Also, even if you did add the newspapers as cites to the fact that there was the birth/death of person X, that would still violate WP:SYN (i.e. the synthesis of the original rules of succession with the newspaper source), unless the newspaper says "X is the 1365th in line" or whatever.

You may well frequent such forums because this topic is a hobby/interest of yours, and that is perfectly fine. I myself have my own hobbies, but I do not bring them to Wikipedia.

"I urge other editors to familiarize themselves with the numerous published sources" Again, where are these numerous sources?

"before making comments which merely show their lack of familiarity with the topic of this article." I may be less familiar than you on this topic, Noel, but from this discussion it seems I am more knowledgeable about Wikipedian policy and guidelines. Yet again someone in favour of the status quo has failed to cite a single policy (other than WP:IAR) in their favour. Deamon138 (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Noel, that is a serious case of WP:OWN which you have been warned about on this talk page repeatedly." I believe that ONE editor made a similar claim when I pointed out that some editors know more about the topic than others. It is merely a statement of fact that some editors know more and edit more.

"There are the print works by Eilers (Koenig), McNaughton, Addington, and Willis" -- "Where are they? Why aren't they cited in the article? Are they updated on a regular basis, or are they static?" Two of them are cited (you'd know that, if you actually looked at the article). The other two could be added. One has had a second edition. Another has regular updates published online.

"I believe these [online works] have already been shown to be unreliable because they come from personal websites." You are clearly unfamiliar with these works. Each of them is well respected and is probably much more reliable than the average newspaper.

"If you belong to such discussion groups, then where are the newspaper sources you have been collecting? If you have belonged to this, then why haven't you been citing said newspapers as names were added?" I have contributed a great deal to this article. That I have not contributed more is an unreasonable criticism from somebody who merely edits on the talk page without contributing to the article itself. Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Addington's work is date 1969-76 and must be seriously out of date by now, if it covers similar ground to this article, also if it was the main source for Reitweisner's website this cast doubts on whether it was particularly accurate even in 2001. The work on the descendants of George I is more recent, 2002, but as far as I can judge like Reitweisner he has only claimed to produce a snapshot, and he has not tried to go into the religious issues, so showing a good deal more caution than some editors of this article. PatGallacher (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"I believe that ONE editor made a similar claim when I pointed out that some editors know more about the topic than others." Trying to "own" the article at least twice, is twice to much in my opinion. The other editor (Achromatic) made it clear that, "Editors are entitled to express their opinion, and an editor who has made but one, or even no, edits to an article is as entitled (within the grounds of consensus, etc) to do as much as any other." You are claiming that my opinion is less important because I haven't edited the article. It's not. Really really not.

"Two of them are cited (you'd know that, if you actually looked at the article)." I have looked at the article. Please assume good faith. I think the two you are referring to are Addington and Willis, which are cited by Reitwiesner. Unfortunately, the Reitwiesner source has already been demonstrated to be unreliable (never mind the age of the Addington source as shown by Pat) . Therefore, the two books you say are cited in the article, aren't because they are being used by an unreliable source.

"The other two could be added. One has had a second edition. Another has regular updates published online." Perhaps they could. But you explicitly mentioned these books above, saying, "many sources available to those of us who do contribute to the article." Hence these sources are available to you. In which case where are they? Either you've been adding names from these books without sourcing them in the article (a type of OR), or you haven't needed to use them. I shall ask again: Where are they? Why aren't they cited in the article?

"You are clearly unfamiliar with these works. Each of them is well respected and is probably much more reliable than the average newspaper." I am unfamiliar with these works yes. But I am familiar enough to know that they are (Reitwiesner included) personal websites and ipso facto unreliable sources. This has been said several times on this page, and in the Featured list nomination. Also, if they are more respected than newspapers, surely that makes all the newspaper sources you supposedly have, even less reliable?

"I have contributed a great deal to this article." I can see that you have. And you have obviously put a lot of hard work into this article, and I respect that. But most of the article (whether through your actions or others I don't know) is unsourced, or very poorly sourced at best (except for those 40 names). That is the main problem.

"That I have not contributed more is an unreasonable criticism from somebody who merely edits on the talk page without contributing to the article itself." I am not criticising for not contributing more (though you are once more touching on WP:OWN yet again by criticising me for talking and not editing here). I am criticising you for suggesting that there are bountiful sources provided to you on Royal discussion groups or whatever, and yet when you have contributed to the article, you haven't listed these sources as you added the names. Clearly you think them unimportant. If you couldn't be bothered or didn't have time to provide the newspaper cites when you did add the names, that is fair enough, we are volunteers as I said. But don't get protective of the names in the article that you haven't sourced when I say they're not sourced! It is fine to add them, but once an editor comes along and says "X isn't sourced", it is up to you (or someone else in favour of the status quo) to provide the sources. Read WP:BURDEN. The burden is on you.

I also note that "Yet again someone in favour of the status quo has failed to cite a single policy (other than WP:IAR) in their favour." Deamon138 (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Unfortunately, the Reitwiesner source has already been demonstrated to be unreliable. ... I am unfamiliar with these works yes. But I am familiar enough to know that they are (Reitwiesner included) personal websites and ipso facto unreliable sources." Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Verifiability, particularly "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Reitwiesner is one of the most proficient royal and (U.S.) presidential genealogists in the world. He has all sorts of scholarly genealogy articles published, and his work is cited by many many popular sources.

Even if we accept Reitwiesner as a reliable source, this does not remove the objection that he has, as he acknowledges himself, firstly only produced a snapshot accurate as of 2001, and secondly not attempted to go into the religious issues surrounding the succession. PatGallacher (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"I am criticising you for suggesting that there are bountiful sources ... Clearly you think them unimportant" In the past I have concentrated my editing time on ensuring accuracy and consistency in the forms of names and in the relationships between those on the list. Only recently have I spent time adding new names to the list. For me, it is a priority to complete the list. An examination of my wiki-editing in general shows my commitment to adding footnotes and bibliographical entries to many articles.

I repeat my denial that I have violated WP:OWN. I continue to maintain that the comments of some editors on this talk-page clearly show a total lack of familiarity with the topic of this page. I have repeatedly encouraged those editors to look at the sources so that they can make a more valuable contribution to the discussion. Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes for sources and exclusions

Today I have added several different kinds of footnotes about sources and exclusions. These include:

• Listed at The Official Web Site of the British Monarchy, "Succession".
• Excluded on account of marriage to a papist.
• Excluded on account of being a papist.
• Listed by William Addams Reitwiesner, "Persons Eligible to Succeed to the British Throne as of 1 Jan 2001".
• According to the general interpretation of English Common Law, illegitimate children have no rights of succession to the British Crown. Illegitimate children whose parents later marry do not thereby gain any succession rights to the British Crown.
• Birth recorded in Paul Theroff, "An Online Gotha".

If these footnotes were used throughout the article, the consequences would be significant: an even longer article and footnotes which would be so lengthy that they themselves would be confusing. But perhaps other editors have suggestions for improvements. Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's reasonable to use footnotes if they affect a small set of the article, say, less than 10% of the current article or less than 5% of the article's ultimate size of 6000-odd names. The "official" list has only 40 names, so that's quite reasonable. For people born before 2001, it might be worth putting a note in the header that all those born before 2001 AND which are listed in a particular version of this article - probably one of the very early versions - are presumed to be listed in Reitweisner and are not individually footnoted. The same paragraph should indicate that people should be removed when deceased, and that a reference to their passing should be in the edit summary or article talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur that a footnote for each and every entry is excessive. How about this as an alternative: instead of a footnote, we could have a superscript code after each entry, e.g. ^Reit. The first time this superscript code is used there could be a footnote explaining it. Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If we decide to do that, ↑I'd go even simpler, using a †,‡, or other symbol for the most common references. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now altered the test to follow the suggestion made by davidwr. I personally don't think that it's necessary for every single name to have a reference (I was satisfied with the explanation in the References section); I have only done this to try to satisfy the concerns of others (who for some reason have made no comment). Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have doubts about whether the Online Gotha can be regarded as a reliable source, but it states "I do not claim to be an expert at the intricacies of various succession disputes, and do not intend the Online Gotha to be any sort of arbiter or judge of who the rightful claimant might be in any particular dispute." Also it claims to record royal, princely, ducal and "mediatized" houses, but this might not cover everyone on this list. PatGallacher (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Anybody who has used Theroff knows that it is an eminently reliable source. Because it is online it is constantly being updated with the latest information. Any errors (whether original to Theroff or copied as errors from another source) are easily corrected. In order to be an accurate and reliable source of genealogical information (births, deaths, and marriages) it is not necessary for the editor to be a "an expert at the intricacies of various succession disputes". Such disputes are outside the purview of this article; as of yesterday, for example, we have two individuals on the list both of whom bear the title "Duke of Anjou".

An alternative to using Theroff as a standard source would be Willis. There are arguments to be made on both sides. Willis' work is much more closely aligned with the topic of this article (i.e. the descendants of George I of Hanover). It has been published in a print format by a genealogical publisher. Unfortunately it is not widely available (I only know of one library outside the United States with a copy). At present the online updates seem to be incomplete (he has the files; he just hasn't put everything online). Willis is definitely more of a scholar than Theroff and has done original research. Theroff has a more stable online presence; it has been around for a long time and I don't see it disappearing. At present Willis is using a free provider; this doesn't help to make it look the most reliable source (looks are deceiving).

Willis' work includes all the descendants of George I of Hanover. Theroff's work is about the "royal, princely, ducal and mediatized houses" - but anybody who has used it knows that particularly for more recent generations he includes many female-line descendants (they are printed in regular rather than bold-faced type). Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I decided to investigate the claim that there are readily available sources which are being updated fairly regularly on these issues. I did not go out of my way to be particularly awkward, I spent less than a minute looking for someone near the bottom of the list who might indicate some of the problems, I chose no. 1428, Georgina Maclaine (b. 1982). Looking at the page, it's not clear what her exact line of descent is, but she appears to be descended from Frederick William III of Prussia and Alexandra of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. I looked at the Online Gotha pages for Prussia and Mecklenburg, did not see her, although I did see Frederick William and Alexandra. So what is the source for her? If it's Reitweisner, how do we know she has not had a baby since his list was drawn up in January 2001? As she is probably now aged 26 this is a perfectly serious possibility, women in their 20s often do have babies. How do we know that she hasn't died or married a Catholic, or that she may even be a Catholic? I'll bet you that there are similar problems with lots of people on this list. PatGallacher (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Willis lists Georgina Maclaine on his Isenburg page. Encyclopedias don't base entries on such things as "how do we know that she hasn't?" The same question could be asked about all sorts of articles which cover contemporary issues. When it comes to contemporary issues, an encyclopedia waits for a source which states that the previous situation has changed. Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I was at the University of St Andrews with Gina and with Edward Henley (no. 1432). They're both Roman Catholic and I expect the rest of their families are too. Opera hat (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Georgina adopted the surname of {redacted} in lieu of that of Maclaine by deed poll in (I think) 2003. Her brother is still Maclaine. Opera hat (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This is shifting the goalposts rather dramatically. We were told a short time ago that at least some of the sources for this article were being "constantly being updated with the latest information". When I produced evidence which questioned this claim, we are told that "When it comes to contemporary issues, an encyclopedia waits for a source which states that the previous situation has changed." Show me the Wikipedia guideline which says that! Willis, as far as I can see, was published in 2002, his work is not being constantly updated, and there is only one copy in any library outside the USA. Also, where is the evidence that Georgina Maclaine ever was eligible to succeed on religious grounds? PatGallacher (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I will repeat again: Willis is constantly updated. His Isenburg webpage (on which Georgina Maclaine appears) has an update from 2007; this 2007 is of the marriage of a first-cousin of Georgina's mother (an event which I myself made public to the royal genealogical community since Georgina's great-aunt is a friend of my mother). There is absolutely no evidence that Georgina is married or has children; the onus probandi is on PatGallacher to provide evidence; it is not up to others to prove that Georgina is unmarried and childless. Equally if PatGallacher thinks that Georgina is a papist, then she should provide evidence to support that claim. Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I quote Wikipedia policy: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books." I have tried to find Willis online, cannot find this. I looked at the Isenburg section of the Online Gotha, did not find her, this page looks like it does not cover anything like all present descendants of this family. Is there any evidence that Georgina is a Protestant? PatGallacher (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I received this message on my talk page from Noel S McFerran: Dear Pat, I am on vacation using a very old computer which makes it difficult to edit. The main address for Willis is: http://www.angelfire.com/empire/houseofwillis/ The address for the descendants of George I of Hanover is: http://www.angelfire.com/empire/houseofwillis/geoindex.html Dan is currently re-arranging the files on his site (some aren't presently uploaded), so it is presently a little difficult to use. I wrote Dan last week to ask him to correct Georgina's birth year. I had hoped to speak with Georgina's great-aunt on Sunday at mass (she is a friend of my mother); unfortunately she and her husband were away at their cottage. I will try again next Sunday. (Of course, that would be original research - but I'm still interested). PatGallacher (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have had a look at Willis. I see Georgina on the Isenburg section, I cannot find the Mecklenburg section, although her line should pass through it, the absence of this section means that a significant number of people are not covered. I mainly looked at the Updates page, in some cases the updates had been copied to the relevant sections, but I could not see that the all were. Most seriously, I also saw items on the Updates page like "Several new descendants for Count Aleksander Wielpolski", "2nd marriage and 4th child for Alvari Oreane-Dorkin", "2 children for Alexander Blundell-Holinshed-Blundell", "3 children for George Harmer", and a further 23 entries for more than one event which are likely to have been separated by a significant time. This casts serious doubt on whether Willis is being updated quickly. His main source is the Royal Portal Forum, I had a look at this forum and I have doubts if we can regard it as a reliable source. PatGallacher (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Assumptions regarding religion

Above in a post of 15 August 2008, Noel McFerran seems to say that everyone on this list should be assumed not to be a Papist (and therefore excluded from the succession) unless specific evidence to the contrary can be given. In many cases this would be impossible; many people's baptisms/confirmations are not published and so the only way to ascertain whether someone was a Roman Catholic would be to check the parish records, which would count as original research and be inadmissible. I'm not RC myself so don't know all the rules, but the wikipedia article on Disparity of Worship says that dispensations allowing the marriage of a Catholic to a non-Catholic are only normally given when both parties agree to raise any issue of the marriage in the Catholic Church. Surely this means that in the vast majority of cases, if someone is descended from a Catholic, they will be one themselves. I therefore suggest that anyone on the list descended from a Catholic ancestor be skipped on the list unless evidence can be shown that they have not been raised in the Catholic Church (as in the cases of Lord Freddie Windsor and others). These cases would be so exceptional that the negative (this person is not a Catholic) would be easier to prove than the positive (this person is a Catholic). Opera hat (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The article Disparity of Worship is about the marriages of Catholics to non-baptised persons (not to Protestants - which is the more normal situation with persons on this list). Today, all that is required is that the Catholic partner promise to raise the children Catholic; the non-Catholic partner makes no promises, but is only informed of the promise by the Catholic partner.

Opera hat suggests "that anyone on the list descended from a Catholic ancestor be skipped on the list unless evidence can be shown that they have not been raised in the Catholic Church". I think that that is generally the case right now. I don't think that that is a change. Noel S McFerran (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't the {redacted}s/Maclaines/Henleys (1420s/1430s) skipped, then? As I said above, they are Roman Catholic, though I don't have any evidence for it (though "own knowledge" is a good enough source for the DNB!). Opera hat (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

This is a legitimate subject on which there are reliable sources. However, whether there is any merit in having quite such a long list is doubtful, since no one except the first few have much chance of succeeding the the British Crown. Articles on royal descendants have been deleted in the past. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The succession to the UKGBNI throne is determined by statute. The relative law does not limit the succession to the first forty (or any other number) in line; rather, it limits it to the descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover who are not papists and have not married papists. There are two major published sources (Reitwiesner and Willis) which list all of the living descendants as of the date of publication; the second source is regularly updated (and I expect that the first will be at some point). Since there are published sources, I think that this subject is at least as worthy of a complete article as List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the United Kingdom. Noel S McFerran (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here is a "summary" of what policies/guidelines I think this list violates:

• WP:LENGTH: this article is 370kB, which is excessively long (in fact it's the longest page on Wikipedia by far). It can also cause problems in some browsers (especially mobile ones), and while it might not cause problems in the majority of PC browsers, it still can cause problems to some browsers, and this should be avoided. In fact, I think 400kB is a point where it starts affecting more popular browsers, which is a size this list is approaching. Furthermore, I gave a link somewhere above, comparing this article to the state of the article when it was nominated for FL, a year ago. Looking at that diff caused my browser (it would've been either Firefox 2 or 3 then, I forget which) to slow down horrendously, and that was with a very popular, modern browser.
• WP:INDISCRIMINATE: this article contains 1462 names and counting. Do we need that many names? No. The vast majority of people on here aren't notable, and although that isn't a barrier to entry into a list, even the ones that are notable enough to have their own article, most of them aren't notable for being (say) number 1324 in line to the British throne. Just because something is verifiable, doesn't mean it is worthy of inclusion. And I reckon it isn't.
• WP:CITE and therefore WP:OR: the vast majority of information in this article isn't cited using inline citations, as strongly recommended by WP:CITE (and WP:V). It needs inline citations, especially to avoid being seen as original research.
• WP:RS/WP:V: other than the royal.gov.uk website, the other names have been gathered from personal websites. Now, it has been pointed out that personal websites aren't necessarily bad as sources since WP:V says, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" and this seems true of those sources, especially Reitwiesner. However, WP:V goes on to say, "However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." It doesn't seem to be the case that someone else has done so, and I really do question whether it is worth reporting the information as I said above, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
• WP:SYN: the current method of adding names seems to be, add the names from Reitwiesner and the other websites, then if a birth/death/Catholic-related event happens and is found in another source mentioning that that person's birth, death or conversion to Catholicism has occurred, then a change is made to the list by adding/removing name(s). But in the vast majority of cases, it will just generally say in the new source, "X gave birth to Y", or "X has passed away" or "X has converted to Catholicism", and hardly ever will it say, "X has given birth to Y, who becomes the 1345th in line to the British throne". Nor would you expect it to. But I'm afraid combining the original source and the new source which doesn't mention anything about the change in the succession, violates WP:SYN.
• While the following doesn't mean it is violating anything in particular, it does cast the list in a further negative light. I'm talking about the fact that because this list has so many names, any information that changes (births, death, conversions etc), won't be updated for a long time due to most people here lacking notability. Now of course, pretty much every article has a problem with information becoming outdated, but few articles have as big a problem with becoming outdated as this list seems to. Any factual inaccuracy will go unchecked for far longer than any other article/list.
• I think also Pat Gallacher is suggesting that because of all the ideas with regard to skipping, law(s), and Catholics used in the succession, that information related to those aspect(s) could be construed as original research or maybe crystal balling. I don't know about that myself, I am certainly no expert, and don't fully follow all the peculiarities of this clashing point, so I will leave this one to Pat and the rest of you, if I have understood this correctly to be something that he is concerned about.

"I think that this subject is at least as worthy of a complete article as List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the United Kingdom." Noel, that isn't relevant tbh. That list doesn't violate WP:LENGTH (it is only 11.6kB), WP:INDISCRIMINATE (there aren't many, and like being in the first 40 to the throne, being an Olympic sized pool is notable enough imo), WP:CITE (the information all seems cited, although it could be cited more consistently), nor at first glance does it appear to violate any of the other policies/guidelines that I think this list does. Plus, that list seems relatively unchallenged, apart from one AfD about its notability, since silence implies consensus, then barely anyone sees any content problems with that list like I do with this one. Besides, other stuff exists is not a good argument.

Basically, I believe this article should only be limited to the 40 names given in the royal.gov.uk source. This might seem drastic, but I can't see any reason to keep the rest. And if readers want to go deeper into this topic, then we should give the links to the Reitwiesner and other websites in an external links section. Deamon138 (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Deamon138, I utterly agree with every word you say, and thank you for having expressed it so clearly.. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, "If this article does not violate WP:SYN, then nothing violates WP:SYN". Grover cleveland (talk) 02:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha yeah that's true, and thanks for the support! In fact, I quoted you somewhere above on one of the points I mentioned: "If the article's is big enough for a 1400 people, then it's big enough for 1400 references." Deamon138 (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly believe there is a place in Wikipedia for the descendants of Queen Victoria, with a notation for each if that person is in the line of succession. I also think we should have the entire list of 6,000-odd names but I'm willing to compromise on this if I'm the only one supporting the idea. The list does need to be broken down though. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I also think that even if consensus doesn't see it the way I have stated above, and the length is kept, then a split MUST occur. Deamon138 (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment - arbitrary break 1

I just want to say that I strongly disagree with the above. Length is an issue but technical concerns (i.e. breaking the numbering) have kept it from being split. The failure to fully adhere to a style guideline (WP:CITE) is not an indication of OR, by any means. Rather it is simply a case for further editing to improve the article. This should probably take the form of creative ideas such as the proposal below since simply putting a standard inline cite for each name would create a mess at the bottom. I don't think that any part of the list (with the possible exception of the exact numbering at the lower levels) violates WP:SYN. There is nothing novel about applying basic inheritance rules to order the list. It is perfectly legitimate to copy facts from various sources and than draw the necessary inferences. For example, to take a source that says "Prince Charles is descended from Queen Victoria" and one that says "Queen Victoria was descended from George I" and then say in the article "Prince Charles is descended from George I". That's really all that the list does just on a larger scale. I strongly urge that this article be kept, split if practicle and completed between now and the deadline. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Eluchil404, I am sorry but the example you give about Charles, Victoria and George is a crystal-clear violation of WP:SYN. Please reread that policy. Here is the relevant text:

“ Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be synthesis of published material which advances a position, which constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. ”

You may disagree with the policy (and feel free to try to form a Wikipedia-wide consensus to change it if you like), but you cannot pretend that this article does not violate it hundreds of times. Grover cleveland (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Grover cleveland, I think your interpretation of WP:SYN is incorrect. That section deals with things which advance a position, not things which are mathematically provable, particularly if they are provable in an obvious way such as the transitivity of inheritance. I've outlined my argument on Wikipedia talk:No original research#Proposed clarification: Combining indisputable facts is okay and proposed a clarification to make this explicit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

David, I reckon it can be said this point we are discussing advances a position. It advances the position that X is in the line of succession. That for some, would be a good thing, and hence advances a position. It also demotes other people in this list when a new person is added. Moreover, since this is a list of people, it has to follow WP:BLP, so it is vital that we are certain that we have sources explicitly saying, "X is position N in the line of succession to the British throne" (or words to that effect). Deamon138 (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Davidwr, I have replied to your suggested change to NOR on that policy's discussion page. However, even if your proposed change is accepted (which I doubt will happen), this article still violates WP:SYN, since no one can claim that the exact manner in which Catholics are excluded (does the disqualification occur at birth, baptism, etc.) is an "indisputable fact", as is evidenced by the extensive discussion of it on this very talk page. For another example, simply scroll down this page for the debate on the legitimacy of Carol Lambrino, and its implications for his succession. Grover cleveland (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll grant your point on non-obvious cases such as when Catholicism is in play, but if there is a newspaper article announcing Lady Rose Gilman, currently at #23, giving birth to "her firstborn son" and having him baptized by the Archbishop of Cantebury, I'm going to insert the baby right below her even if there is no mention of the baby being in the line of succession, or if there is a mention but without a place-number. 23+1=24. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Once more into the breach dear friends... I think Deacon138 accurately states most of the problems with this article. I would add on the religous issues, there are varying views about whether members of the Greek Orthodox Church should be in this list, attempting to put forward a clear answer to this without an RS is OR. Also, in the bulk of cases we do not have a source which states that people on this list are not Catholics, it has been suggested that we should assume people are not ineligible unless we have evidence to the contrary, that's not good enough.

Some people may be missing the point about synthesis. Actually, if we have RSs that state that somebody is a legitimate descendant of Sophia of Hanover and is a Protestant we can assume that they are somewhere in the line of succession, I'm prepared to let that one through on the nod. However if we state that somebody is 1000th in the line we are claiming that there is exactly 999 people above them, I don't think we can claim that.

I see we are in danger of getting into a revert war on whether the descendants of Carol Lambrina are in line (see below). I suspect that there are other cases where there is an element of genuine doubt and dispute whether someone is legitimate, this has only emerged because these people are fairly high up the line and involves the son of a king of Romania. PatGallacher (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a nice disclaimer (written by me) at the head of the list pointing out that since we can't know everything the numbering is only approximate, and gets more approximate the further down the list you go. As for the perennial Orthodox question, I don't see why it's not OR to question them -- the only place I've ever seen doubts about them is right here on this talk page (and to be frank those doubts never seem to have a firm grasp on logic). Doops | talk 12:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't claim to fully understand that last extremely convoluted sentence. However if the issue of whether Orthodox people has not been widely raised, it is because I have not seen any other source which attempts to put forward a view on this issue. PatGallacher (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, sorry, you're right, it was convoluted. All I meant was that every source I've ever seen outside the wikipedia has said 1) only protestants may actually succeed to the throne; and 2) Roman Catholics are debarred for life. Indeed, so do the relevant wikipedia articles. So I can never quite understand where this notion comes from that orthodox people should be removed from the list. Doops | talk 17:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There are three obvious solutions to the "numbering may be off" problem, none of which are all that good: 1) Truncate the list at the point of the first questionable number. This is equivalent to renaming the article "First x people in line of succession to the British Throne" and should be debated separately; 2) Restore the disclaimer that the counts may be off and list the reasons why, 3) Eliminate the count entirely, and force people to do their own math. #3 would be making a WP:POINT and I would be against it. The best solution, the one we are striving for, is to make the list as complete and accurate as humanly possible using published information, including newspapers, books, government birth and other records, published baptism and religious-conversion records, etc. With 6000+ names and growing, we will never achieve perfection, but we should strive toward it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually kinda disagree with the notion of 'working as hard as possible'. My preference would be to stick the referenced sources' lists, and simply add or subtract people on well-publicized news (with citation) of their birth, death, or conversion. But for us to start digging too much into rumors of births, or questions of who else might or might not be Roman Catholic, seems OR-ish to me, and I'd rather just have a disclaimer that the further you go down the list the more approximate it gets. Doops | talk 17:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the law is that heirs must be Protestants & not married to Catholics. Also, a point I don't think has been mentioned, legitimacy is defined by English law, not Scottish, which allows legitimation by subsequent marriage, & not local law whatever that might be.

However, on the actual point @ issue (or 1 of them), I agree with those who've said this is synthesis & not allowed. Also, we simply haven't got sufficient information to keep it up to date. All that's verifiable is the current listings online in reliable sources. Anything taken from printed sources would have to be qualified as "as of" date of compilation. Probably not worth it. Peter jackson (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Romanians

The more I look at this article the more problematic it gets. I quote "skipped the descendants of Carol Lambrino, the eldest son of King Carol II of Romania through a Morganatic marriage, skipped HM King Michael of Romania (b. 1921), son of King Carol II of Romania". There was some doubt about whether Carol Lambrino was legitimate, but courts ruled that he was, I see no mention of him being the child of a morganatic marriage, and I understand this concept is not accepted in British law. Also why is King Michael skipped? Did his abdication affect his claim to the British throne? PatGallacher (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael is skipped because he is married to a papist. In my opinion the descendants of Carol Lambrino should be included - but I have never made a fuss about this because most monarchists (and monarchy-interested folk) think that Carol was illegitimate. I choose my wiki-battles and have never pursued this matter. The skipped statement for Carol's descendants was only added within the last month. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading Carol Lambrino's biography, the courts in 3 countries (Portugal, France and Romania) have ruled that he was legitimate. If most monarchists think he was illegitimate then at best this is original research, at worst it is simply wrong. This does raise the issue of whether King Michael of Romania was a usurper. PatGallacher (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is not original research; there is a ton published about whether or not Carol Lambrino was illegitimate or not. The majority of people who write on this issue say he was illegitimate; I'm in the minority who argue that that "is simply wrong". But I've now made a bold edit and added Carol's two sons to the line; let's see if anybody thinks this is important enough to change. Noel S McFerran (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I was about to add my strenuous defense of this article based on the grounds that what makes such a list encyclopedic is its comprehensiveness and accuracy; that a cut-off at 40 (or anywhere short of the full, precise number) is arbitrary; and that all the other arguments raised are trivial. Unfortunately, the inclusion of the Lambrinos in the list now renders it useless, since it also entails the exclusion of King Michael and his descendants (it differs from George IV's case because there the marriage was illegal, here it is alleged that the annulment -- which occurred before the child was born -- was illegal, rendering the subsequent marriage of Michael's parents bigamous). Therefore the enumeration is unreliable. Reitwiesner excludes the Lambrinos from enumeration in his list, Theroff treats him as illegitimate, and Willis describes the marriage as both morganatic and annulled, but refers to a French court's later legitimation of the Lambrinos in a footnote. My understanding was that several courts post-monarchy accorded some of the rights of legitimacy to the Lambrinos, without declaring any of them legitimate per se. It's arguably original research to insert the Lambrinos, but ultimately this hinges upon who had the authority to decide the status of the Crown Prince of Romania's marriage and its issue -- the Kingdom of Romania (which always treated the Lambrinos as illegitimate) or the Russian church (to which the couple eloped). Errors of fact can be corrected, disputes in interpretation of those facts -- not likely. Since I can't see how we will ever now agree upon the enumeration of Sophia's descendants, I must concur that the entire list should go, as dependent upon OR. FactStraight (talk) 07:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It gets messier. If Carol Lambrino was legitimate then his father's second marriage could be invalid and so King Michael of Romania was illegitimate, so his descendants should not be in the line of succession. PatGallacher (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think that, since Carol's marriage to Zizi was completely annulled, which is what allowed him to marry Helen of Greece. The same thing happened when George IV married a Catholic, didn't it? Morhange (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Checking the relevant articles, Carol's marriage to Zizi was not "completely annulled", it was annulled by a decision of a Romanian court, but there was some doubt about whether it had the authority to annul a marriage conducted in another country, Russia, and some more recent court decisions cast doubt on the validity of this annulment. George IV of the United Kingdom's marriage to Maria Fitzherbert is not comparable, since it was conducted in the UK where it was clearly illegal, also it appears to have been never formally ruled to be invalid. PatGallacher (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph obituary of Carol Lambrino (who it describes as "HRH Prince Carol of Romania") says that in 1964 he was granted letters of administration to his father's estate in Britain, which suggests that the British courts did regard him as legitimate. PatGallacher (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The succession to the throne is governed by English law, so to 1st order English law decides whether someone is legitimate. However, that only means that legitiamtion by subsequent marriage is excluded. to 2nd order, English law has a complicated set of rules to deal with foreign cases: Conflict of laws. These rules deal with 2 questions:

1. Whose courts have the right to determine a case?
2. Whose laws are to be applied to a case, or particular points of a case?

So in the case in question you'd have to find out whether English law recognizes the jurisdiction of the court that granted the annulment. Peter jackson (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. That would be original research, and possibly quite complex original research. PatGallacher (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

& how much of the existing article is OR? Peter jackson (talk) 10:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Papist vs Roman Catholic

I replaced the term "Papist" with the more commonly understood and non-derogatory term "Roman Catholic" in the footnotes. This is consistent with the introduction as well as the article Act of Settlement 1701. I put html comments in the references with quotes from the Settlement Act as a convenience. However, if the verbatim text of the Settlement Act is to be used in what the reader sees, it is more proper to put it in the article about the act itself rather than here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Format of the list

The following text is in the article:

Superscript letters are placed after a name to indicate the source of the name or the reason for exclusion from the line of succession.

• Names with superscript letter B are listed at The Official Web Site of the British Monarchy, "Succession".
• Names with superscript letter R are listed by William Addams Reitwiesner, "Persons Eligible to Succeed to the British Throne as of 1 Jan 2001".
• Names with superscript letter W are listed by Dan Willis, The Descendants of King George I of Great Britain (Baltimore: Clearfield, 2002) or in its online updates.
• Names with superscript letters XMP are excluded on account of marriage to a Roman Catholic.[5]
• Names with superscript letters XP are excluded on account of being a Roman Catholic.[5]
• Names with superscript letters XI are excluded in accordance with the general interpretation of English Common Law by which illegitimate children have no rights of succession to the British Crown. Illegitimate children whose parents later marry do not thereby gain any succession rights to the British Crown.[3]

Then so far, up to about 165 names (plus skipped ones too) have these superscript thingies. Can the people doing this please read Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Adding_the_citation, which doesn't have this superscript method as an allowable method of citing sources. The information in the text should be properly sourced in-line. Deamon138 (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Over two weeks ago I tested out "regular" footnotes on the page (see here) and asked for comments on this page. I pointed out that "regular" footnotes to the same source produce hundreds of links at the bottom of the page. I suggested an alternative format which another editor supported. No editor (until you now) expressed any other opinion about the format of citations.

Please read Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Adding_the_citation where it says, "If a source supports a significant amount of the material in an article, it may sometimes be acceptable to simply add the citation at the end." That is certainly the case with this article (Reitwiesner) - but doesn't seem to be acceptable to some people. Wikipedia:Citing_sources is a "style guideline" which "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." This is certainly the case here. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think this is the time for an exception. Yes it does say, "If a source supports a significant amount of the material in an article, it may sometimes be acceptable to simply add the citation at the end", but it goes on to say, "It serves as a general reference, not linked to any particular part of the article. This is more likely to be appropriate for relatively undeveloped articles or those covering a very simple or narrow topic." This article isn't undeveloped or simple or narrow imo. Of course, this could mean we should use an exception as you say. But I disagree. Firstly, this list has to follow WP:BLP, so exceptions should barely ever be made i.e. a better reason for an exception is needed than normal. Secondly, Davidwr wants to make this into a featured topic (or I guess a featured list if a split doesn't happen), but to reach featured anything status, inline citations are a must. Thirdly, while it is Reitwiesner that most names come from, the rest are used less, and I think an exception should only apply to one source i.e. add Reitwiesner at the end, but use inline citations for all the others. Fourthly, I have never seen any superscript system where the notes were at the beginning rather than the end. Fifthly, Reitwiesner is already an inline citation for two parts of the article, why not do the same for the whole article? It defeats the purpose of not using an inline cite if its decided to be used inline in some places not others. Finally, why not rename the Reitwiesner cite as "<ref name=R>", and then add that bit to every name from Reitwiesner as "<ref name=R/>"? I reckon the current addition to every Reitwiesner name, "^R", is about the same as "<ref name=R/>". That's my alternative anyway. It's the established way of doing things, and I don't see the advantage of the superscript thingies over "<ref name=R/>" inline citations. Deamon138 (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Noel already told you the advantage. In his test, backlinks "a" through "an" were created from the official website ref, and backlinks "a" through "m" from Reitwiesner. And that's only for the descendants of George V! If the ref system could be tweaked to remove those backlinks, I don't think anyone would be suggesting a non-standard solution. -- Jao (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Transclusion again?

In early July User:Davidwr made a proposal to split this article by transclusion. Several editors (myself, Morhange, and PeterSymonds) gave their support. User:Fram opposed the proposal on the grounds that it was, in his opinion, against policy. Can we reconsider this proposal? (I am of the opinion that an article with the title "Line of succession to the British throne" should cover the entire topic, not merely a tiny percentage of the topic. But I also want to be reasonable with those editors who are concerned about the length of the article. It seemed to me that transclusion addressed at least some of the concerns of those editors.) Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Substitute proposal: Split list by family and make a Featured Topic

The article needs to be shrunk somehow. The logical ways are to split it by parts, like "1-1000, 1001-1999, etc." but that will become a nightmare to maintain. Transclusion is another way. After thinking about this for a few months, I'm leaning toward another way. Please comment on this proposal.

• An "umbrella" article that doesn't include any names, or maybe includes just the top 40 or just the current Royals. This would also include the consorts, the other monarches, the other houses, and the former lines of succession sections as well as copies of references used in the articles below if they aren't used in the umbrella article.
• An article for the descendants of George III who are in the line of succession or specifically marked excluded.
• An article for the descendants of Princess Augusta Charlotte of Wales who are in the line of succession or specifically marked excluded.
• An article for the descendants of Caroline Matilda of Wales who are in the line of succession or specifically marked excluded.
• An article for the descendants of William V of Orange who are in the line of succession or specifically marked excluded.
• An article for the descendants of Princess Carolina of Orange-Naussau who are in the line of succession or specifically marked excluded.
• An article called "Remote members of the line of succession to the British Throne" which would include everyone from Princess Mary (1723-1772) on down to the descendants of Sophia Charlotte of Hanover (1668-1705).

There would be no transclusion, but the articles would be linked together with nice templates, making them candidates for featured-list status and the entire group can become a Featured Topic candidate.

As a bonus, as the lists expand, the individual articles can be further split.

Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by davidwr (talk • contribs) 16:06, 28 August 2008

Draft available

Please comment on User:Davidwr/BT083008/Line of Succession to the British Throne and the split-off parts.

I know it needs some cleanup, I'm looking for consensus if this type of split is preferable to the single big article we have now. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Transclusion again? (continued)

add more discussion of Translcusion again? here.

I would support this proposal (it certainly solves the length issue), but I think we need to sort out the other problems of this article in the RfC first. Deamon138 (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's my take on the RFC:

• Length: Solution: split. How: open for discussion.
• Indiscriminate: Solution: Discuss how many names to keep and whether to rename the resulting article. Suggestions include: Keep all. Keep all except excluded. Keep those near top. Keep famous. Keep some combination of the above.
• Lack of proper citations, questionable sources, and validity of adding children of people in the list where there is no independent statement saying they are in the list - WP:CITE, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:SYN. Deamon138's superscript system looks good [[added 15:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC) by davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)]] to me despite appearent conflicts with Wikipedia:Citing sources#Adding the citation. I think there is general agreement that some of these sources, particularly the book and official web sites are quality. The rest can be discussed.

I think if we agree on some split of the article and whether to keep or delete the "skipped" people, it will be a good start. We don't have to make these decisions at the same time. Once that is accomplished, we can then have a discussion of whether to "trim from the bottom" by deleting all names below a certain point.

There is a discussion on the floor to split, and I'd like to focus on that discussion for now. We can address the issues of skipped names, cut-off points, and sources later. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I know you've said to concentrate on the split, but for what's it worth, I'm in favour in removing those skipped - it's a start at least. Craigy (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are aware of the reasons the "skipped" are in there in the first place: To deter well-meaning but un-informed future editors from re-inserting them. Such a re-insertion would likely go unquestioned, it would require an editor to research the person and determine that he was not in fact excluded for good reason, such as a Catholic conversion or marriage to a Catholic after the publication date of the source the editor is using to add the person to the list. This is already a risk with the 2001 "frozen-in-time" source - some people listed in that source may have since converted or married a Roman Catholic and no editor has realized this and marked them "removed." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Deamon138's superscript system looks to me despite appearent conflicts with Wikipedia:Citing sources#Adding the citation." David, this sentence confuses me. Any chance you could explain what you mean here? Thanks. Deamon138 (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I left a word out. I've updated the text. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see now. Well, that and it's not my superscript system! Deamon138 (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Princess Felicitas Of Prussia

On 1 September the entry for Princess Felicitas Of Prussia (currently position 333) was changed to Felicitas von Nostitz-Wallwitz. What is the reason. Is the princess no longer recognised? Alan Davidson (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This lady was born Princess Felicitas of Prussia (with the legal name Felicitas Prinzessin von Preussen). She married first in 1958, and again in 1972. She currently uses the name Felicitas von Nostitz-Wallwitz (although sometimes she uses the name Felicitas von Nostitz-Wallwitz Prinzessin von Preussen). Since her marriage she has not been known as Princess Felicitas of Prussia. Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Mountbatten 1886-1960

I think that the section entitled Alexander Mountbatten 1886-1960 that is just under position No. 495 and just before position No. 496 is either in the wrong place or that this section is in error.

In this section it has Princess Beatrice-Alexander Mountbatten. Now, correct me if I am wrong but Princess Beatrice never had a son Alexander Mountbatten. Also in this section there is position No. 496 which is given to Robin Bryan and Robin Bryan was not a descendant of Alexander Mountbatten.

I am not sure on how to do any editing to correct this section so thought best to leave alone and to mention the error so hopefully someone will read what I have written and with knowledge of editing be able to correct this section.--Corbyguy (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It was vandalism. That is to say it was an attempt (granted a bit more elaborate than usual) to write oneself into the line. This article gets it all the time. It's very sad. DBD 17:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone has now added the title of Marquis of Carisbrooke to that of Alexander Mountbatten just after position No. 495. Now, Alexander Mountbatten is shown as a child of Princess Beatrice but he is not a child belonging to her. Could someone delete Alexander Mountbatten shown as being a child of Princess Beatrice just after position No. 495. Also, postion No. 496 Robin Bryan is shown before the skipped descendants of Princess Beatrice but surely he should be placed and listed after all these skipped descendants. Could someone correct this if his placing in the list is incorrect?--Corbyguy (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you meaning that Princess Beatrice did not have a son named Alexander? She did: Alexander Mountbatten, Marquess of Carisbrooke was her eldest son, born Prince Alexander of Battenberg. Morhange (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:David101jam's edits

User:David101jam has twice tried to insert members of his family into the line. I think he sincerely believes he is improving the article. His tone here indicates he doesn't understand Wikipedia. If he does it again, and you talk to him on his talk page, please be nice. I've got a hunch he's a little younger than most Wikipedia editors. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

When I looked at the article today someone had inserted the names back again. I have now undone the vandalism.--Corbyguy (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that was new vandalism. David101jam's edits weren't vandalism, just unencyclopedic. Doops | talk 12:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The names that I removed from the article are names of people that are in no way that belong in the succession and these removal of names were inserted yet again by person unknown well after the editing/removal of said names by David101jam's editing to remove the already said names. Someone keeps putting there own family names in the article and this has now happend 3 times in the last few days. Although this article does on occassion get the odd vandalism of people inserting there own family names etc. perhaps the article should be closed off to editing by the public and only a small number of individuals who choose or are dedicated in the up keep of the article should only be allowed the editing access.--Corbyguy (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability

I question most of the entries on this list on the grounds that, although there may be sources that they are descendants of Sophia of Hanover, there is no sources that they are not Roman Catholics, see WP:PROVEIT. There could also be a limited number of cases where it has been assumed that they are Roman Catholics on the basis of their family background, but there are no clear sources for this either. PatGallacher (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

PatGallacher continues to show a total lack of familiarity with the subject matter of this page. The Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels is just one of many sources for the religious affiliation of families and individuals; e.g. the GHdA notes that the House of Romania is Orthodox, but that Queen Anne and Prince Nikolaus (great uncle of King Michael) are Catholic.

It is not possible to prove a negative, e.g. that Prince Charles has not become a Catholic in the last day or that George Bush has died in the last hour and is no longer President of the United States. Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I note that this work is not included in the list of references. Where are these other many sources for the religious affiliations of individuals? Does this work really state the religion of all or even most of the people on this list, or does it just give general guidance on a few major families and individuals? PatGallacher (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I take it you mean the Almanach de Gotha. If you mean the version produced in 2001 it got some bad reviews as not being a serious work of reference, see refs. 2 and 3 from this article. The old version last produced in 1944 may have been a better work in its day, but is surely not much of a guide to existing nobles. Many people on this list do not have noble titles and so are unlikely to be included in any such work. PatGallacher (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels (first published in 1951, and now numbering over 140 volumes) is a totally different work from the Almanach de Gotha (either the old or the new version). Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you give us volume numbers and page numbers for many of the people in this list? PatGallacher (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Also to come to some general issues here. I have never claimed to be as familiar with royal genealogy as some editors. According to WP:PROVEIT it is up to people including information to prove it, it is not the responsibility of those challenging them to show familiarity with sources not mentioned in the article. I do not claim to be a serious expert on genealogy, I do claim that at least in its present form this is an unencyclopedic article. PatGallacher (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Serious genealogical concern

Recently, I had occasion to check some genealogies, also published, of my forefathers' neighbors, the von Daehn family of Sippola.

And just now, I observed that one of their names appears in your list of british dynasts.... I have a reminiscence that ADOPTION is not a way to get included to the succession of the UK throne. There lies the concern.

Your list has one, currently number 1415: 1415 Alexander Dimitrievich de Daehn (b. 1908), first cousin of Nikita Cheremetev

Indeed, there has existed one Sofia Vladimirovna Sheremetev (daughte of an old russian boyar family), who at the age of 13 married captain Mitri von Daehn, heir of Sippola, a Finnish nobleman, himself son of Voldemar Kaarle von Daehn, one-time Minister State Secretary of Finland, by his wife princess Nina Sviatopolk-Mirskaya. As far as genealogies know, Sofia did not married a second time. Her husband died when she was about 48 years old. However, genealogies mention that the said marriage was childless.

Instead, the Finnish House of Knights and Nobility mentions in its publications and rolls that the said Mitri von Daehn received imperial permission to adopt his young foster son, a boy named Alexander, who is mentioned to have been born in 1906 in Switzerland, being of Russian birth. Said Alexander von Daehn lived to 1970s or 1980s, seemingly in New York, as artist. He were twice married, but no children listed in the Finnish genealogies. The adoption received an imperial permission specifically for the reason that the boy not only became adopted child in civil law (which did not require ruler's permission) but also became allowed to inherit the noble rank of the adoptive father.

There is no mention of anything saying the boy was born of Sofia, the wife. Actually, those records and genealogirs do not know anything about the boy's biological parentage. It looks more like he was some sort of secret child, and at least he was like an orphan.

An adoption would have been unnecessary, had the boy been born birthed by Sofia Vladimirovna. The husband could well simply have accepted legal paternity, even had he not been the biological father.

The boy could well have been a by-blow of some Russian very important personage, and the biological parent found obliging adoptive parents. Or the boy could have been an orphan in need of parents, and the childless nobleman obliged... For genealogical reasons, I really would like to know. Whose biological child was that baby boy?

However, that the child were in line to British throne, must be strongly suspected, because of that documented adoption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.158.58 (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed Alexander von Daehn since Willis says that he died May 1979 (and also that he was adopted). In addition Glenn Steinberg (http://gsteinbe.intrasun.tcnj.edu/royalty/tables/NikolaiI.html) does not list Alexander as a child of Sofia Cheremeteva (which suggests that he was adopted). What this shows is that even the best source (Reitwiesner) is not perfect; this could be said of any article. Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

According to Suomen Aateliskalenteri, 1980 edition, the said Alexander 'de' Daehn deceased on 17 May 1979. According to the same book, he was adopted in 1910, and the adoption was registered in 1911 in the Finnish House of Knights and Nobility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.158.58 (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Explain changes

As little attempt has been made to respond to several objections raised by myself and others, I am now cutting this down to what I believe is an encyclopedic article i.e. what can be taken from the British monarchy website. There is clearly no consensus in favour of including more than this. PatGallacher (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to this removal. The long history of this article without it being changed is itself tacit consent to leave it the way it was.

I've been negligent in not following the discussion recently, but if this article is to remain in its current title then it must contain as many of the names that are in the list as possible, with appropriate caveats that the list has holes and that some people on the list as of the dates of the reference materials cited may be off due to death or a religious change, and that other people may be on the list but have not been added due to lack of verification. If this is not to be the format of this list, then the article must be renamed to something else.

I will look at the previous comments, and if I don't see a clear consensus for this very large, substantial change, I will revert it. I will also support anyone else reverting it unless the talk page shows a consensus to make the change.

The bottom line: Consensus to change the format means the edit stays but the title should change. Lack of consensus to change the format means the edit should be reverted.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the talk page and there's nothing new in the last month indicating a consensus to delete the information. There is a lot of talk about splitting, transclusion, and trimming, but nothing reached consensus, including those proposals I favored. I'll wait 24 hours after the original edit to see what others think then revert the edit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I notified all the editors in the last week except anonymous accounts, blocked accounts, and suspected vandals. I hope I didn't miss anyone. This may count as "canvassing" so I tried to keep it neutral. If anyone wants to notify editors who haven't edited in a week, feel free. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because an article or content is long standing does not mean it must or should remain so. Anything that is not verifiable is right out. Anyone who no longer belongs on the list needs to be off. It should not contain as many names as possible. If a name needs a caveat to be here, it should probably not be here. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, lack verifiability is an underused justification for content removal, and accuracy is a goal necessary to Wikipedia's goal as an encyclopedia. The name and any other policy must take second place to verifiability and accuracy. An incomplete but verifiable article is preferable to one with false, misleading or inaccurate information. Dlohcierekim 15:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

An incomplete but verifiable article is preferable to one with false, misleading or inaccurate information. On this we agree. However, a name that was in work published a few years ago, or a confirmed childbirth announcement of someone already confirmed, is good enough. The names up to position 161 or so marked ^R have already been confirmed as being in a presumably reliable web site, which means the list should be at least this long. It's only a matter of effort to go through the rest of the list. Once that's done, it's fair to discuss what to do with unconfirmed entries. The alternative is to rename the article, or at least completely redo the article so it's obviously no longer a list but rather an article about the list.

Also, implicit in any such list is the caveat that "recent events may have added or removed names at any point." For example, if Prince Charles died 5 minutes ago, or if someone 50-down on the list gave birth yesterday but kept the pregnancy secret from the media. The major difference here is that "recent" means since 2001 for the bulk of the list, since that's the date of one of the major sources. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with davidwr, such a major edit needs a clear consensus and support for it to stay. I don't think the current reversion should stay, because the content that was deleted was important to the aticle. I'd like to keep this neutral and a reminder that the 3 revert rule and the edit war rule may come into play here. I'm going to watch the page now, and a reminder that if anyone sees an edit war looming to contact the Mediation Committee to settle the dispute. cf38^talk 15:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to a brief and inaccurate article. The law of the UKGBNI says that the succession goes to the descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover (with several provisos) - it certainly does not limit it to the first forty. Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Pin-pointing and a proposal

I'm in total agreement with both the people saying it would be very misleading to list only the top few dozen names, and the people saying that listing more poses a number of problems. Thus, I'll try to find some common ground here. As I see it, this article attempts to do, mainly, four things:

1. Compile a list of Sophia's living descendants.
2. Order that list according to the British succession.
3. Exclude those who should be excluded according to the same.
4. Number the list.

Can we agree that the first two tasks are all right? The first is of course somewhat Herculean, and it risks having an incomplete or outdated list, but I don't see any WP:NOR or WP:LIST violations there. There might be some problematic issues, but they will be few and can be handled through annotations and footnotes. The second is a trivial application of a rule (the only possible problem I can think of would be if the birth order of a twin couple is unknown).

Now, the last two are, of course, where problems arise. As for the third task, can't we just include all of Sophia's living descendants in a table (split in sections for convenience, of course) and have a column annotating, with references, anything that is known about their Catholicness? That way, we wouldn't have to specifically exclude anyone, leaving the choice as to how to apply the information to the reader, and thus not risk violating WP:NOR. Finally, the numbering: saying that Robert Adelmann is in the line of succession is fine, but saying he is 1433rd in the line of succession, well, frankly we do not know that. My suggestion is to just ditch the numbers altogether, except for the top of the list, where the numbers themselves can be properly attributed. This will remove something interesting, but we can't really include stuff that is interesting but possibly incorrect. -- Jao (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I like this general idea, with two recommended suggestions:

1) This list has not and was never intended to include descendants of Sophia whose ancestors were removed from the line of succession. If my grandfather was removed for marrying a Catholic, he would be noted with the notation that he and his descendants are ineligible. There are a few problematic cases where exclusion of the person or some or all of his descendants are in doubt, those can be handled on a case by case basis. By and large though, you'll have entire lineages removed because some ancestor converted or married a Catholic.

2) Keep the numbers, with a notation that "numbers below this point are only approximate due to missing names and ever-changing additions and removals through birth, death, and disqualification". In practice, the numbers that are "confirmed" would include all Royals, and maybe a few dozen others that can be cited but stopping at the first newborn that gets inserted with proof of his birth but not only an implicit rather than explicit statement that he is in line. In other words, a citation that says "Lady so and so gave birth to Baby Joe" is an implicit statement that Baby Joe is in line, so the tag "numbers below this point are approximate" would be placed immediately above Baby Joe. Once he's verified by a source that says he's in line, the statement can be moved back down to where it was previously, probably around #40 or so.

Also, we need to come to some consensus of how to split the list. Several attempts have been offered already, but with no consensus.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I support leaving it the way it was, as complete as possible. Happy138 (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing the numbers (in fact I privately suggested this to Morhange - a frequent editor of this article - several months ago). Almost certainly number 1252 on this list (that's merely an example) is not 1252nd in succession. I think that all numbers should be removed (including the first 40) - since all numbers all based on the presumption that certain people are excluded (a presumption which some authors, e.g. Reitwiesner, do not believe is justified). I do not believe it appropriate to raise one single source (royal.gov.uk) to a higher status than all other sources.

However, I like the present way those Sophia-descendants generally believed to be not in line of succession (on account of papistry, marriage to a papist, or illegitimate birth) are indented and italicized - and I think that the indents and italics should be maintained. Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment in passing. If, ultimately, it's merely the length of the article that's a potential problem, how about a "Line of succession to the British throne (1 to X)" article followed by "Line of succession to the British throne (X to Y)" and even "Line of succession to the British throne (Y to Z)", etc..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's better to break them along family lines, or articles would have to be renamed with every birth and death. Another option is "...Part 1," "... Part 2," etc. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to be contrary...

Make it longer. Seriously.

Its one of the most hilarious things I've seen in a while. The first few are all that is needed, and then past that, it's just for fun really.

If it gets longer, I may be able to find my grandma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.231.72 (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about!? It's way too long!--What!?Why?Who? (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Royal Marriage Act 1772

I may have missed something but it does not appear that the compilers of the list have taken into account the provisions of the Royal Marriage Act, 1772. Any descendant of George II ("other than the issue of princesses who have married, or may hereafter marry into foreign families") who marries under the age of 25 without the consent of the sovereign or marries subsequently without giving prior notice to the Privy Council, contracts an illegal marriage and his or her children are illegitimate. The House of Lords decided in 1843 that the Act applied also to marriages of members of the Royal Family that took place outside British jurisdiction. It is highly unlikely that the majority of the persons listed have gone through these formalities, though those closer to the throne have certainly done so, and this may be another reason for shortening the list to those about whom the situation is known for certain. Anthony J. Camp, MBE, FSG (http://www.anthonyjcamp.com).92.0.121.43 (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no descendants of Georg II who are not "the issue of princesses who have married, or may hereafter marry into foreign families". All his descendants are included in the exception as shown by Charles Farran (cf. Velde and Reitwiesner). E.g. King Harald of Norway (no. 62) gets his claim through his grandmother Princess Maud who married a Danish prince - and therefore none of her descendants require permission to marry. The same is true of every other person on the list. Of course, you can try yourself to name somebody listed who is actually not in line - but then you would have to show a published source supporting this; anything else would be original research. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

For a scholarly presentation on this subject see, Charles d'O. Farran, "The Royal Marriages Act, 1772", __Modern Law Review__ 14 (1951): 53-63. That Farran's contention is not merely private unsubstantiated opinion is shown by the Mountbatten family: in 1950 David Michael Mountbatten contracted a civil marriage in Washington, D.C., with Romaine Dahlgren Pierce, a divorcée; he did not request nor was he ever granted permission for this union. Nonetheless Romaine was always regarded in England as David's wife (until their civil divorce in 1954). Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an important issue, discussion of it should consider at the Royal Marriages Act 1772 article. Those who consider that it is now clearly established that nobody is now covered by this Act should condiser adding this claim to this article and be prepared to defend it following the usual Wikipedia standards of verifiability, no original research etc.. The descendants of Victoria may not be excluded since she was a queen, not a princess, and Prince Albert was naturalised by Act of Parliament shortly before the marriage (this is sourced from his article). PatGallacher (talk) 11:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the sources. All of this is discussed there. The Act does not say "marry a foreigner" (i.e. someone not a British subject), but "marry into foreign families". Farran shows that Victoria was a princess, and that she married into a foreign family; it is the standard scholarly opinion on the subject. BUT even if one excepted Victoria, the only people on the list who are NOT descended from a princess who married into a foreign family are the descendants of Alexander Ramsey of Mar (246-255). Reitwiesner also suggests that if one gave British nationality to all the descendants of the Electress Sophia, one would also have to add Maria Vladimirovna of Russia and her son George (111-112) and the descendants of Louis Mountbatten (454-483). All of these people are included by other scholars on the succession list. It would be original research to exclude them without a source verifying that they are excluded. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware that it has ever been claimed that all descendants of Sophia of Hanover are British subjects. Where is the evidence that Farran's views are the standard scholarly opinion? Doubt over even five people quite high up the list casts doubt on the rest of the list. Who are these "other scholars" who have drawn up a succession list of anything like this length? I note that you have not attempted to raise this on the Royal Marriages Act article, where it should be. PatGallacher (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read Farran, and then read the responses to him such as Clive Parry and others. A Wikipedia talk page is meant to be about discussing the content of an article; it isn't the most appropriate place for people to ask general questions about a topic which could be answered by doing a little research of their own. If an editor is interested in improving another article, I encourage him to do so. I have already suggested that this article could be improved by removing all numbers and just listing the people in succession without numbers. Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Although one writer has sought to discredit the Royal Marriage Act, which everyone admits was hastily and loosly drawn, the underlying intention of the Act remains sufficiently clear for the Law Officers of the Crown to think that those members of the Royal Family contemplating marriage should obtain the necessary consents under the Act, as is sufficiently illustrated by the more recent examples of Princess Margaret and Prince Michael of Kent. It is clear from these examples alone (and the fact that the Act was amended in 1967) that the Act cannot regarded as inoperative. Of course some members of the extended Royal Family may not be aware of the requirements of the Act. Its possible effect on the legitimacy of children has not recently been tested in the Courts (but the precedents would not encourage it!) I would certainly suggest that the list of those in line be drastically curtailed to those about whom there is no legal doubt. Anthony J. Camp92.22.220.105 (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC).

I know this isn't particularly helpful

But it's so funny, I can't help but mention it. It says this at the top of the article.

"This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it."

It needs EXPANDING? Seriously, this list needs to be broken down. Having a page as long as it is ridiculous, and not helpful. Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 07:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It may not be helpful, but it *is* incomplete, by defintion. 91.110.249.49 (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The above was me - login trouble. Alex Holowczak (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ease of modification

This is a question for the people in favour of the long list. It was on the Andrew Marr show the other day that John Reid wants to change the 1701 Act of Settlement, so that women and Catholics are not "discriminated" against. How easily can this list be modified to represent that? It could take a while, and there is bound to be the odd error due to hasty editing. It could then be difficult to check, to find this error? Alex Holowczak (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to reopen the can of worms

I'm new to this article, but here's the length issue, how I see it. The article title, "Line of Succession to the British throne". Yes, there are thousands of people in that line. Therefore, they should all be on here. In the same way that a Category for all players who have played baseball in MLB should feature all of the players, not just the first 1,000 to do so. I have noticed on template boxes that there is a show/hide option available. Is it practical to put, e.g. a family inside a similar box, and have the option to expand it to reveal all of the people in that family? It would shorten the article if they were all set to hide apart from say the top section of the family, and keep it all here, but would it bugger up the numbering? Alex Holowczak (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually the show/hide box makes the article even longer - it merely looks shorter. The length of the article is the number of bytes (currently 389,039); adding show/hide boxes would increase this. Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hide Skip

How about we use the hide facility on the persons skipped. This can reduce the size in appearance while maintaining the intent and purpose of the page. Alan Davidson (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Some editors already think that the page is too long (it is currently the longest page on Wikipedia - although the 2008 Summer Olympics is less than 15% shorter and continues to increase). Your suggestion would add significantly to the length of the page without any increase in content. This would increase the challenge of editing the page (about which some editors already express concerns). Noel S McFerran (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The page appearance would be reduced. But, I suppose you are concerned that "hiding" the skipped persons would increase the underlying code. Are we more concerned about the code or the page? I do not know - I am asking the question in good faith. Alan Davidson (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of the skipped entries

There are hundreds of people on the list who were skipped. They are not part of the line, so why do we keep them there?--What!?Why?Who? (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The people who are skipped are listed in order that well-meaning, but not-so-knowledgeable editors - don't go and add them to the line of succession, thinking that they have been missed. In the case of papists who are skipped, their legitimate children will be in line unless and until they are baptised as papists. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Making list a rational size

Complete lists which will hit up to 10,000 entries are not really utile for anyone.

British law has an out. Why not restrict the list to those people who would be required to ask Royal permission for a marriage (Royal Marriages Act of 1772)? This would cut the list to the descendants of George II, and thus reduce the list to a manageable size. It is not an arbitray rule, but a rational one, to stick to the one line, which most people would accept as sufficiently comprehensive. Collect (talk) 13:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC).

Please read the articles cited above particularly that in the Modern Law Review (1951). There is no longer anybody required by the Royal Marriages Act to ask permission to marry. It is merely a custom maintained for reasons of tradition. Your suggestion (which is entirely arbitrary) would reduce the number on this list to zero. Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope. The Act may not be valid (see last sentence of this post) but its words still exist. Is it arbitrary? Yes - it was arbitrary back then, but it is what the Parliament determined to be likely lines of succession. Arguably the laws currently regarding succession and religion would not be upheld in court, but does that mean we should list all the heirs of King Canute in the line of succession? The aim is to have a logical limit, and those not descended from George II have no chance whatsoever of succession to the throne. None. Now if we include just a couple more generations back, even I might make the list <g>. But is that what serves the readers best? That, after all, should be the primary aim of any article on WP, and, right now, WP is ill-served by having this huge list. And the straw argument about reducing the list to zero is absurd. I think "who would be" could also mean "who would have been" supra using normal English grammar without torturing the clear meaning. E.g. "Under US Prohibition, all hard liquor would be banned" and Prhobition is no longer, so their is no distinction between that and "Under US Prohibition, all hard liquor would have been banned." Same meaning. By the way, the Queen does sign consents still. I found the repeal of section 3 applying to Northern Ireland (Criminal Law act of 1967); the Queensland Imperial Application Act list of 1984 still listed the Royal Marriages Act as being in force. As the only "repeal" I can find was the partial one of 1967, I would like a cite stating why you feel the law no longer exists. The Modern Law Review does not claim the law no longer exists, by the way. Nor does the discussion supra make any such claim. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not claim that the Royal Marriages Act was not valid, or that it no longer exists, or that it was arbitrary. I said that there is no longer anybody to which it applies. Every single descendant of George II is also descended from a princess who married into a foreign house (and the act says that it does not apply to those descended from a princess who has married into a foreign house).

However, the important thing is that it would be original synthesis to conflate this article on royal succession with another article on royal marriages. One can be in line of succession without being subject to the Royal Marriages Act; they're two entirely different things. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYN does not apply to people trying to set a rational limit on the size of an article. As the act definitely deals with succession issues, it is not "conflation" to use the act to try setting some metes and bounds on the area covered. Right now, the limits seem nearly boundless, and destined to increase with each passing day. Ought we have cricket fields expand each day -- or is setting a limit on size both practical and prudent? Collect (talk)

There is a limit to this list. It is not "nearly boundless". It is limited to the descendants of George I. There is every reason to think that over time the list will become shorter as Europeans have fewer children. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

How does this sound: split the list off from the article

Turn the article into an article about the line of succession. Have additional lists for "the top 40," "the royal family," "descendants of Queen Victoria," etc. with those in the line of succession highlighted. As for people more distant, a "list of notable people in the line of succession" article would be in order, with a note that it only includes people who are not in the other lists. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Turn the article into an article about the line of succession." That is exactly the current situation. This is the list article; there is another article (Succession to the British throne) which is the narrative explanatory article. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps one break for George II, one for each other line (basically breaking it in thirds?) Collect (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am rather concerned about how long this list is and how solid the sources are. I agree the article should be split. Could we not just list the main 40 which are sourced on the actual British monarchy website, keep all the text, and the boxes at the bottom talking about other countries monarchs in line to the throne, but simply move the full list to another article? That way all the warning tags on this article can be removed, and the extended list can still be available. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

People who are Catholic

How does someone who would like to contribute to this article go about verifying whether someone might be Catholic? It's not too hard when one is checking for marriage to a Catholic (i.e. no one with the last name of Orleans-Braganca for example is ever going to make a British consort), but ascertaining someone's personal faith is rather more problematic. What is the accepted procedure? Thanks. GiovanniCarestini (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

For the existing names, the bulk of them are in one of the listed sources. For those that aren't, and those that are not currently listed, see if there parents are in the line. If they are, then there is a presumption that they were not raise Catholic. Conversions to Catholicism other than through marriage aren't that common. If the person is single and one of his parents was in line and didn't get booted out for marrying a Catholic, and the person has never married, it's probably safe to just add them. If they married, look for marriage announcements and baptismal or Christening announcements of any children. If they are well-known enough that the gossip columns track them and they didn't have a Catholic church wedding and there's no evidence of Catholic baptisms of their kids, I'd say you are OK. If they are obscure then lack of evidence may not say anything. If that's the case, post here so we can help research the individual. In any case, if you do add a name and the faith isn't 100% certain, use <!-- html comments--> after the name saying as much and put "Name - faith uncertain but presumed not Catholic" or something like that in the edit summary to draw attention. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If they're part of a royal house that is likely to be listed at Paul Theroff's Online Gotha, check to see what the males' names are. If 'Maria' is listed, it likely denotes the family is Catholic. Most of the descendants of the Austrian royal family are Catholic. The same goes for descendants of the French and Spain royal families. Morhange (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a clever strategy, I'll be sure to follow it. For people that marry into some families not on Theroff's page, would you agree with cross-checking them on Wikipedia's list of Austrian nobles families and then knocking them off the list if the family is indeed Austrian? What about a middle name like Annunziata and a parent from an Austrian noble family, is that quite Catholic? GiovanniCarestini (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hide Skip 2

In "Hide Skip" briefly discussed above I posed the question about hiding the skip. In response to a comment that this would increase the page I asked - "The page appearance would be reduced. But, I suppose you are concerned that "hiding" the skipped persons would increase the underlying code. Are we more concerned about the code or the page? I do not know - I am asking the question in good faith." Alan Davidson (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It is the length of the code which matters. Code length is tracked on this page. For several years the line of succession has been the longest page in English Wikipedia, but as of December 25, 2008, it is now in number 2 position (having been surpassed by that eminently more important topic List of townlands in County Kilkenny). It is code length which may cause some editors with older computers problems with editing. Using the hide technique is common with templates, but I am not aware of it being used for general article content in any Wikipedia article. Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Expect to be number 1 again soon. That eminently more important topic was written with html tables instead of wikitables. I've submitted a bot request to fix this. I expect the size to drop by 25-75% as a result. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Noel - thanks for the clarification. Alan Davidson (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)