Talk:List of heirs to the British throne
(Redirected from Talk:List of heirs apparent and presumptive to the British throne)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Celia Homeford in topic Untitled
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of heirs to the British throne article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editSurely heirs to Prince Charles should be Prince William, unnamed son and Prince Harry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.230.183 (talk) 09:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Um. I'm 99 percent sure the heirs to Charles listed as BS. Why is Anne listed before her brothers!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.102.194 (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Because she had no younger brothers between 1952 and 1960, thus being next in line to the throne after Charles. Please read the table. Surtsicna (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- It’s completely inconsistent with this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_British_throne#Current_line_of_succession. Overlordnat1 (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- It is entirely consistent with that article. Look at all the people between Charles and Anne in the current line of succession. None of them existed between 1952 and 1960. Hence, they were not and can not have been in line. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- It’s completely inconsistent with this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_British_throne#Current_line_of_succession. Overlordnat1 (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Requested move 8 June 2018
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: consensus to move the pages to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- List of heirs apparent and presumptive to the British throne → List of heirs to the British throne
- List of heirs apparent and presumptive to the English throne → List of heirs to the English throne
- List of heirs apparent and presumptive to the Scottish throne → List of heirs to the Scottish throne
– Per the recent discussion hosted at Talk:List of heirs to the Austrian throne and Wikipedia:CONCISE 2601:241:300:C930:5D5D:C06B:C580:BFAB (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 01:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support That's reasonable. –Ammarpad (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support They are unnecessarily lengthy, see WP:CONCISE.--Batmacumba (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. In this case, shorter is not better because it is not clear enough. Worse yet, it is not correct. The heir to the throne, legally, is the person occupying the throne. Elizabeth II is queen because she is the rightful heir (of Sophia of Hanover, i.e. to the throne). That is why the expressions heir apparent and heir presumptive exist: it is apparent that Charles will be the heir once Elizabeth dies, and during George VI's reign it was presumed that Elizabeth would be the heir upon his death. In common parlance, however, the term "heir" most commonly refers to the heir apparent or heir presumptive, but can also refer to anyone in the line, especially those expected to eventually succeed. Thus, Prince William and Prince George are commonly referred to as heirs.[1][2][3] That said, the proposed titles would be neither factually accurate nor sufficiently clear. Surtsicna (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment. The pages were originally changed from the previous titles without discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:3827:58C9:FBA4:31C7 (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support for concision and consistency. — JFG talk 15:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support per WP:CONCISE. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support. It's the job of the title to be WP:CONCISE and only WP:PRECISE enough to be clear; not to be a definition or explanation, which is what the lead is for. Using tumid titles also makes it harder to find the intended article via searching and by guessing at titles. If I were to get at one, it would be "List of heirs to the Foo throne" or "List of Foo throne heirs", though the latter leans toward journalese (but should probably exist as redirects). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.