Jump to content

Talk:Line of succession to the British throne/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Norwegian throne, accuracy, catholics and a divider

Is anyone else concerned that the Norwegian intelligence services would only have to kill 60 people in order to unite the Norwegian and British Crowns? ;)

Now this is certainly an interesting page. I think many users will also want to know on which principle this list is based. Any plans to add that sort of thing? KF 16:58 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)

And then there will have to be a link to King Ralph!

Yes, but if anyone else wants to do it before i do they can. -fonzy

Isn't Prince Charles the Prince of Wales?

Is it really correct to call his sons "Prince William of Wales" and "Prince Harry of Wales"?

S.

I've added some explanation of the order of descent, particularly for the descendants of George V. I'm not sure who the final descendant of George V is, but Harald V of Norway goes back to an earlier British monarch (Edward VII, I think). - And yes, Prince William of Wales is correct, as he is a prince and is of Wales, but as you say he is not The Prince of Wales. - I haven't (yet?) fixed this to show correct styles: he is The Prince of Wales, not Prince Charles, and so on. There is no 'correct' way of giving the name as well: to call him 'Charles, Prince of Wales' is a mixed form that wouldn't be officially used. - Gritchka 13:54 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

The Lascelles family are descendants of George V, via his daughter Princess Mary, who became the fifth Princess Royal, and married the 6th Earl of Harewood. His family name was "Lascelles". The people immediately following them - the Carnegies - are descended from Edward VII's daughter Louise, the sixth Princess Royal, who married the 1st Duke of Fife. Sorting this page out is on my mental list of "Things To Do", but since this is increasing in size rather fast, I expect it will be sorted out before I get round to it... -- Oliver P. 14:15 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

Edit by Fonzy labelled - 'its no longer just eldest son, its now eldest child

When did this happen? I wasn't aware of such a change, I thought it needed an Act of Parliament. I remember Jeffrey Archer wanting to pursue such a change but I didn't think it had happened, particularly as the male line of succession it pretty clear and it wouldn't be an issue for some considerable time. Mintguy
It hasn't happened in Britain - yet. It's happened in Sweden. Don't know about other countries. Deb 18:13 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

I made a few changes to the list, mainly to reflect the need for disambiguated links even where there aren't yet articles. If anyone feels I've done it wrong, please say so -- I'm not the oracle. Deb 21:42 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

Good work! But I see that Fonzy is suggesting extending the list to 150 or so people. Is there any chance that we'd be able to maintain a list of that size? I'm not sure. I don't think there's much chance that we'd be able to keep track of all the births and deaths among all those people, so our list would be almost guaranteed to be inaccurate, even after we've settled all the naming business. Well, we can give it a try, I suppose... -- Oliver P. 01:23 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)

Fair point. One solution might be to have two lists, the top twenty or thirty which would be constantly updated, and a second list for the rest with the latter list being described as the 'Order of Succession as of the start of 2003'. The first list could be constantly updated, while the latter list would simply be there to give an indication of how many people are in theory in the line of succession as of the start of 2003. JTD 01:39 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)

Aha! That sounds like a good idea to me. -- Oliver P. 01:54 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)


Changed this around a bit. Edited the list of succession to keep it up to date (added Eloise Taylor, Lady Helen Taylor's new daughter, and took out Lord Downpatrick, who has converted to Catholicism), and changed around some of the styles (in particular, I put in all the Fife titles, which weren't there before). I hope nobody has any problems with this. -- john 02:18 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

In terms of the end of this list, does anyone have any idea of the religions of the many descendants of Princess Ileana of Rumania? Since they're mostly Habsburgs, I would suspect that most of them should be skipped, but I have no real idea. john 04:30 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm...many of these later individuals are Catholic. If we're going to exclude Prince Michael and Lord St. Andrews from the list, we also ought to exclude the Prince of Hohenzollern and Archduke Dominik of Austria. Unless someone can determine the religious affiliations of all the people currently on the list, we should either cut off the list at the point where we can say for sure the religious affiliations of the persons on the list and their spouses, or include all individuals, whether or not they are Catholic or married with Catholics. To exclude those people relatively close to the throne who are Catholic or married Catholics, while including people further from the throne who are excluded for the same reason ought not be done. john 04:52 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I would think the most instructive way would be to make a List of the legitimate descendants of the Electress Sophia and simply note if any of they are excluded from the succession and on what basis: (dead), (Catholic), (married a Catholic). -- Someone else 22:52 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Why not add a divider into the list. Everyone above it is in the list in keeping with the Act of Succession. Those below are listed simply by descent, with a note at the divide explaining that some below the divide may not be eligible under the Act of Succession to inherit the throne due to their religion but that due to the their distance from the throne, the extreme unlikelihood that the would ever inherit it and their international locations it has not been possible to distinguish between those eligible by religion and descent and those ineligible by religion though eligible by descent. FearÉIREANN 23:15 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

A divider would be workable, I think, assuming that that can work with the "#" deal...#94, Princess Katarina of Yugoslavia, who's daughter's surname is "de Silva", would seem the first likely candidate for exclusion. Perhaps the break could be made after the descendants of Edward VII (that is to say, after no. 77), though this would mean taking out information about King Michael and Crown Prince Alexander...I don't think listing all descendants of electress Sophia would be workable, considering that there's several thousand of them. john 07:03, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I really admire your fortitude. Deb 21:13, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Daughter of Edward and Sophie will not be styled HRH:

When Edward and Sophie married in 1999, it was decided, with the Queen's agreement, that any children they had would not be called His or Her Royal Highness.

Instead, the couple's baby girl will take the title of Lady. [1]

--Jiang 05:43, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, but no royal warrant, or whatever, has been issued to actually effect the change. As such, she's "HRH Princess (forename) of Wessex" until further notice. john 05:46, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Until further notice, she doesn't even have a forename. :) So there is nothing to attach the "HRH Princess" bit to. Does someone without a name have any official style at all...? -- Oliver P. 05:57, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hmm...good point. She is, however, a Royal Highness and a Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland until further notice... john 08:36, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In fact, the Earl of Wessex's daughter is an HRH and a Princess, as per the 1917 Letter Patent which makes any male-line grandchild of the monarch an HRH Prince/ss. As no document has been issued by the palace, the baby retains this style. That she will, in practice, not be known by said style would seem to be the case, but nevertheless, she officially has it. The Palace could, of course, end all this silliness by issuing a royal warrant to say that she won't be an HRH, but they don't seem to be doing so. Until that happens, she is an HRH, although she won't be known as that. "HRH Princess Louise of Wessex, known as Lady Louise Windsor" would be technically correct, I think, until some sort of document is forthcoming. john 05:57, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't think it is correct to list Lady Louise as "HRH Princess Louise of Wessex". The letters patent only gives entitlement to use that style, but it is not compulsary. Therefore she should be listed as Lady Louise only.Astrotrain

This has certainly never been the interpretation before. For instance, in 1919, when HRH Princess Patricia of Connaught married and wished to no longer be known by her HRH style, it was considered that a royal warrant was necessary to allow her to be known only as "Lady Patricia Ramsay."
Here's the text of the actual letter patent:
It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of any Sovereign of the United Kingdom and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour.
Key words: shall have and at all time hold and enjoy. Seems pretty clear to me. john 17:36, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Catholics, catholics, catholics. The latter part of this list is full of Catholics. Hints: anyone with the name "Habsburg" is very likely a Catholic. So is the princely house of Hohenzollern. Isn't there anyone who can figure this out and remove these people? john 07:31, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Your comment about Catholics

That was bothering me too.. I removed a group of people per this article in the Guardian: "Christopher Habsburg (b 1957) and his children, his siblings, their descendants and his paternal uncles, aunts, and their descendants are not shown in most order of succession lists because his grandmother Princess Ileana of Romania's marriage to a Roman Catholic. Christoph's father, the late Archduke Stefan of Austria, Prince of Tuscany, became an American citizen and he and his family use the surname Habsburg."

I believe that the Snyders in that line may in fact be Protestant. The Hohenzollern-Sigmaringens are certainly Catholics. john 23:46, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't think that in the Princess Patrica case, there was an an actual letters patent stating that she had her HRH prefix removed? .[[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]

Royal Warrant, not Letters Patent, were the mechanism through which Princess Patricia of Connaught voluntarily relinquished her royal title and style. King George V actually issued two Royal Warrants on 25 February 1919. The first of these allowed Princess Patricia to relinquish the title of Princess of Great Britain and Ireland and the style of Royal Highness immediately upon her marriage to The Honorable Alexander Ramsay. The second Royal Warrant, allowed her to assume the style of "Lady Patricia Ramsay" with precedence immediately before the marchionesses of England. These Royal Warrants did not affect Lady Patricia Ramsay's place in the line of succession. She continued to be regarded as a member of the British Royal Family, although she largely ceased to carry out royal duties (with the exception of her role as colonel-in-chief of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry Regiment). You can read the text of the Royal Warrants at http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~canyon/documents.html

Jeff

Naming convention and capitals

This article was originally "List of Succession to the British Throne", but I renamed it "List of succession to the British throne" so that it follows our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization).

Now it has been partially renamed back to "List of Succession to the British throne" (and the redirects were not updated, by the way). Why? Why should "succession" be capitalized? It's not part of a proper noun as far as I can see. If no one can defend the capital, the article should be renamed "List of succession to the British throne" again. Indefatigable 18:07, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

List of Sucession is a recognised term, used along with Line of Succession, when referring to monarchies. It is not simply a generic term. FearÉIREANN 19:38, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That may be so, but the page on royal.gov.uk linked to from the article contains the heading "Line of succession", not "Line of Succession", and despite talking about the succession for three paragraphs doesn't ever capitalise it, despite capitalising quite a few other terms used on that page. I don't think there's any need for Wikipedia to use this "cap-doffing" honorific capital when the government doesn't. Onebyone 21:22, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Validity and Authority

With all this talk of who is and is not Catholic, I think this page is verging on primary research. Would it be better to find an authoritative source for the succession, rather than playing what amounts to a guessing game? Onebyone 00:16, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Indeed, it is problematic. But certain families are certainly Catholic - the Hohenzollerns (not the Royal House of Prussia Hohenzollerns, but the Hohenzollerns of Hohenzollern), the Habsburgs, and so forth. That Ileana Snyder and her family are not Catholic I get via alt.talk.royalty, from poster Marlene Koenig, who has written a genealogy of the descendants of Queen Victoria, and who should know. I've certainly not done any primary research, but it is probably true that an authoritative source would be difficult to come by. john 00:37, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've found a few sources, which all confirm Sonja Thune-Larsen as the 100th individual in the line. Afterwards, however, they are all doubtful (some exclude all Habsburgs, some include a few Habsburgs, but not others, etc.) So this list could stop at 100, a nice round number. -- Emsworth 14:57, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See Talk:Line of succession to the British throne/Draft. -- Emsworth 17:27, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Actually since the Catholic succession laws have never actually been remotely close to being tested, who knows if they would ever be enforced or not. I think just adding the complete line in and worrying about whether they are Catholic or not when the 200th in line is up for coronation makes good sense 66.238.96.32 14:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Incidentally, "Throne" should be capitalised -- "British Throne" is a proper noun, like "Chrysanthemum Throne" and "Peacock Throne." -- Emsworth 13:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Why not "line of succession", with lower-case l and lower-case s?

Within the article, they actually alternate: "Line of Succession" with capitals appears three times and "line of succession" with lower-case appears three times (this includes occurrences in section headings). If "line of succession" with lower-case letters is not incorrect, then the use of the capitalized S is the article's title would appear to be motivated only by the fact that the title is where it occurs. By Wikipedia conventions, that makes it incorrect. Michael Hardy 02:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to move this to Line of succession to the British Throne unless anyone objects. "British Throne" is a proper noun, as Emsworth said, above, 10 months ago.
James F. (talk) 16:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ragnhild Lorentzen

"lives in the United States where she works in the hospitality industry", lol...71st in line to the Throne and she works at McDonalds? Hehe, I wonder if she puts in on her resume? I know I would! --Sherurcij 07:14, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ragnhild Lorentzen either partially owns or manages a pub or a bar. However, in Nov 2003 she married her Irish-Catholic boyfriend. Can someone take her off the List, my skills with Wikipedia is not advanced enough to make so many changes without screwing up.

A discussion about the red links on this page is here: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates#Line of succession to the British Throne, comments about this issue anyone? NoSeptember (talk) 21:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I for one think the red links are necessary for aesthetic purposes, and to emphasise the names of the people being listed. It doesnt matter if they are not notable enough for their own article, the red links do no harm and only good. Surely? Jdcooper 18:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Your recent disambig-ing of several names is part of what's wrong with red-linking. You've called several people "nobles" who aren't nobles at all (at least not in the British sense of the word). Doops | talk 18:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hereditary structure

Is there any way to use spacing, indentations, or something similar to make the hereditary structure of the list more apparent--without interfering with the numbers? I had in mind indenting the children of each member of the list: For example, indenting William and Harry under Charles, but then moving back out a step so that Andrew, Edward, and Anne would be directly below Charles. This would make it much easier to see when the list is moving from parent to child, when from sibling to sibling, and when it has to jump back a generation to pick up the descendendents of an earlier generation.

Since the list starts with Queen Elizabeth's descendents, it would also make sense to leave a space when it jumps back to George VI's other children, Victoria's, etc.

Error in the Prussian family?

There appear to be mistakes here. Number 142, Princess Viktoria Luise of Prussia, is linked to a woman who has been dead twenty-five years. Even In Prussia the dead do not inherit thrones.

I think you're right; number 142 seems to refer to the wrong "Princess Viktoria Luise of Prussia". I'll look into it and cut the link, if appropriate. EgbertW July 3, 2005 00:31 (UTC)

Number 142 is the Viktoria Luise von Preussen born on 2 May 1982 in Berlin, the daughter of Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia (b. 9 February 1939) and his second wife Ehrengard von Reden (b. 7 June 1943). Friedrich Wilhelm lost his position as heir of the House of Hollenzollern because his first marriage was considered unequal; the requirement for "equal" marriage was later upheld by a German court. In consequence, Viktoria Luise has no succession rights insofar as the Hohenzollerns are concerned, but as Britain has no requirements for equal marriage, she's still in line unless she makes a religious faux pas. The line from Victoria is Victoria -> Alfred of Edinburgh -> Victoria Melita of Saxe-Coburg -> Kira of Russia -> Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia -> Viktoria Luise von Preussen. - Nunh-huh 3 July 2005 00:50 (UTC)

Additions

I've added considerably to the list - I added all of the presumably protestant descendants of the Duke of Connaught, and also expanded on the table at the end by adding all the different lines that are in line for the throne. In terms of the additions, I didn't count several branches where I just assumed they all would be Catholic. Specifically, I skipped over Princess Birgitta of Sweden and her descendants (she married into the Catholic Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen family); and Princess Alexia of Greece and Denmark and her children (she married a Spaniard). I assume I have correctly excluded these Princesses themselves, but if I have mistakenly excluded any of their children, please bring them back in. Also, if I have mistakenly included any other people who are actually Catholic or married to Catholics, please exclude them back out. john k 3 July 2005 03:23 (UTC)

Nice job adding all of that detail to the order of succession. I notice that you left out the descendants of Alfred's fourth daughter, Princess Beatrice. Is this because she married the Infante of Spain, whose family is presumably Catholic? EgbertW July 4, 2005 06:01 (UTC)
Yes, I left them out because of presumed Catholicism. I have now added the descendants of Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany - again, I left out some presumed Catholics. john k 4 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)

I've now added descendants of Princess Victoria and Princess Alice, Victoria's two eldest daughters. As usual, I've not been terribly sure of Catholics - I excluded those married to Italians, Frenchmen/women, Spaniards, and known German catholic noble families, and (mostly) their descendants, unless I knew the precise situation. If anyone has better knowledge as to who is and is not Catholic, please include them. Oh - I excluded the Cyr family, which seems to be French Canadian, but may not be. This was a particularly dubious decision on my part...I notice that by the reckoning we have here, Prince Philip comes out at 491 instead of 550 or so, which was the estimate we had given before - I'm not sure where the estimate came from, but it's quite, quite possible that I have excluded some non-Catholics. john k 5 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)

Well, it was easy enough to finish up Queen Victoria's descendants - there's only one living legitimate descendant of Lord Carisbrooke, and I excluded all of Ena and Alfonso XIII's descendants as almost certainly Catholic. john k 5 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)

Added the descendants of George III's other sons - not too many of them, since most of the Hanovers are descended from Kaiser Wilhelm, too. john k 5 July 2005 01:42 (UTC)

I think the Catholic descendants should be added too. After all the law has never been actually tested. As GB has a sizable Catholic population now, I'm thinking that if it came right down to the crunch they would let whoever take the throne. In fact there has been stirrings in parliament the last few years to change the inheritance law for Catholics as the law is antiquated and quite prejudicial.

They couldn't ust "let" whoever take the throne. If the Duke of Kent and everyone ahead of him died, I don't see how Lord St Andrews or Lord Downpatrick, who have been specifically noted to be excluded for some time, could ascend to the throne. As to changing the succession law - I would guess, if they did so, they would also limit the succession much more than it is at present - perhaps only to descendants of George V. At any rate, they have not amended the Act of Settlement, so it is in force that anyone who has married a Catholic, or is Catholic, is not in the line of succession. john k 5 July 2005 14:33 (UTC)

While I understand that we don't want to have false positives, the actual alternative links being created are awful. Louise Mountbatten (Mountbatten)? How does that distinguish her from Louise Mountbatten? And referring to Victor Berger as a royal is rather questionable. I'd suggest using birthdates for those people who are only significant for their place in the British line of succession - or, as somebody else suggested, we could just remove the links for totally insignificant people. john k 6 July 2005 05:05 (UTC)

In addition, the link to Elizabeth Ward redirects to Elizabeth Gracen, Miss America, actress, and nude model. I was all ready to add the succession template to her page before I realized the birthdays didn’t match. I agree with the link-of-the-day discussion that the always-red ones should just be unlinked; it’s ugly, and there’s too much potential for accidental conflict among the commoners. crism 02:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I ran across the very same issue and questioned its validity. Either Elizabeth Gracen's URL should be altered away from Elizabeth Ward or the ones lower in the list (perhaps after the first few dozen) should be de-linked. Also check the link for David Cook. Although the year of birth matches, I would assume its linked by coincidence of having a common name. Other examples include Alexander Fraser (leads to a disambiguation page where none of those listed are the Alexander Fraser in the list). B Cas 06:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Validity checking

I know the remove of over 500 was recently added, so is assumed to be fairly accurate, however I worry that this list is now more than a little unmanageable. What sources do we have to know that any of the listed individuals haven't died, had further children or (shudder at the thought) become Roman Catholic? Why are there not better sources listed in the external links section so that we can all check this ourselves? The official site of the Royal family only has up to 39th in line. -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Minor errors are inevitable. We could paste an (as of 5 Aug, 2005) in the article after each comprehensive update someone does. Right now I see an inconsistency at #503 on the list (is there really only one qualifying descendant of a daughter of Queen Victoria?) and this person is listed as #504 on the family branches list. There will always be inconsistencies like this. NoSeptember 12:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Of Victoria's daughters, Princess Helena's only living descendent was born out of wedlock, and is ineligible and Princess Louise never had children. With the exception of her eldest son's daughter Iris, Princess Beatrice's descedents were all Catholic, and of Princess Alice's children, five of them have no living descendents (Elisabeth, Ernest, Friedrich, Alix, and May) and I don't think either of Irene's children had their own children. Victoria, Marchioness of Milford Haven, Alice's eldest daughter, should have her descendents in the succession. Her daughter Alice had 5 children (including the current Duke of Edinburgh), and her two sons George and Louis both had descendents. Princess Victoria, Empress of Prussia, Queen Victoria's oldest daughter, also has plenty of descendents, including the exiled heirs and descendents to Greece, Germany and a number of German duchies. Morhange 22:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Of Alice's daughters, as you note, five have no descendants. Irene's children are already covered as descendants of Alice's older sister Victoria (whose son Henry married Irene). So only Victoria Milford Haven's descendants would be on the list because of their descent from Alice. john k 23:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations and 2 thoughts

Congratulations to those who have devoted such industry and staggering learning to this.

First thought: Paul Theoroff's Online Gotha will normally at least show who is alive and dead and is up-to-date on descendants.

Second thought: Since this is entitled Line of succession to the British Throne, would it be possible to number those actually in line of succession but to include in the list, without numbering, those who have been skipped. This could be quite transparent and helpful for making future corrections. 

00:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Stubs

Out of curiosity, when additions are made to the list, someone is going to have to go through and manually change all of the stub articles that say "So-and-so is currently Nth in line to the British throne" each time a new birth/death occurs. This probably won't be much of a problem for those low on the list, but for example, when Prince William has his first child, that is going to require edits in a lot of articles. Wouldn't it be better to just delete these and only say that they're in line? 156.63.85.17 13:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

That's true; and even without taking your argument into account those stubs should be deleted anyway. A spot in the British succession is not by itself enough noteworthiness for an article. Doops | talk 19:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Jacobitism

Should the current jacobite heir Franz of Bavaria convert to Protestantism would he be ahead of Prince Charles in the line of succession (Senior heir of Charles I)

No. The line of succession is based on the relationship of the individual to the present monarch. -- Francs2000 16:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, its based on the relationship of the individual to the Electress Sophia, but same difference. john k 16:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

But somewhere this needs to be noted - perhaps related to the comment on Catholicism: ... [A]lthough the laws preventing "Papists" from taking to the Throne have been neither used nor otherwise tested...

Perhaps a qualifier is needed here concerning Henrietta Maria and the descendants of Charles I such that it is clear that Sophia was selected due to the Act of Settlement, but a senior Catholic line exists?

New norwegian heir born...

which probably would slot in at ~63rd place.

Should probably wait with update until the name is announced on Monday. 17:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC) andreala

  • I switched the spots for Ingrid Alexandra and her new baby brother. In Norway, she takes precedence in the line of succession over him, but in the British line of succession, males always come first, and so he is ahead of her. Morhange 22:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Great job

I just want to say great job to all who contributed to this article. Amazing work!!! Prsgoddess187 16:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This article contains an exceptionally large number of red links, which is widely regarded as bad practice. I bet you that the large majority refer to articles which will never be created, and if they ever were would be regarded as non-notable. I recognise that there are a handful of exceptions e.g. grandchildren of a Swedish king. See the AFD discussion on Estella Taylor for some issues here.

The vast majority of people in this list are not and will never be notable. If any of them does invent a better mousetrap and get written up we can always manually link to him/her then. (After all, given the confusing and unintuitive disambig names we were suggesting, it is unlikely that a new article, unconnected with this list, about many of these folks would have landed at the "right" address to turn the red link blue!) Doops | talk 16:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


Should we still be using royal titles for royal families which were deposed e.g. the Romanian? I take it some people in this list belong to the Greek Orthodox Church e.g. the Greeks and Russians, are they in the line of succession? By the way, in a sense the exclusion of Catholics from the throne was tested at the Jacobite rebellions of 1715 and 1745. PatGallacher 14:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup issues

This article presents a whole series of problems, and could even be a candidate for deletion. It is open to challenge on the grounds of accuracy, verifiability, original research and notability.

There are only 2 external links. One of them is to a website which purports to give all the descendants of Sophia of Hanover as of 1 January 2001, but this is now 5 years out of date, it acknowledges that some of the people listed are Roman Catholics, and I have doubts about whether it is totally reliable. The other is to the British monarchy website, which is an authoritative source, but it only gives the first 39 people. Some reliable reference works (e.g. Whitaker's Almanack) may give more, but only the first few dozen. Most of this list is therefore original research. The sources are not clear and it is therefore not verifiable.

As a ball park figure, I would say that given the length of this list roughly every month somebody dies and somebody new is born, so it needs constant update. There is confusion about whether Greek Orthodox Christians are able to inherit the British throne, which probably affects some Greeks and Russians on this list. (By my reading of the relevant legislation they are not elibigle, but it is written in very convoluted language, without a lawyer's opinion this could be original research.) Some people are jumping to conclusions about the religious leanings of some people on this list (e.g. are they Catholics?) and some of them may not belong to any church. I therefore question its accuracy.

The very large number of red links is not good practice. See the AFD discussion on Estella Taylor for previous discussion of some of these issues.

Finally, people's hypothetical chances of inheriting the British throne far beyond anything that is likely to happen even in the event of e.g. a major war or a major terrorist attack is trivial and not notable. PatGallacher 18:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, he was only trying to help. My proposal:
  • finally get around to killing all redlinks, as discussed several times on this page already
  • restore all roman catholics to the list, and restore the disclaimer at the top that the list numbering is therefore approximate.
  • all post-2001 additions which are not blue-links should be footnoted with a source. (Obviously blue-links such as Prince Sverre Magnus of Norway don't need footnoting.)
This would answer most of PatGallacher's objections. Doops | talk 18:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Restoring RCs would not help, the list ought to be accurate, not approximate, as far as it goes. If you look at why this article failed to be featured, the main objection was the large number of red links. By comparison, here is the number of people in the line of succession on the equivalent pages for other monarchies: Denmark 7, Belgium 14, Ethiopia 12, Japan 6, Monaco 8, Netherlands 10, Norway 6, Spain 10, Sweden 3. PatGallacher 18:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

*

In at least some of those cases the line of succession is that short, i.e. it cuts off at a few generations (rather than going back all the way to some gal named Sophia). Restoring RCs would make the list more approximate, I guess -- but it would make it 1) more consistent (since some RCs are in it already, doubtless); and 2) less open to charges of "original research." As for FA status, I doubt this page would ever qualify, no matter how much clean-up it got. Doops | talk 19:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't have been so harsh either but yes, this page does need a bit of work. I agree with getting rid of all the red links but re-adding all the Catholics :-S? Prince Michael of Kent knowingly gave up his place in line to the throne by marrying a Catholic (as have others), so re-adding the one's we know have forfeit their place would seem pointless, wouldn't it? I suppose the only problem is those on the continent whom we're not too sure about, so it's just getting round those ones I suppose? The only reason the lines of succession for the other thrones are so small is because most, if not all of them can only inherit if they actually descended from the current monarch, whereas the British throne applies to the descendants from the Electress Sophia. Craigy (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
We could omit Prince Michael of Kent as he's within the first 39, listed at the royal website. Beyond 39, though, it would be simpler and more consistent to include RCs -- and it would also avoid the confusing "skipped" notation. Doops | talk 19:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
But people all over the world aren't obsessively interested in the other monarchies like they are the British. This particular article gets tons of edits and a lot of interested people watch it and add subtract people almost the minute they drop dead or are born. Using that kind of logic won't work in such a hobby driven article. Williamb 19:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
An article can be both hobby-driven AND meet encyclopedic standards. People added and subtracted should be sourced to help with the latter. Doops | talk 19:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[moved down for clarity from the asterisked point above] People that did the work on this subject really could care less if this article is EVER featured. The british line of succession is avidly followed, much more so than the rest of the world. There are 100s if not thousands of web pages devoted to it. Your argument is really kind of meaningless. preceding comment by User:williamb

No, that argument won't work. As a page on the wikipedia, this page is just as subject to encyclopedic standards as any other. I agree with you that PatGallacher's reforms go too far; but we have to address his/her concerns fairly. Doops | talk 07:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

As someone who has been at the forefront of assuming people are Catholic, I think it probably would be wise to just list everyone. It should be noted, though, that some of Mr. Gallacher's contentions are simply wrong. Whether or not the general public is confused about whether the Orthodox can inherit the throne, it seems to be clearly established that the only obstacles are being catholic or having married a Catholic. In terms of listing Catholics, I would suggest that we specifically note people whom we know to be either Catholic or married to Catholics. Thus, Lord St Andrews, Lord Downpatrick, Lord Nicholas Windsor, Prince Michael, Haakon Lorentzen, and so forth should be listed, but specifically noted to have married Catholics (in the case of the first, fourth, and fifth) or having converted to Catholicism (in the case of the second and third). In terms of needing to be updated - of course. That being said, Paul Theroff's Internet Gotha site is generally very up to date about royal genealogy news, and provides a convenient news section that lists recent occurrences. I don't see as this is an insurmountable problem, and certainly not one requiring the deletion of the article. Why not simply note at the beginning of the list that, given its size, it is not guaranteed to be perfectly up to date at all points? Or we could simply add an "as of" to it... john k 06:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Slight overly-fussy quibble: of course being anything other than a communicant protestant christian at the time is a barrier to ascending the throne; but only professing catholicism / marrying a catholic is a permanent bar. You can dabble in any other religion, or atheism, as long as you're back in the flock in time to ascend. Doops | talk 06:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm...I do not believe that you have to be a protestant at the time of your predecessor's death. You have to enter into communion with the Church of England after you succeed to the throne, which is not the same thing at all. Remember that George I was not a member of the Church of England, for instance, but "joined in communion" with it after Queen Anne's death. john k 21:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean that the moment of his/her death was the deadline. But affirming that you are a protestant christian is part of your accession oath. Presumably if you refuse to do so you will be deemed never to have reigned. And of course George I was protestant at Anne's death, just not CofE. Doops | talk 23:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid, in spite of a previous comment, it is not clearly established that Greek Orthodox Christians can inherit the British throne. Following some straightforward links I come to the Act of 1701 on the Guardian website, I quote this extract:- "the Crown and regal government of the said Kingdoms of England, France, and Ireland, and of the dominions thereunto belonging, with the royal state and dignity of the said Realms, and all honours, styles, titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions and authorities, to the same belonging and appertaining, shall be, remain, and continue to the said most excellent Princess Sophia, and the heirs of her body, BEING PROTESTANTS" (emphasis added). Non-Anglican Protestants like George I are covered by this.

The question of what happens if somebody inherits the throne but feels unable to take the Coronation Oath for whatever reason is an extremely grey area, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

The Gotha Website quote above is a good source, it would be worth treating it as a reference, but I would be cautious about reading from it more than it explicitly states. PatGallacher 02:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, I don't think you read our exchange carefully enough. We are all agreed that an Eastern Orthodox Christian cannot ascend the throne; the question is whether temporarily being Orthodox at some point in your life debars you permanently and irrevocably thereafter like Roman Catholicism does. It (or being Jewish or Muslim or Atheist) doesn't seem to.
As for the the oath thingummy, nobody was expecting the wikipedia to be a crystal ball; nobody was expecting anything about it to appear in the article. John K and I were just chatting. Cheers, Doops | talk 04:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Re-adding the Catholics to the list simply doesnt make any sense. They are not in the line of succession and should know that. If someone not familiar with this comes to this page to check on something, and sees a Roman Catholic on the list, they may believe that that person could acceed. I thnk that it should be clearly noted where we skipped someone, and why (ie. they're a RC or married one) this really isnt that difficult as it already says so in most places. Mac Domhnaill 03:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but who are we to know who is RC and who is not? It's at least possible that we'd err in omitting people on baseless assumptions of catholicity; and it's not only likely but almost certain that we'd err in including people who are catholic unknown to us. And besides, it isn't even our job to find that out; no original research. The best solution is to omit any catholics in the top 39 omitted by royal.gov.uk; and beyond that to include everybody with prominent disclaimers that the list is approximate insofar as people's religion is outside our purview and insofar, too, as people may be dying / having kids without letting us know. Disclaimers are key. Doops | talk 04:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are people's religion outside our purview? For some people past the top 39, the religious issue is quite clear. For instance, King Michael of Romania married a Catholic, and is clearly excluded. So is Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia, who also married a Catholic. The problem is not that the issue is outside our purview, it's that it's a huge list and that there are almost certainly people whom we will simply have an extraordinarily difficult time determining. But that is no reason to entirely give up the task when there are people whose status is completely clear. There is absolutely no reason not to mention that Michael and Alexander are both excluded. john k 08:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, how about this: include everybody in the list, but mark known catholics with an asterisk or italic text. (Each one will need a footnote.) That way we can both include our best knowledge & minimize false precision. Doops | talk 08:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Bold attempts to fix the red-link problem are being reverted. Shall we have a formal vote to settle the matter? Doops | talk 19:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, let's. Craigy (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually people are removing red links willy nilly without even looking to see if these people are noteable or not. And notability in the sense of nobility and royalty hasn't really been defined either. A lot of these people get press quite a bit, maybe not in the major news services but they do. Williamb 19:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure if articles were ever created for those who are currently "red-linked" then they would find themselves re-linked on this page, but for now, why not leave them out until they do become notable? Or better still, if you know of any people in the line that don't have an article and deserve one, why not create a few? Craigy (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Line_of_succession_to_the_British_throne/Archive_1&oldid=1136909327"