Talk:Line of succession to the British throne/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Does this article really need over 1000 names?

I split the article at descendants of Victoria. But I preserved the earlier work in a seperate Wikipedia article. It's still big but it is much more manageable. I also put some statistics for various years so that people can estimate size.Pacomartin (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Pacomartin, could we not just have an extended list for almost all of the people included on this current list rather than just splitting at victoria. The main list could just contain he reliable well sourced few dozens in line (like the 40 listed on British monarchy website). Then hsve the huge list which has major content problems on a new article for extended line of succession to the British throne. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The House of Windsor really has very little argument. You can find it in thousands of places. To back up one generation to Edward is ridiculous, since it only doubles the number of names. I simply backed up 2 generations. Many amateur geneologists study the descendants of Victoria.

Pacomartin (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I am also not aware of any definitive research that can be done. I would not know if The Lady Amelia Windsor, born (24-Aug-95) is officially "Catholic" until she is removed from the royal website. Albert Windsor is considered Catholic since he was born, so the Royal family is obviously making an interpretation about how he is being raised. Even the descendants of Victoria have to change every few weeks. There are rumours of another Lascelles baby (legitimate or not?). I know that Catherine Oxenburg is not on the list, and she is one of the best known members (outside of the inner royals) to Americans because of the constant promotion on TV, and her reality TV shows. No one has documented that branch yet for the article.

Catherine Oxenberg Princess Elisabeth of Yugoslavia Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark Prince Nikolaos of Greece and Denmark Queen Olga of Greece Princess Alexandra von Sachsen-Altenburg Herzogin (Duchess) Amelia von Württemberg Princess Henriette von Nassau-Weilburg Princess Carolina of Orange-Nassau Princess Anne of Great Britain and Ireland, Princess Royal George II, King of Great Britain and Ireland [1727-1760 ] Pacomartin (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Line Of Succession Past the descendants of Victoria

I have not destroyed the line beyond Victoria. I put it in Line of succession to the British throne beyond descendants of Victoria. There are at least 3 places in the Wikipedia article that point to this page so that people can find it.Pacomartin (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully understand the reasons for truncating the line of succession up to the end of descendants of Queen Victoria but I had been using the list on a daily basis to research all of the descendeants of the electress Sophia of Hanover. I know the list was incomplete but it was a great aid in my research. a forewarning that the list was going to be truncated so that it could have been copied would have been extremely useful. Is that data all now lost from Wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.33.172 (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

no if you click on history, you can find it in older versions. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to the history pages.

Who is last in Line? I have been using the Line of succession article as a basis of research. Many people have documented the beginning of the list but as far as I am aware there is no source that definitively lists who is the last person on the list. There has to be a last person on the list as the line of succession is restricted to descendants of the electress Sophia who are not Roman Catholics, marry Roman Catholics or are illigitimate or descendants of illigitimate descendants. Its not possible to determine who is last in line by simply looking at the last female descendant in every generation as so many of the electresses descendants married other descendants who were higher in line thus moving all their descendents higher in line as well. The only way to establis who is last in line is to sytematically construct the line from the beginning. The current list does that very effectively and I look forward to its completion. Lewisdl (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Truncated list

Was there some sort of agreement to truncate the list, or was that action taken unilaterally? Given the amount of time people have spent on this page, some sort of consensus should have been in order.Trjumpet (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a lot of changes to the House of Windsor page first and no one objected. Changes are really a few word changes in the introduction, "size of the list section", I changed the Table of Contents so it would correspond to the 9 children of Victoria and Elizabeth (even though the youngest 3 daughters have very little to do with the list). I added a section on the oldest descendants of QV, only because this particular group has some very significant members. The statistics helps me understand what I'm looking at. Pacomartin (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont know what changes people have made but this article really needs some improvement so we can get rid of all those tags. I think it would be helpful if we split the articles as suggested by someone else. This list could keep its text and the first 40 who are in line to the throne and actually mentioned on the British monarchy website. Then the "extended" list which seems to alot of people like original research and unsourced can be moved to another article. That way we have the 3 articles dealing with this issue. The Succession to the British Throne which deals with the history and how things work. This article Line of succession to the British throne dealing with the basic list found on http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page5655.asp then a further article linked on this page Extended line of sucession to the British throne or some title like that where the long list can go that many people have worked hard on but causes this article to get several flags. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What a terrible idea, deal with the original research and sourcing first, don't hive it off to multiple the problems that this article has. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Cameron my concern is that considering how many names are currently in the list it is going to take someone or several people months to provide the sourcing and make it clear this is not original research to justify the removal of all those tags. At the moment there is no decent list of those in line for the throne on wikipedia, the main article Succession to the British Throne only deals with the past and the legal issues, apart from mentioning Charles and William. Now alot of people do not need to know whos 150th in line to the throne but the top 10 would be more useful. Thats why if this list just provided the top 40 which are clearly mentioned on the British monarchy website, it will not be original research, will not be unsourced and this list will be cleaned up and might qualify for GA or FA status.

Then the extended list can go into alot more detail and yes it will inherit the problems, but it will improve this article which is important without losing all the information alot of people have put alot of time into. I sadly dont see many other options, the only other choice would be to provide a list on the main article of the top 40 so people do not need to come here. The trouble with the tags which are totally justified is they dont say where the problem starts, the top 40 maybe well sourced but further down the list is more questionable. We need a reliable list for people which they can trust, and thats only possible if its limited to 40 (or around that figure) BritishWatcher (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that's terrible reasoning - creating a dumping ground for an article that "inherent the problems" is an awful idea. We don't create article we know are going to unreliable and are going to remain so. --Cameron Scott (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should delete most of this list provided on this article which is considered original research, unsourced and not useful to most people. That too would solve the problem BritishWatcher (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And if people do not want all of the 100s of people deleted from this list then we should add a proper list of those in line to the throne to the main article. Only including the ones mentioned on the British monarchy website or the top 10 / 20. That would then avoid people having to see this article which is very problematic. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely discussion should have occurred first. There's a time to be bold and this wasn't it. In fact, previous discussions have reached no consensus. Having said that, I kind of like what's there now. I just wish it had been demoed as either a self-reverted edit or in a user sandbox for discussion first. If there are additional objections in the next 24 hours we should revert to the big list and continue discussions. Otherwise, I like the idea of Extended line of sucession to the British throne, even knowing the resulting article will be unreliable. If we keep the split, I think we should strive to make the main article a featured list again. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A technical note on splitting: For legal reasons we have to preserve the edit history in the new article. At this point is almost as long as the list itself *joke*. To best meet GDFL requirements, we should enlist the help of an administrator to copy the article and its edit history to another article. This may be beyond the capability of an administrator, they may have to get an importer or developer involved, and that could take some time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If there was going to be a single split rather than several, the simple solution would be just to rename this article so all the edit history is intact then copy the basic list and place it on a new article with this name depending how many would be included on the "basic" list BritishWatcher (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That is a good idea, however, it may be moot as several editors object to the unilateral split and it is likely to be reverted. As long as there is no consensus, I would support reverting, even though I like the split version better.' I would prefer a restore/move/create smaller article here setup, but again, not without some attempt at consensus first. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Why Victoria?

You have to split it somewhere. The descendants of Victoria are commonly perceived as that of a unified royal family in Europe.Pacomartin (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Why was the article truncated at the descendants of Queen Victoria? Why not split it at the descendants of George III? Or George II? Or George I? Or why split it at Victoria? Why not split at Edward VII or George V or George VI? Morhange (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If I had to split it at any place within 2 generations +/- of her, it would probably be Victoria because she is so well-known. In 100 years, Elizabeth II may be a good splitting place. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to split the article anywhere, you merely think that it should be split. There is no reason why the article must be split. There are other articles of comparable length (2007 in Iraq is only 10% shorter).

The split is totally arbitrary. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the editor barely works, because the article is so big. I agree that there is no sacred reason for the split, but research beyond descendants of Victoria is not nearly as widespread. Odds are pretty good that there are only minor errors in the Victoria section, but there are huge lines missing for more remote branches. I was trying to get rid of the warnings at the beginning.Pacomartin (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

One last argument. There are currently 498 in line (descendants of Victoria) 276 skipped (descendants of Victoria) =774 total

That compares with 813 living descendants on this web site (which includes illegitimate, adopted) http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/QV_Descendants_Statistics.htm It also doesn't appear to have been updated recently.

So statistically you are pretty close on descendants of Victoria. On the greater list you are still missing thousands of names. It would be better to isolate these. At least the editor would work.Pacomartin (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Statistically for the "more remote than Victoria" lines you have a little more than 1000 names in the succession and you skipped 2,114 names. So I figure you are missing more than 2000 names. (and you are adding one every few days). So if anyone theoretically did the research you are would have to add those 2000 names.Pacomartin (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference to Danish succession in introduction

I fail to see the relevance of mentioning the Danish succession in the introduction to this article. If its function is to show that other countries' parliaments tend to have a heavier hand in regulating the succession than the UK Parliament, then perhaps that point needs to be stated a bit differently. Otherwise, I don't see the point of mentioning Denmark's succession at all.Trjumpet (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be removed. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the Danish paragraph. Trjumpet (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

PROD the old version

If nobody objects in the next day or so, I'd like to WP:PROD Line of succession to the British throne beyond descendants of Victoria. Better yet, have Pacomartin (talk · contribs) do the honors. Pacomartin: Be sure to mention that when this goes, Talk:Line of succession to the British throne beyond descendants of Victoria/GFDL history should go as well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No objections here.Trjumpet (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is proposed for deletion. I had just changed as a redirect to this site. Pacomartin (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Statistics

I think you need a table of statistics somewhere. May I suggest something like the following.

                LEGITIMATE    CURRENT         CURRENT

Descendants of Jan 1 2001 In the line Skipped Catholic Edward VII 80 X X Victoria 625 X X George III 657 X X Frederick POW 1250 X X George II 3638 X X Total 4982 X x

I passed over the generation between George III and Victoria (the illegitimate generation), and after Edward VII. It just so happens that the siblings of George I had only 1 child between all 6, and he married the sister of George II.

You can calculate "skipped" by pulling the list into Excel and sorting, but maybe someone knows how to build in a counter. At least it would give the reader some idea of the overall accuracy of the list. Of course in the Wikipedia article the word "skipped" is used for Illegitimate and for Catholic. The (Jan 1 2001 calculation) is just for legitimate.Pacomartin (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

LEGITIMATE

Descendants of - Jan 1 2001

Edward VII - 80

Victoria - 625

George III - 657

Frederick POW - 1250

George II - 3638

Total - 4982

Pacomartin (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The mere fact that you write "you can calculate skipped", shows that this would be original research (and therefore contrary to Wikipedia:No_original_research. There is a significant difference between the number of descendants of the Electress Sophia and the number of people in line of succession; they are related ideas, but far from the same thing. This article is about those in line of succession. If there are published statistics about that, then those numbers could be included in this article. But I am not aware of any such published numbers (and I do have some expertise in this area). Noel S McFerran (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, poor choice of words. I meant you could use an editor to figure out how many times the word "skipped" appears in the article. I realize that the word "skipped" was used for illegitimate descendants, Catholic exclusions, and even descendants who had moved to more senior branches because of past marriages. The WARG database includes numbers for legitimate offspring. He clearly says that he makes no judgements on religion. I put that in the title of the table. These statistics are relevant because they permit the reader to know generally how many people are in a category. They also indicate when entire bloodlines are missing from the Wikipedia article.Pacomartin (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of figuring out these statistics? Cannot one just look at the list to see how many people are actually in line? Knowing the numbers of skipped persons does not seem relevant to the list itself; the skipped persons are indicated to show relationships to the next people actually in line, and also that certain people who are in line have relations/descendants who are not. Besides, tables make the list longer, if that is indeed a concern of some people.Trjumpet (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that if a reputable source had published statistics about the line of succession then that would be relevant and could be included in the article. But no such reputable source has published statistics on the line of succession. Statistics on something else (e.g. descendants of the Electress Sophia) are not relevant in this article. Even if statistics are included they should be placed after the main content of the article (i.e. the list). Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the tables to the bottom until such time as they are deleted.Trjumpet (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the fundamental points that the Wikipedia article is still missing thousands of names. You can't look at the list and tell anything realistic. There is nowhere near the correct number of names for the bloodlines more remote than George III. There is no source anywhere that claims to have gone through all 5000+ names and determined which ones are Catholic. The added kilobytes of a table is nothing. Pacomartin (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sure most of the regular contributors to this page understand that this is a work in progress, one that may never be completed, but one that is still interesting all the same. As you say, no source has claimed to have gone through and figured out all the Catholic descendants--why then, are you wanting tables that indicate those very numbers of descendants? You seem to be all about being correct and precise, and yet the statistics cannot be so. So why have the tables?Trjumpet (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

isn't this going to change?

There are over 1000 names on this list, but won't this change as people have children in the future? that's a lot of work for the people who maintain this page. just saying. Ingridjames (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a perennial problem and there doesn't seem to be a solution we can all agree upon. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A split at Victoria is the only solution, going forward. Best to do it sooner than later.86.42.213.199 (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If one were to have an article "List of states of the United States of America", one would hardly split the list at Georgia. The line of succession to the British throne is one topic. It is misleading to create two articles when there are not two separate topics. Admittedly it is a very large topic. Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest a possible solution. Make it a goal of the article to try and keep current the line for the line of succession starting at descendants of George III, or of Queen Victoria. If you look at the statistics table, there were less than 700 names on 1 January 2001. By now there are probably still less than 800 to 900. For descendants more remote than that, just conceded that it is impossible to keep a list current that changes every few days. Simply list the names as of 1 January 2001, and state that it is not being updated beyond that date. That way the reader will at least know what he is looking at. Pacomartin (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Anybody with reasonable knowledge of this topic knows that the list of descendants of George III who are in line is already very current and accurate. That goal is pretty much met right now (I say "pretty much" since in any Wikipedia article there can be improvements). The goal for the future is to ensure that that same currency and accurateness exists with more remote lines. The task is by no means insurmountable. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

However, the descendants of King George III, probably only changes on average once a month. Whereas the entire list will change every couple of days. Even if the task is no insurmountable to try and get the entire list completed (as of a certain date), you could never keep it updated. It might be better to know that it is definitively accurate as of a certain date. Pacomartin (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC).

Entries 29 & 30 in line of succession

Obvious vandalism has occurred in the listing of children of Lady Helen Taylor (entry #26), who are listed as

27. Columbus Taylor B (b. 1994), son of Lady Helen Taylor

28. Cassius Taylor B (b. 1996), son of Lady Helen Taylor

29. Cassius Taylor B (b. 1996), son of Lady Helen Taylor

30. Robert Rudnicki B (b. 1990), Son of God.

31. Estella Taylor B (b. 2004), daughter of Lady Helen Taylor

As you can see, Cassius is doubled and Robert Rudnicki has stuck himself in as the "Son of God." Right. Below is my suggested correction. Inclusion of Eloise Taylor can be confirmed at the The Official Web Site of the British Monarchy. Although the numbering here is out of whack, if you copy paste the source provided it should work out that the corrected part of the entry runs from #27 (Columbus) through #30 (Estella).

{{editsemiprotected}}

1. Columbus Taylor B (b. 1994), son of Lady Helen Taylor
2. Cassius Taylor B (b. 1996), son of Lady Helen Taylor
3. Eloise Taylor B (b. 2003), daughter of Lady Helen Taylor
4. Estella Taylor B (b. 2004), daughter of Lady Helen Taylor

Thesonk (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing; I undid both edits by 67.173.91.181 (talk · contribs) –Capricorn42 (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Paternity Fraud

According to the article, under British law, a woman's husband is assumed to be that father of her child. What happens if it is discovered that the child is really illigitimate via DNA testing. For example, what would happen if it were discovered that Price William was fathered by someone other than Prince Charles (I know this didn't happen, just hypothetically)? Emperor001 (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Try Non-paternity event. Under UK law the married father pays the bills if he does not object to "his" child's paternity by someone else.86.42.213.199 (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

But I'm talking succesion law. If a person is found to be technically illigitimate, then does he/she lose his/her place in the line. The article you linked me to was not helpful at all. Emperor001 (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The Russell divorce case might be a precedent if there isn't an earlier one. Geoffrey Russell, 4th Baron Ampthill has been recognised as such by the Lords despite his father protesting that he didn't sire him. Opera hat (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I vaguely remember hearing of another, pre-1800 case. The British House of Lords ruled that the claimant was legitimate while the Irish House of Lords ruled that the claimant was illegitimate (or the other way round). Opera hat (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It was the other way round. See Viscount Valentia. Opera hat (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

So does that mean that it's possible for someone with not royal blood at all to inherit the throne? Emperor001 (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know English law but in many monarchies, an adopted child would be in the line of succession. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've always read that in most countries, particularly in Europe, adopted children don't inherit. Only naturally born children do. Emperor001 (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Where did you read that? It is, as far as I can tell, horsepucky. HTH! -- CRConrad (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read it on Wikipedia. Besides, it's common sense. Things such as royal titles are usually transferred by blood. I know that some countries accept adoption, but most only follow blood relations. Royal heritage is only carried by blood relations, not adoption, in most countries. Emperor001 (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Until 2002, Monaco allowed the reigning Prince and the hereditary Prince (but no other dynasts) to adopt, in order to preserve Monaco's independence from France, which depended upon continuation on the throne of the dynasty. That is how Rainier III inherited the throne: his mother was an illegitimate daughter of the hereditary Prince, so she (Princess Charlotte, Duchess of Valentinois) was adopted by her own father, and later renounced the throne in favor of her son. In 2002, Monaco widened the pool of descendants of past princes to enable more heirs to claim the throne, simultaneously banning further adoptions within the princely dynasty. I think that Napoleon also allowed his adopted children (Eugene de Beauharnais) to inherit some of his conquered thrones (Italy, Frankfurt), but only if no prince of the blood imperial existed. Otherwise, in most monarchies, royal adoptions are illegal or don't convey dynastic rights -- or if they do, dynasts of the blood come ahead of adoptees. The UK not only doesn't allow adoptees to inherit the throne, but prevents them from claiming any hereditary title -- such as the "Sir" which lowly baronets inherit (although I think the adopted son of a peer can nowadays use the prefixes "Honourable" & "Lord/Lady", but still can't inherit the main title of the family).FactStraight (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Move skipped to new article?

I might put all skipped entries into a new article called something like..... People Skipped in the British Throne. I will include all people on this article specified as skipped. I will just cut-and-paste the code. I also will give the reason why skipped. This will shorten this huge list yet still keep an accurate recors. Remember fellow editors, WP:Bold. Any objections, tell me by Midnight UTC. Good Day.What!?Why?Who? (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This is something to consider, but it's so substantive that it's not something to be bold about. Personally, I'd rather have the article split at some determined generation, such as "Close line of succession..." for direct descendants of someone and "Distant line of succession..." for everyone else, but leave the skipped people in their positions. However, a recent too-bold attempt to do that resulted in a discussion but not consensus. Past discussions to do the same have also not resulted in consensus. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This would make it MUCH more difficult to maintain. People would have to move from one page to another when they became Catholic or married a Catholic. Children would be on one page, parents on another. Some siblings would be on one page, others on another. The genealogical connections between people which are noted presently would become very unclear. Other editors have already expressed significant concerns about inaccuracies and imprecisions with the later sections of the list (i.e. is somebody Catholic or not). If this bold edit is made, then I will revert in accordance with Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.

There is a whole lot of work than can still be done on this article completing the list. The end is in sight if several editors cooperate and do the work (I've done some, and will continue). That is much more useful than creating another page. Noel S McFerran (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Partial list?

When it says the line of succession to the British Throne is a "partial list" of the people..., does that refer to the article on the line of succesion or the line of succesion itslef? Surely the first line of the article should describe what the article is about, the line of succession itself? Is this by definition not a "complete list", as it were, even if it is not fully documented anywhere? There is already a tag saying that the list is not complete. God Emperor (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Work of Fiction

I have said it before, but I will say it again, as nobody knows the effect of the Royal Marriage Act on the legitimacy of the majority of the marriages on this table, and the religions of large numbers on the table are unknown, it cannot have any validity as a list of persons in remainder to the Crown and is largely a work of fiction. Only the most recent persons on the list, where their legitimacy and religion is known, should be included. AnthonyCamp (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)92.18.3.5 (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

An encyclopedia collects and summarizes published scholarship on "every" topic. There is published scholarship on the topic of the line of succession, including extensive lists of those included. As with virtually every topic (including topics with a legal aspect), there are different viewpoints - but that fact does not mean that Wikipedia ignores a topic. If there are inaccuracies in the article, they should be corrected. Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"There is published scholarship on the topic of the line of succession, including extensive lists of those included." Eh? Where are these extensive lists? By extensive do you mean beyond the first 40 or so places, these are not disputed? Also, if there are different viewpoints it would be contrary to Wikipedia NPOV policy to put forward one as definitive. PatGallacher (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not suggested that you ignore the topic. We presently have a partial list of persons who may be in the line of succession. No editor of any encyclopaedia that I know would publish such a list without saying, "You know that these people have to get the permission of the monarch in Privy Council in order to marry and yet you have not attempted to discover which, if any, have followed that procedure". Without that permission the marriages are as legally invalid for the purpose of succession as those of George, Prince of Wales to Mrs Fitzherbert, or of Prince George of Cambridge to Sarah Fairbrother. The point has not been challenged in law since the early 19th century because these remote descendants simply have no chance of succeeding to the throne.

You are defending something which is quite indefensible. A great deal of time and effort has gone into compiling this hypothetical list but it could probably be challenged at many points. For instance the marriage in 1913 of Princess Victoria Louise of Prussia, though a great dynastic marriage and attended by members of the British royal family, was celebrated in the clear knowledge that it did not conform to British dynastic law (as the Princess discusses in her Memoirs) and so your Nos 399-424 should be deleted (or, where they have other descents) moved to other places in the list.

I do not know if the descendants of the late Princess Royal have all sought permission for their marriages, but I suspect not, and it may be for this reason that the official list does not go beyond the Earl of Harewood (No 40). I would respectfully suggest that you regain some credibility by limiting your list in the same manner AnthonyCamp (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC).

Out of interest, why didn't the 1913 marriage conform to British dynastic law? Craigy (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it was in contravention of the Royal Marriages Act 1772.AnthonyCamp (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I noticed the King's consent was noted in the London Gazette as given on the 17th March, even though the marriage had taken place on the 13th. If you don't mind entertaining me further: I'm guessing the consent wasn't retrospective? Craigy (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The marriage took place on 24 May 1913 and consent was published on 17 and 18 March 1913, so you are partly correct and I withdraw my comment. I was misled by the Princess's Memoirs saying "my father-in-law expressly ordered that consent would not be obtained in its usual form, but that he would send instead a formal notification of the marriage to the King". The King, one assumes, did not care for that and gave his 'consent' anyway.AnthonyCamp (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I just noticed the correct date, thans for that. Craigy (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I still think there should be two lists, one that covers the clear official list of 40 or how ever many are clearly published by the monarchy. Then a separate article linked from the main one for this extended one which is basically just guess work and very unreliable. We should have atleast one decent list which doesnt need all the tags that this one currently has. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely with this last suggestion, though I cannot altogether see the value of the second suggested list. Since writing the above I have looked at the indexes to the London Gazette and since the approval of the present Queen's marriage in 1947 there have only been some thirty approvals published there. I cannot be certain that all such approvals are published, but I would assume so. I am correct in the assumption mentioned above that there is no mention of the second marriage of the Hon. James Lascelles in 1985 (so No 46 should be removed) or of the first and second marriages of Jeremy Lascelles (affecting his children Nos 50-53). Is it worth publishing the list of approved marriages in the article on the Royal Marriages Act? The majority, of course, relate merely to the descendants of King George V.AnthonyCamp (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont really see the need for an extended list like this on wikipedia but it seems like a good compromise so alot of peoples work isnt lost. Ofcourse the extended list would still need all the warning tags, but atlest wed have a well sourced list with the main people in line to the throne. If its not split in two articles i cant see people accepting simply deleting the majority of this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I recognise that some people would be upset if their work is lost, but they should copy this list and work on it elsewhere if they want. PatGallacher (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a work of fiction

AnthonyCamp has claimed above that "as nobody knows the effect of the Royal Marriage Act on the legitimacy of the majority of the marriages on this table, and the religions of large numbers on the table are unknown, it cannot have any validity as a list of persons in remainder to the Crown and is largely a work of fiction." He seems unaware that the Royal Marriages Act specifically excludes from its application "the issue of princesses who have married, or may hereafter marry into foreign families".

There is not a single person on this list who is not "the issue of princesses who have married, or may hereafter marry into foreign families". Every single person on this list is excluded from the legal applications of the Royal Marriages Act.

There are lots of valid criticisms one can make of this Wikipedia article (as with any Wikipedia article); this one is not valid. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I am, of course, aware of this point, put forward by the young constitutional lawyer Charles Farran in 1967 and widely publicised at the time, but not accepted by the Queen or the Privy Council, as subsequent approvals (or lack of approval) show. In the UK if the interpretation of an Act of Parliament is disputed one considers the original intention of the Act and that, in this case, is very clear. AnthonyCamp (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC).

I don't understand how it can be claimed that a "disputed" interpretation of a law's applicability is "clear" based on "original intention" when no jurisprudential interpretation has ever been rendered: The Queen-in-Council's practice of granting/withholding marital consents is not a substitute for a binding interpretation of the law (conversely, McFerran's contention that the consents are legally void due to Farran are also personal opinion). Even if it were so, we cannot draw that "interpretation" without citations. I recall reading an essay in one of the volumes of Burke's which stated that the Farran exemption was quite plausible, and that although in practice the monarch treats those descendants of princesses who married into foreign families who are still considered members of the British Royal Family as subject to the Royal Marriages Act, no legal ruling has ever declared them so. The Sovereign may continue to grant permission for them to wed out of prudence or tradition. In any event, that article could be dredged up as a counter-weight to any contention in this article that the Farran exemption is deemed inaccurate when, in fact, the jury is still out. FactStraight (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC).

If you turn to Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th edition, reissue, volume 21(1) (London: Butterworths, 1998), edited by Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, and read the section on 'Crown and Royal Family' (page 21, paragraph 36) written by Robert Blackburn, BA, MSc, PhD, FRHistS, Professor of Constitutional Law, King's College, University of London, you will find the following statement of the law, "No descendant of the body of George II, male or female, under the age of 25 years (other than the issue of princesses who marry into foreign families) is capable of contracting matrimony without the previous consent of the monarch signified under the Great Seal and declared in council; and, subject as stated below, every marriage or matrimonial contract of any such descendant without such consent first had and obtained is null and void. If obtained, the monarch's consent is directed to be set out in the licence and register of marriage and to be entered in the books of the Privy Council. However, descendants of the body of George II, being above the age of 25 years, upon giving notice to the Privy Council, which is to be entered in the council's books, may contract a valid marriage without the consent of the monarch at any time after the expiration of 12 months from the giving of the notice, unless in the meanwhile both Houses of Parliament expressly declare their disapprobation of the intended marriage". There is an explanatory footnote (3) that refers to the Sussex Peerage case in 1844, "The effect of this enactment is to prohibit contracts for any marriage, and render void any marriage wherever contracted or solemnized in contravention of it". There is another footnote (2) that "It has been doubted whether there is anyone to whom the Royal Marriages Act 1772 would now apply: see d'O. Farran, The Royal Marriage Act, 1772 14 Modern Law Review 53. Nevertheless it remains the practice for the monarch's consent to be sought to the marriage of any member of the royal family". In 1923 C. Grant Robertson, MA, CVO, principal of the University of Birmingham and a Fellow of All Souls College and of Hertford College, Oxford, wrote that the Act "provides very stringent safeguards against udesirable marriages, which might affect the succession to the throne or lower the status of the Royal House" [Select Statutes Cases and Documents, London, 1923, page 245].AnthonyCamp (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC).

I had already acknowledged that the monarch, as a matter of practice, treats the RMA as if it applies to members of the current Royal Family who descend from princesses who married into foreign families. But nothing in your cites even comes close to declaring that this is because Farran's exemption is inaccurate or inapplicable -- indeed, the implication tends to the contrary: the language used very carefully & cautiously says "...it remains the practice for the the monarch's consent to be sought to the marriage of any member of the royal family". What the author avoids saying assures us that he grasps the problem: no authoritative finding has established that this RMA "practice" is legally necessary or valid. As I said, it may be purely a matter of royal tradition -- or not. FactStraight (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It is clear from the above commentary (or "jurisprudential interpretation"!) and discussion that the Royal Marriages Act 1772 remains the law of the land, that it has been regularly applied over a period of 237 years to reflect the will of the monarch and his/her Privy Council, but that many of those with little likelihood of succeeding to the throne (and perhaps unaware of the provisions of the Act) have chosen to ignore it. That state of affairs should be reflected in the WP entry and the descendants of marriages that have been contracted in contravention of the Act should be marked in some way or, preferably, deleted. That the Act can affect one's right to succeed to the throne should be stated in the introductory notes. All these problems could, of course, be avoided by limiting the list to the first 40 names. At the moment we have the equivalent of a list of horses that, depending on various unknown and unknowable factors, may win the Derby at some unknown future date. What value has that? AnthonyCamp (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible changes to succession laws

There is a move afoot to remove or reduce anti-Catholic discrimination and gender discrimination in the succession laws.

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7967142.stm
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/27_03_09_royal_marriages_bill.pdf

Things are still up in the air and nothing is likely to be made final in the next few months.

Most likely changes:

• Treat female and males equally
• Don't disqualify people who marry Roman Catholics

Possible changes:

• Don't disqualify Roman Catholics. This has serious issues due to the sovereign's nominal role as head of the Church of England

It's also not clear if the changes would apply to women and girls already born or if they would apply to people already excluded for being or marrying a Catholic, or the descendants of deceased women and Catholics. Odds are high it would apply to living individuals, but I'm not sure if it would apply to descendants. If it applies to descendants then the entire list would be reshuffled, with entire families long-excluded brought back in. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, but how does having to become the head of the Church of England create more serious issues with a Roman Catholic acceding than with a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist or atheist (for example) acceding? (By the way, while there might conceivably be some retroactivity, as there was in Sweden, it's extremely unlikely that a change would apply to people already dead, making people like the Dutch Royal Family much more senior than the Windsors.) —JAO • T • C 15:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no point in even having this debate, the government and opposition have made it clear they want to tackle the issue sometime in the future but not now, the guys silly bill has thankfully failed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Although the fact wikipedia got mentioned in parliament during todays debate is in my opinion another reason this article needs to be cleaned up. As said by some others and my self on several occasions above, this list should have the basic line of succession to the British throne and not all this original resource which has major problems.BritishWatcher (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As usual the BBC gets it wrong. Its article implies that the male-preference is written into the Act of Settlement. In fact it's not: it's derived from common law. Grover cleveland (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

so they'll replace a law that is blatantly sexist, with one that is blatantly ageist? I thought both were equally bad these days or did I miss a course 82.41.216.72 (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This Wikipedia page referred to in the House of Commons

This Wikipedia page was referred to by Dr Evan Harris (who introduced the Bill) in the debate on the Bill in the House of Commons. See http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2009-03-27a.562.3 – Kaihsu (talk) 13:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Limiting List

How about we limit this list to the first hundred people in line to the throne? We could then, with much more space, add a section where notable people with their own articles (such as other European monarchs) are listed with their number. Any support? I can't see it being really useful to have so many obscure individuals listed. YeshuaDavid (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a perennial argument. As of a few months ago there was no strong consensus to keep a long list or to shorten it, or for any other particular method of dealing with the long list. Until either consensus changes, the participants change so their voices no longer contribute to the consensus opinion, or some external event such as a change in the law forces a re-doing of the list, it will be hard to gain the necessary consensus to change. The last few times someone has boldly changed the list, it got reverted and the resulting discussions were pretty split. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering the fact this article has multiple problems, we should cut the list down to the 40 confirmed and well sourced people in line to the throne and transfer the large number to a different article. There should be a reliable basic list of those inline to the throne on wikipedia, instead the whole article has major warnings because we mention 1000s in line for the throne. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're covering old ground. That has already been suggested and failed to materialise through lack of concensus. I suggest you read the pages archives or propose a new compromise. Craigy (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Perennial proposals of the past

Perennial proposals of the past, all of which have merit, all of which have some degree of support, none of which had consensus at the time they were proposed

• Limit list to the "official 40"
• Limit list to a reasonable number, with varying proposals for "reasonable"
• Remove skipped
• Delete the article
• Split the article
• Use transclusions to make editing easier while viewers would see one article
• Others I'm sure I've missed

Interestingly, there doesn't seem to be a solid consensus to keep the article in its present form either. However, Wikipedia has a "default keep" history when it comes to large changes: If the proposal doesn't achieve consensus, then "do nothing" prevails. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think if we got some more points of views on this matter from people uninvolved with this article a consensus might be found. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it

"A person is always immediately followed in the succession by his or her own legitimate descendants (his or her "line") except for any legitimate descendants who already appear higher in the line of succession."

To me this would imply that Prince Andrew would be before Prince William and Prince Henry, since he was already in the line of descendants before they were born.

So do sons always come before brothers? What if Prince William or Prince Henry had a son, would they also be before Prince Andrew? Thanks. -A confused American--Jeiki Rebirth (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, any sons of Prince William would come before Prince Harry, and any sons of the latter would come before Prince Andrew. The article on primogeniture pretty much sums it up. Craigy (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What tht sentence means is basically this: Let's think of an hypothetical scenario that two persons that are both in line of succession marry; their children then appear in such a list only once - after the parent that is closer to the throne and therefore before the other parent, i.e. they will not be listed twice. Hope this helps --Poko (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the situation explained by the sentence you've quoted: King Constantine II of Greece and Queen Anne-Marie of Greece are married have children together. HM Queen Anne-Marie is higher in the line of succession than her husband, so their five children follow her in the line of succession. Queen Anne-Marie and her children are among the first 250 people in the list, while her husband is approximately 420th. Their children will not be listed again after their father, because they are already listed above after their mother.

Now, your question about primogeniture: children come after their parents and daughters come after sons. Charles is the first because he is the eldest son of the monarch. Anne was the second until her brother Andrew was born and he became the second, pushing her to the 3rd place. She was then the third until another brother, Edward, pushed her to the 4th place. Then Charles had sons who became second and third in the line, pushing down Andrew, Edward and Anne. Then Andrew had two daughters who pushed down Anne and Edward. Then Edward had a daughter, Louise, who took Anne's place and pushed Anne down in the line. Then Edward had a son who pushed his daughter Louise and his sister Anne down in the line. Surtsicna (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

camilla's son

apologies if this has been discussed before, but I think i recall reading that (strickly speaking) camilla's son is first in line. In practice it won't happen, but is it technically true? Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Unless Charles is considered the legal and legitimate father. Considering Tom Parker Bowles was born in 1974, before his mother's 2005 marriage to Charles, I'd say in a word the answer is "no." Now, if she and Charles were to have children together.... davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think a drafting error in the law makes him the heir as he'd be the son of the queen. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect. The line of succession includes only the legitimate-from-birth, non-Catholic bodily heirs of Sophia of Hannover. As the eldest son of the reigning monarch, Charles is first in line. Tom is not his biological son, so he isn't in the line of succession. William is a biological son of Charles, thus he is next in line after his father. Even if it were discovered Tom was Charles' biological son (very unlikely, mind) he still would not be included, as one has to be legitimate from birth. Look at, for example, Emily Lascelles and her brother Benjamin. They were born before their parents married, and although that legitimized them, because they were born before the marriage, they are not included. Also, Tom would not be first in line because his mother will eventually be queen. She will be queen consort, not reigning queen. Morhange (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Corrections to List

1.I have been Using the article and other sources on the internet to chart the line of succession.

I think there are some mistakes I.E at 1377 it says "skipped descendants of Count Max, who are higher in line by his wife's grandfather, Albert, Duke of Bavaria"

I dont believe this to be true and think that his Three descendants should be Listed as 1378-1380.

However I am reluctant to try and edit the article without discussing it with someone. who should I contact to voivce my concerns? Lewisdl (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The children of Max Graf von Rechberg are higher in line - but they've been missed. They should be added higher up (with a whole bunch of other people who have been missed). About 500 people are missing (3005 - 3526 on Reitwiesner's list). The problem is just before 1342 (Andrew Andreivich Romanov) on the Wikipedia list. Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

2 Having used the list as a basis of research along with William Addams Reitwiesner article on those in line to succeed in 2001, I have charted all the legitimate descendents of the electress Sophia.

I am now working my way through this lists again to try and identify any "errors or ommissions"

The first ones I have come across are the First child (and Subsequent Issue) of Carol II King Romania.

W.A.R has them included on his list as :

81.  Carol P Romania (*1920)
82.     Paul P Romania (*1948)
83.     Alexander Hohenzollern (*1961)

Prince Carol has since died but the two sons are Skipped in this article thus

Victoria → Prince Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh → Princess Marie of Edinburgh → King Carol II of Romania

skipped Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern R[6] (b. 1948), son of Carol Lambrino, son of King Carol II of Romania

skipped Alexander Hohenzollern R (b. 1961), brother of Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern

so on what basis are they skipped?

They are not Illigitimate, their parents were clearly married before their birth. They wouldnt appear to be Catholic as the Romanian royal family is Orthodox. King Micheal their uncle is excluded next because he married a catholic but his 5 children are still included. (I notice though that W.A.R doesnt list King Michael or any of his descendants) They dont appear to have married catholics either, particularly Alexander as he appears to be a bachelor.

So why have they been skipped? Lewisdl (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

3 Ommission Of Illeana Kottulinsky

She is the Daughter Of Maria Illeana Hapsburg and Jaroslav Kottulinsky who were bioth killed in an air crash in Rio in 1959 Maria Illeana was the eldest sister of Stefan and Dominic Hapsburg and therefroe her descendants should come before Alexandra Hapsburg

Suggest article should be ammended as follows

skipped Count Gregor von Habsburg-Lothringen R XP (b. 1968), son of Archduke Dominic of Austria

Skipped Countess Illeana Kottulinsky R XP (b 1958), Neice of Archduke Dominic of Austria

skipped Countess Alexandra of Baillou R XP (b. 1933), sister of Archduke Dominic of Austria Lewisdl (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(Sub-) Subheadings

Only the top portion of people in section 2.1 are descended from Edward VII. If I've figured this out right, it should be renamed Descendents of George II.

(So that we'd have 2.1 George II, 2.2 Sophia Dorothea and 2.3 Sophia Charlotte as the three main sections of Sophia of Hanover's living descendents. The first two are her grandchildren and the latter is her daughter--but since Charlotte married a Catholic, I guess it doesn't make sense to have divisions for her kids for the purposes of this article, just to make it consistent. Anyone have other options?) TiffanyMLee (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be more managable if the subheads were something like:

Descendants of Victoria

Descendants of Ernst Augustus I of Hanover (cousin of Victoria)

Descendants of Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge (cousin of Victoria)

Descendants of Augusta of Brunswick (sister of George III)

Descendants of Caroline Matilda, Queen of Denmark (sister of George III)

Descendants of Anne, Princess of Orange (sister of Frederick, Prince of Wales)

Descendants of Mary, Landgravine of Hesse (sister of Frederick, Prince of Wales)

Descendants of Louise, Queen of Denmark (sister of Frederick, Prince of Wales)

Descendants of Sophia Dorothea, Queen in Prussia (sister of George II)

Descendants of Sophia Charlotte, Queen in Prussia (sister of George I)

This way the line breaks are at siblings of the monarch, or in Victoria's case, a first cousin. If you want to break up the list further, you could replace Victoria with Edward VII and his siblings; and then replace Edward VII with George V and his siblings; etc. I know that some of the subheads will have a tremendous number of descendants, but I think it's easier to identify the closest split off of a monarch. Michael Cyr (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed cautionary note regarding marriage act from header

I removed AnthonyCamp's recently-added disclaimer that many of the names were "status unknown" and replaced it with a note at the top stating the list might be inaccurate and corrections are welcome. This should be enough to alert readers that they shouldn't assume this list is 100% accurate, and serves as an explicit welcome to all editors to make changes.

If there is a need for details of the inaccuracies to be put on the main page, it should go in a section below the list. Personally, I don't think it's warranted in this case. Instead, someone, perhaps AnthonyCamp, can take each name AnthonyCamp was talking about when he said "their status in English law as regards succession to the throne is unknown" and determine once and for all if that person is or is or is not in the list. If the status really is in legal dispute or it would be in dispute or would be but for the fact that nobody in the Royal Court or government cares to make an issue out of it, then we need to create a special marker for names "which may or may not be in the line of succession, the determination of which is not clear under the law." If such a marker is needed, the need should be heavily documented.

By the way, I am familiar with no original research. If any Wikipedia editor does original research with respect to the "unclear if the person is in the line of succession or not" topic that produces new and useful results, surely some reliable source that is interested in royal succession would be interested in publishing it, at which point it would be citeable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I made a start here to find all the notices in the LG where consent was given, though I doubt I'll have time to finish it anytime soon and there's probably hundreds more to go (unless Anthony Camp is prepared to divulge a similar list). That said, I doubt there are any notices along the lines of "no consent was sought therefore So-and-so has been removed the line of succession", so are we to remove them from the list if a notice of consent isn't found, or perhaps place a superscript next to their names? Craigy (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC).

I have added a list of the consents under the Royal Marriages Act 1772, taken from the London Gazette, to the WP article on that Act, and intend in the next few days to correct and expand the other sections of that article. As already stated, my considered view of the long Royal Line of Succession list is that it is entirely hypothetical and completely worthless AnthonyCamp (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC).

Great. It's a start at least :-) .Craigy (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Change to URL of British Monarchy "Succession" page

{{editsemiprotected}} The URL of the "Succession" page listed as a source for names with superscript letter ^B under the "Format of the list" section is incorrect. Please change the link to point here. TimBlair (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Done —Ms2ger (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A search for consensus - finds none yet

• Pacomartin (talk · contribs) - boldly split the article, thinks splitting at Victoria is a logical place to split
• 86.133.33.172 (talk · contribs) - was actively using down-level work, no statement for or against split
• Cameron Scott (talk · contribs) - appears to be against split
• Trjumpet (talk · contribs) - calls for consensus, no statement for or against split
• BritishWatcher (talk · contribs) - wants to improve article, recommends keeping top 40, presumably prefers split over single article, also suggests just dumping down-level names entirely, recommends split be undone and done properly for GFDL
• Davidwr (talk · contribs) - calls for consensus but prefers split version, recommends split be undone and done properly for GFDL, thinks split at Victoria is a logical place to split
• Morhange (talk · contribs) - wonders why split at Victoria?, prefers unified version
• Mcferran (talk · contribs) - says split is totally arbitrary, presumably prefers single article

At best, it's 4-2 favoring a split, it's probably not even that good, and even 2 of those in favor suggest unrolling it and doing it "backwards" so the long article has the history. I am one of the 4 and in the face of lack of consensus, I recommend going back to the way it was, despite my personal preference. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a long history of making corrections to this article, but it is only comparatively recently that I have added new names. I started doing this when several other editors who regularly added names stopped. I don't know for sure why they stopped (they'd be adding names for a long time), but it seems to me possible that they tired of working on a page which was constantly being threatened by editors who made no content edits and showed no signs of having any knowledge of the topic. If the editors who have it in for this article spent a little bit of time doing content edits, then the list would be near-complete. Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Davidwr is correct that I prefer a single article - because I believe that there is no justification for arbitrarily dividing a topic which is essentially one single topic. There is one line of succession, not a main line and an extended line; it's one topic, not two. I have no objection to transclusion which would solve the potential difficulty that some editors may have editing such a large article. Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly it is one topic and not two topics. It is a practical decision for two basic reasons. The editor works like crap on a file this big (100K for first article, and 300K for the follow up article). Also, because the numbering is used throughout the article, there is an implication that the topic is well researched everywhere. In fact, the descent post Victoria is probably missing a name here and there, but my guess is you are missing almost 2000 names in the more remote lines beyond Victoria. I wouldn't know how to begin to figure out the Catholics from the non-Catholics for those thousands of names, plus how do you keep track of births and deaths. Pacomartin (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Transclusion fixes the editing problem (for those who have it). I have repeatedly suggested removing all numbers. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I put all the names back in so it's one article. Keep in mind that "The descendants of Victoria section" names are almost 100% accurate, and the "real life" list is changing by roughly 1 name every 3 weeks now. The lines that are "more remote than Victoria" are probably missing 2000 names (including the well known Catherine of Oxenburg) and are changing by an average of one person every 4 days. Pacomartin (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I am in favor of one article, if only because it is, as Mr. McFerran has stated, one article. Yes, it may not be 100% accurate, and there are probably names missing, but, in my mind, there is no good place to split the list. Length issues aside, why should it be divided? The page is about the "Line of succession to the British throne," which, given its unique limitations, is longer than any other succession. Why should this page, this line be treated any differently and be truncated at some arbitrary point?Trjumpet (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There should be no split. Please, can someone restore the page? Alan Davidson (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This was clearly done without a concensus. I'm in favour of keeping (and expanding) the list as it was, but until a concensus is reached, Pacomartin's recent edits should be reverted. Craigy (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I ought to change my username to something more gender-specific n_n I prefer the article include all the names. This is not the Condensed line of succession to the British throne, the Line of succession to the British throne of Queen Victoria's descendants or any variation thereof. This is the Line of succession to the British throne, and therefore should contain the entire list, however long it may be. Morhange (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, OK, I put the names back in a while ago. You are still at under 4000 names, so you are missing approx. 2000 names (and it's changing on an average of every four days. It's already the biggest article in Wikipedia so if someone takes the time to keep adding names no-one will be able to edit it. I saw a newscaster once on TV make fun of this article during his broadcast.

I have heard a number of people state that there are 1500 people in the line of succession, because that's the biggest line number on this page. AS I said before the absolute number of people in the article at Victoria and below is "about correct" so people are obviously looking after it. There is certainly no errors at the Edward VII level and below. Pacomartin (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason to split this page. It's long, but it's interesting and maintainable. The idea that two pages would exist for two halves of the same list doesn't seem useful to me. 213.86.133.215 (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a very strong reason to split the page -- it is of no practical use to anyone at its current size, and no one actually reads it as an article. Leave added pages for "completeness" (whatever that really is) and prune this one to a rational length. Collect (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should be split. I find it most useful without the split, where all figures in the line of succsssion can be seen in a single page. Rlendog (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Does an article under this name provide value?

Assuming someone had a complete, recent snapshot-in-time list of all people who should be in this list, including skipped names, would we want it in Wikipedia? If the answer is no, then we should decide what we want and rename the article to match. I'm leaning to a 2-part split: Descendants of Queen Victoria in the line of succession, and notable others in the line of succession. The latter could be a category.

Why Victoria?

• She's famous
• With about 625 people in the list, she's got enough descendants that it's implausible that her line will ever die out
• The line is short enough to be manageable for the next few years. I'd be willing to go with George III as he adds only 30-odd more names. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Split Proposal - May 2009

• Split off everyone who isn't a descendant of Queen Victoria into another article, More distant members of the line of succession to the British throne. Only the top 500-odd entries and 100-150-odd skips stay.
• Merge the "about the line" information into Succession to the British throne#Current rules.
• Split off the consorts, other monarchs, and more famous other people in the line into a new article, Notable people in the line of succession to the British throne. Also include the top 40 in the current list and anyone with their own article. This could be a category instead of a list.
• Postpone a decision on changing how we handle skipped names. After a few months, we may decide to keep them all, or just keep the ones in the main article and not the more-distant-line article.
• After a few months, evaluate whether the new articles are worth keeping.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

i like it.pauli133 (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Still longish for anyone to actually use. I suggest KEVII as the line for the main list, and work from there. That way we might even get someone reading it. Collect (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

At 80-odd names, it doesn't offer much more than the "official top 40" lists others have suggested. How about a compromise: If the split above is approved, or any other split for that matter, consider hiding lower-ranking names that are on that page in hide/show boxes. This might be names below 40, or names below KEVII's descendants, or even names not descended from the current Her Majesty. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So, you propose putting all lower-ranking names in a hide/show box (hiding them, but not removing them)? If so, I agree. I think this is the best idea so far. Surtsicna (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. This can be in addition to or instead of a split. If it's done instead of a split, it will not solve the Wikicode-size problem. However, as I said before, now that editing the header is easy for logged in users, this is not as important as it once was. There was a time when editing a large file would crash then-current versions of some major browsers. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be done instead of a split. I also think that all those are skipped should be removed because this is not a list of people who are not in the line of succession. If someone wonders why Lady Amelia Windsor comes directly after The Duke of Kent in the succession, he/she can read the article about her. Clogging the list with hundreds of names of unnotable German nobles who are not in the line of succession and will never be in the line of succession just doesn't make any sense. Surtsicna (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a more practical reason for including skipped names: Prevent wasted reversions and prevent names for being erroneously added. The presence of a skipped name prevents someone from using an outdated source to re-add him. If we were to remove them we would need to maintain another page, perhaps a talk sub-page, to contain everyone skipped. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand. So, what's wrong with moving all the skipped names on a talk sub-page? Surtsicna (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>Or we could put skipped names in between <!-- and --> so they are hidden in the frontend but visible in the code DBD 22:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Both a sub-page and HTML comments work. HTML comments are more likely to deter well-meaning but mistaken edits, but unlike a sub-page it won't reduce the wikicode size. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I still strongly support this becoming the main list of whos in line to the British throne, only mentioning the top 40 which is recognized by many sources including mentioned on the monarchy website i think. Then a second article for the "extended" line which could include all of these people. that way we have one clean article with no problems that everyone can understand, and a second one where people can continue their original research in creating a huge list which is probably incorrect BritishWatcher (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not think the article should be split. It is long but so is the line of succession it represents. Hiding lower-ranking names that are on that page in hide/show boxes may be appropriate, but the number shown should still be greater than the arbitrary 40 that has been proposed. Rlendog (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, we need to sort this out.

Hi to all users reading this. I'm here to mention something that's probably been mentioned here practically everyday, about the size of this list. Its way too big! We need to shorten it into smaller lists to make it easier to read and find things in. Its been listed as no.1 since I've looked at Special:Longpages; which was quite a while ago. I was hoping this issue would have been sorted by now, but it hasn't: Why? Surely someone agrees with me on shortening this huge list. Ross Rhodes (T C) ^Sign! 21:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This falls under the "perennial proposals" - several proposals have been tried, but no single proposal has gained enough traction to become consensus. You'll have to go back through the talk page history for the full skinny, but from memory failed proposals included:

• Cutting it off at 40 names, as that number is used elsewhere
• Cutting it off at some arbitrary number, where arbitrary varies by the particular proposal
• Breaking the list up into reasonable-sized sub-articles by ancestor
• Breaking the list up by sub-articles by arbitrary place in line, e.g. "top 1000, top 2000," etc.
• Making sub-articles independent of and linked to a main article
• Making sub-articles transcluded into a main article. This would make edits smaller but would not have a visible difference when reading the main article.

If, after reading the history, you think you can gain traction with a proposal, submit it.

My personal feeling is that this will be futile until either the readership of this article changes or until something happens "in the real world" that makes a particular splitting make more sense. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the first step is removing those who are skipped. This list would become much shorter and much easier to read if we just remove those who are skipped. They are not in the line of succession and will never be, wo why do they need to be listed? Surtsicna (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

They are listed because they function as a bridge between persons in succession and for ease of understanding. People might wonder why Lady Amelia Windsor comes directly after The Duke of Kent in the succession. Showing the skipped Earl of St. Andrews, Lord Downpatrick and Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor answers that question. Amelia directly follows The Duke of Kent because her father married a Catholic, and her brother and sister are Catholic. Trjumpet (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not use a symbol to indicate that one or more people who would otherwise have been the next entries are not eligible for the list? No need to name them all -- I doubt anyone uses the list for that purpose at all. Collect (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I still strongly support this becoming the main list of whos in line to the British throne, only mentioning the top 40 which is recognized by many sources including mentioned on the monarchy website i think. Then a second article for the "extended" line which could include all of these people. that way we have one clean article with no problems that everyone can understand, and a second one where people can continue their original research in creating a huge list which is probably incorrect. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps better than a symbol is a hide/show box. For users with JavaScript a hide/show box hides text. See User:Davidwr/Templates/collapsed top and User:Davidwr/Templates/collapsed bottom for an example. It displays like so:

Names skipped

This box has not been optimized for this page. We would want to format it so it's less obtrusive.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) Which would shorten the total length by how much? Being "Number 1" is length is not a really big honour. Collect (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the inherent size-related problem with the topic, there are two size-related problems with the actual article: One is the Wikicode size, the other is the human-readable size. Using hide/show templates will help with the human-readable size.

Unfortunately, eliminating the skipped names to tackle both problems will leave people wondering why name B isn't between names A and C, not realizing B is deliberately excluded.

There are about 2400 skipped names and about 1600 actual, names there, with "more to be added." If we turned every set of 3 or more "skipped" lines into a single hide-show, we could greatly reduce the human-readable size of this file, probably by over a thousand lines.

My recommendation: Accept the fact that skipped names are better than not having them, and find the best overall solution to the size problem, or decide that the problem isn't worth solving. While looking at solutions, assume that someday someone will compile a complete list, excluding a few recent births and including a few recent deaths, including all skipped names. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A note on WikiCode: Now that editing section 0 is easy for logged-in users, being a large file is much less of a burden. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Never Mind the size of the list, there is a simple wiki and thats the solving of the problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tukogbani (talk • contribs) 16:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the "show/hide skipped" idea is the best I've seen so far. Why does it matter if it means the article is still the longest on wikipedia? "Skipped" people (though I would have thought "excluded" would be a more accurate term) should be listed in some form as the interest in the further reaches of such an article will be primarily genealogical. Opera hat (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Asterisks

Earlier this year, "skipped" was replaced by "*" to reduce the size of the page slightly. As long as the skipped names are there, the asterisks need to stay or be replaced by some other indicator that the person is skipped and why. I guess we could change Individuals who are descended from the Electress Sophia, but are excluded from the line of succession for various reasons are marked with an asterisk "*". to Individuals who are descended from the Electress Sophia, but are excluded from the line of succession for various reasons are listed in italics. In the meantime, I restored the previous * convention. Feel free to switch to another convention if you like.

Also, when I restored the edit I clobbered, I only wikilinked the first occurrence of the name, per longstanding wiki-convention. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the "skipped" with an asterisk to save some 20,000 bytes; not insignificant for the longest article. To me the asterisk should be a signal to readers that there is an explanation somewhere, which there is. To replace the asterisk with nothing would save another 3,000 bytes - but we must balance that agaisnt potential confusion. Alan Davidson (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

More space saving

There is some superfluous code which I have removed to save some space. I agree that the "skipped" people should remain, in part to avoid future editors thinking there is a mistake and inserting a descendent who was properly left out. But early on we have entris which end with "and his heirs" (see after 52 and 54). Presumably this avoids listing a large number of descendants. Yet that appears not to be the case towards the end. Can we do this later on and so save significant space without impacting the credibility of the list? Alan Davidson (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It mentions 'and heirs' because Mark and Martin Lascalles and Emily Lascalles-Shard were illegitimate children later legitimised by their parents marriages, not because they are Catholics. Neither they, nor their children and future descendants can ever be re-added to the LoS (unless one of them marries someone who is in line) while skipped Catholic descendants can have children who are baptised and raised in other faiths (ie Ileana Snyder's three children) Morhange (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the can be re-added, but it would take an act of Parliament to do so. Anyone want to write their MP to get me added to the top of the LOC? *joke*

Seriously, thanks for the clarification. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm for that, since the list is functionally useless as it is.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I want all the info in this article to be kept as is plus adding all the missing info. Why not use collapsable table to make it easier to read and navigate? --Kvasir (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

We need a decent article on the line of succession to the British throne

As i have said several times we really need to do something about this article. Can we please not split the article in two, having the main one covering the basic line of succession which is backed up by major sources including the monarchy website (so covering about the first 40) making it a nice article, then have a link to this one which could be renamed an extended list and that way all peoples original research is not lost. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read the numerous discussions on the talk pages (i.e. the archived ones) about this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.180.226 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 24 June 2009

can we make it searchable at least? It's impossible to find anything. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I made the talk page archives searchable. I assume that's what you wanted to be made searchable. I don't think the search includes the main talk page, but your web browser's find function should work okay for that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ive seen the nonsense debates on this matter over and over again. Almost everyone agrees something needs to be done about this awful article, but nobody agrees what and those that see this as a place for their original research dig their heels in and oppose change. Im seriously considering creating a new article for the basic line of succession and going around wikipedia removing the links to this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Content forking. szyslak (t) 10:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This current article violates many Wikipedia rules, most of it is just Original Research anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the current article is original research or whether it reflects published sources has been debated over and over again. I take it on good faith that the dead-tree and other sources listed at the bottom were used for the bulk of the article and that the individual entries are as current as the sources from which they came. It is unfortunate that there were not in-line citations to prove it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry but the Original research tag has remained on this article for a long time and nobody has had it removed, which should sound the alarm bells. Now i dont doubt that people are using certain sources to make this list, but it doesnt seem to me they are working from a single up to date list so there must be some original research involved. Now if people step back from this whole thing for a moment, we currently have one very very very long list which has a number of problems reflected in all the tags this page needs. Now that warning applies to everything on the page, rather than the 1000+ people which are the real concern. I just dont see how people cant think its sensible to have a nice little stable article with the core people in line to the throne (published on the British monarchy website itself) so certainly not OR, then providing a link to an extended list which would be this one. The majority of people who look at this page are not interested in the 1200th person in line for the throne. i know people have done a huge amount of work for this article, but its because we go into too much detail and have such a huge list all these tags are needed and the article is of poor quality BritishWatcher (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, this list would be complete and every name referenced. Having a single list which is a compilation from other lists and other published facts is not OR. OR is what gets you published in scientific journals, or laughed at if your research is bogus or psuedoscience. What this list will ideally become is a logical compilation from existing lists plus published-in-reliable-sources information saying who died, who was and was not baptized a certain religion, who died, who married and what religion the spouse was, etc. Now, I'm not naive - unless someone wants to devote man-years of effort, or someone else creates the list off-wiki and we copy it, the ideal won't ever be realized. But that doesn't mean the list should be chucked.

As for having a smaller list, that's great, but this list or an improved version of it should keep the title. An article called "Top 40 names in the line of succession" with information on why 40 is a good cut-off point, i.e. it's the cut-off point used on Royal web sites, would be a good article to have. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Im still not convinced that there is no original research going on in forming this list but its interesting to take a look at some of the other line of succession articles. Norway Denmark Japan Spain, Sweden Belgium Netherlands. None of those articles see a need to go into such a huge list of people, they mentioned the basic line. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What? As far as I can see, they all mention the entire line. Most monarchies don't have thousands of people in line to the throne. —JAO • T • C 18:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

they mention the basic line mostly of about 10 people, not a huge list like this article does. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was somehow unclear. They mention those 10ish people because that's all there is. The Swedish succession, for instance, is restricted by law (not by some Wikipedia convention) to the descendants of Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. That's a total of three people. Most laws of succession have their earliest common ancestor further back in time (although surprisingly many still in the 20th century), so they have a bit more than three, but many also exclude women except for those born recently, which goes a long way towards restricting the line. Plus in some countries people have been disqualified for various reasons. The British situation, where most descendants (not only agnatic) of a person who lived in the 17th century are legally in the line of succession, is intrinsically special. That's why we have this problem here and not at those other articles. —JAO • T • C 19:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh i see thanks, so in all of those cases they have changed their constitutions which retrict it to a certain degree where the UK hasnt so it can just go on and on and on and on. I still do not see why we cant have the basic list as published on the British monarchy website [1] instead of going into who is the 1000th+ in line to the throne. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The basic list does not give the proper impression of the line of succession. The wiki list can either be as accurate as we can make it, or it can be shorten for the convenience of others. The way the list is now, although quite long, conveys the magnitude and the scope of the line of succession, which is restricted to the Non-Catholic heirs of the body of the Electress Sophia. Is it an intriguing genealogical task to list every single person in line? Of course. Should we divide, shorten, or otherwise compromise this list because it is too long? Absolutely not. Trjumpet (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) IMHO, I'd trim the article down to no lower then Victoria's descendants. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)