Jump to content

Talk:Line of succession to the British throne/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16

I was saddened that one of my favorite Wikipedia articles has been severely shortened. Especially that the long list had many notable persons whose existence in the line of succession was surprising until you worked out their ancestry and traced them back to Sophia. The article was a gem to genealogy lovers - however I do understand the benefits of a cleaner/shorter version.

My questions is: Is there a permanent link to the older and longer version of the article that I can keep as a reference to myself. Ideally, I am looking for a permanent URL that I can easily share with others.

Note: Just to clarify, I am looking for the last known version before the substantial trim - which I am having a very tough time locating in the history.

Many Thanks!!! Hia10 (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That revision is this one. For future reference, there's a "View history" button/tab at the top of the page. I suggest you learn to use it. DBD 22:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
No, the revision you're looking for is this one - the one DBD linked to is riddled with script and other problems (e.g. goes all buggy when it gets to Catholics). Sorry if I offended someone :-) --85.141.152.45 (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Death of the 7th Earl of Harewood

As mentioned above George Lascelles 7th Earl of Harewood Died this morning. We all knew he was 46th in line to the throne a fact confirmed by the BBC in this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-14111817, and no doubt in many of his obituries tomorrow.

I guess all those that opposed his inclussion on the list despite the numerous sources that said he was will feel a tinge of regret and who repeatedly argued that there was no reliable source will recognise how silly they all were. However I won't hold my breath. Lewisdl (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC) one very sad editor.

Not necessarily, these might be reliable sources, but as he's now dead this is irrelevant. 19:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sad that we spent his last few days arguing about such silliness. john k (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Indeed John, Indeed. No doubt the same people will use the same silly arguments to deny that his son inherits his position as 46th in line. Lewisdl (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
If you find the Lascelles family so interesting, why not improve the articles. The article on Henry Lascelles (1690–1753) is a stub. TFD (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
No need to be condescending. Morhange (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Morhange on this one.
Hey guys, we are a society of volunteers around here, and everybody has something else he could be doing. So cool it.
Varlaam (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Things seem to have gone quiet. With the list this short, shouldn't we merge? DrKiernan (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Agree TFD (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree. This makes the assumption that the list cannot be extended. That is not the case at all. Lewisdl (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree. Lewisdl, if at some future date there's a discussion which results in people extending the list, then nothing's stopping them. At the moment, there's no reason to have a separate list article. Mlm42 (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Slight Disagree A line of succession is different from the rules of succession--the succession page is already long enough with just the inclusion of the first 20 members in line. The intro is too long and convoluted without giving a simple intro and basic explanation of how the succession works, similar to what this page offers. If a merge does happen, the intro paragraph needs to be rewritten and the concise guidelines for succession listed on this page need to be fitted into the other article above the list. Personally, I think this list is fine where it is, mostly because the other page is already so long. This page is short and to the point, while the other one is very wordy and somewhat confusing. Morhange (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Going to have to change my vote to Disagree. Part of the problem though, is at what point does that article become too long? It already reads more like a history of the line of succession, than just a flat out "succession" page. I'm not sure I understand how would it be improved beyond its current state, it's already fairly long enough. Wouldn't the majority of that article be better of at the History of the British line of succession article? I'm just not sure what the purpose of having three articles serves--one has no references, the other reads more like a history of the line and personally I think this one should stay here. Have a history of the line of succession article and a present-day line of succession article. As of now, the regular Succession article is way to cluttered and wordy; adding the list with the eligibility preface (otherwise a reader would likely have to search through a bunch of text to find that out) would make it even more cluttered and confusing. Essentially, I propose moving the long Succession article to History of, etc. and leaving this here. These articles are not like, for example, the lines of succession for Denmark, Luxembourg and Belgium etc., which don't really require the mountain of information that the history of the succession to the British throne does. I can hit my "page down" button once on each those pages and reach the bottom. My laptop has a 1366x768 screen resolution, and it takes ten taps to get through the History article and three to scroll through this article. I can't imagine how cluttered it would look on a smaller resolution screen, let alone someone trying to access the page from a smartphone. There's also the Alternative successions of the English crown, would that remain at its own page? Sorry for the essay and perhaps I may be somewhat biased as a regular editor of this page, but I think this is a far more complicated issue than just "the line has been shortened, move it to another page" situation. This page isn't about a lengthy history of the line of succession, it's about the current line of succesion, and personally, I think it's fine where it is. The other article should be merged into the History one and the unreferenced historical lines of succesion should be cited or removed. After all, if this list was shortened even with valid sources, then certainly historic lines need even more valid sources to warrant their own page. Morhange (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Can we take it from the above that there is no consensus to merge? Lewisdl (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No consensus. There may be occasion to add to this page. There is little reason to expand its companion. (Not even sure much of a list required on the companion page.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.219.3 (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Restoring proper styles

Since (e.g.) the heir-apparent is not "HRH Charles, Prince of Wales", I have restored everyone's proper shorthand styles. The other option is to drop preceding styles like HRH and use only the Wikipedia form (i.e. article names). Just FYI DBD 11:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess Zara Philips also needs to be ammended following her marriage to Mike Tindall?? Lewisdl (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The official list uses the HRH prefix with the titles, so I think we can just keep them here. Morhange (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
You have not made any edits to the article. TFD (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Are you referring to me? I just edited the article to remove redirect links... Morhange (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Formatting and the Deceased

The indentations on the list are clearly to show lineage. However, they seem to no longer show clear lineage. As an example, currently, it appears that Princess Margaret's descendents are derived instead from the Queen.

There used to be a few crossed out names of the deceased (and section headings for older ancestors) that helped keep things straight (as the included Catholics do).

I've been looking for discussion that preceded their removal, but I can't seem to find it. If there was no consensus for them being removed...where did they go and can we stick them back in? ~ Balder Odinson (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

For the same reason, it could be interpreted from the current format of the list that the Queen's cousins are, instead, her siblings. LarryJeff (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The "early part" of the line of succession

The palace Web site lists 39 names in the "line of succession". Sophia's other descendant's are merely "eligible to succeed". Kauffner (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The number of people in the line

Is it possible to add a number of the people in the line of succession? It does not have to be precise (4,972 is what some claim it to be). How about "c. 5,000"? A reader would benefit from knowing how many people are eligible to succeed, at least in order to realise why the list is incomplete. Surtsicna (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You need a reliable source for this. My understanding is that if the desendants of Sophia were to die out that the throne would not become vacant and so there would be more people in the line of succession. TFD (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I dont think you could ever get a reliable source because it depends on a lot of interpretation of laws which have never been tested in the courts. However sucession currently is limited to Descendents of the Electress Sophia. In the unlikely event of all her descendents expiring a new act of succesion would have to be passed. Parliament could in theory choose any number of people, so until such an event occured it would be pure speculation.Lewisdl (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal says there are 4,973 people in line, so there is an RS. But the Reitwiesner list is just some hobbyist's pass time. The official line of succession at the palace Web site has only 40 people on it. Even with this list, most of the people on it wouldn't be able to just automatically succeed. When the royals fled the country in 1688, they didn't just go down to the next person in line and make him king. Parliament passed new legislation. Kauffner (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but Sonne, Paul (27 April 2011). "Last in the Line of Succession, Ms. Vogel is Glad She Isn't Queen", The Wall Street Journal isnt a reliable for the number of people in line. Paul contacted me the day before the article was published as I was the "hobbyist" who had updated Reitwiesner's 2001 list. I. was able to confirm that Karin Vogel was still last in line. Reitweisner's lists always contained Catholics and I continued that practice. Paul Sonne used the 2001 list to arrive give his figure , my updated 2011 list has over 6000. Lewisdl (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
No. The laws of succession are based on common law. Statute of course overrides common law, so the older law of succession puts Sophia's descendants above other heirs. On the other hand, they probably were the heirs based on common law as restricted by the laws against Catholics becoming the monarch. But we need a legal source that interprets this. I doubt that the imperial privy council would rely on the Wall Street Journal to choose the successor. TFD (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict—replying to User:Kauffner) Under ordinary circumstances the next person in line would automatically succeed. The precedent of 1688 wouldn't need to be followed unless the entire line of descent from Sophia failed; I don't think it's applicable to the normal succession to the Crown as governed by law. (What happened in 1688 is called a revolution, after all.) I would also suggest that the list at Royal.gov.uk isn't "the official line of succession"—the palace doesn't have authority to determine that. Lord Nicholas Windsor's children, for example, haven't changed their place in the order of succession, despite a mistake on Royal.gov.uk (see this discussion). The Royal website is just one source among many, and not inherently more authoritative or immune to error than others. Alkari (?), 9 October 2011, 01:11 UTC
How do you know that in the fullness of time the Privy Council would accept your interpretation of the laws of succession? They have absolute discretion to interpret the law. TFD (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Longer List? Or at least a reference to.

I loved the old longer list on here, rather fascinating reading. From reading through all the guff, it appears that it wasn't to WP guidelines. Is there at least a link to a page that listed all that were on the list? Or at the very least, the article should state something like an estimated number of people who are on the list. (Circa 5,000?). I think Wikipedia is a sadder place without the extended list, whilst it's accuracy may be debatable (indeed there can really be no definitive list as the rules are slightly subjective) it surely served a purpose as a 'best guess' and was bloody interesting? Gavinio (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The Reitwiesner list is here. IMO, "line of succession" is an overly official-sounding description for an unpublished list made up by amatures. The palace uses this term only for the people on their list. I don't have any objection to describing the Reitwiesner list in general terms, or to linking to it. The extended version of the line is referred to in the WSJ article and I assume by other sources as well, since everyone seems to know about it. So it certainly has notability. We could also move the old list to a subarticle with a title along the lines of, "List of persons eligible to succeed to the British throne." Kauffner (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a more upto date list here. Lewisdl (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with talking about reitwiesner briefly (and linking to a RS talking about it, or potentially even the actual list) but we cannot make a new subarticle with the complete reitwiesner list. WP:NLIST (the part of the notability guideline dealing with lists of people) says that standalone lists should only consist of independently notable people - so Reitwiesner after the first 75 or so doesn't work. (Reitwiesner would also not be an adequately reliable source for "list of persons eligible to succeed to the British throne" - just "List of people Reitwiesner says are eligible to succeed to the British throne.") Kevin (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
His notability as an amateur probably allows us to link to his list, but we cannot update it ourselves. But note that although Parliament named an heir to the throne, the heirs to the throne are not restricted by the act, and therefore the list of heirs would be limitless. TFD (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The royal website says it is restricted to Sophia's descendents by the Act, and that this is confirmed by further legislation.[1] Although the Act does say the next in line will be Sophia and the heirs in her body, apparently leaving it open to others, there is a subsequent clause saying the succession will remain in her line. It is this subsequent clause that appears to be interpreted as restricting the succession. DrKiernan (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
That is an ambiguous wording. However, were there no descendants of Sophie alive, then that part of the Act would become obsolete and the throne would pass to another heir, rather than become extinct. The act reads, "The Princess Sophia... to inherit after the King and the Princess Anne, in Default of Issue of the said Princess and His Majesty, respectively and the Heirs of her Body, being Protestants." It says nothing about the event their are no heirs of her body. TFD (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Shame

Used to be a great article. 134.226.252.160 (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes it did. I don't see any reason behind truncating lists on the wikipedia just because some people assume it to be "un-encyclopedic". It's their personal opinion and not the average wikipedian's. Some people took a lot of pains to create a long list. It's a lot of work to do that but some people simply can't appreciate other people's work; instead they destroy it. I think the list should be returned to its former long state. --Krawunsel (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
You speak for "the average Wikipedian", do you? The consensus of the people who discussed this issue on these talk pages was to cut it short. That's all that matters here. Nobody can know what anybody else's opinion on the issue is, so please don't pretend to know things you cannot possibly know. It weakens your argument, which is bad enough, but it also puts sour grapes into your mouth, which is far worse. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The consensus of some of the people* Morhange (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you don't quite understand what consensus means, and particularly Wikipedia:Consensus. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not so sure YOU know what consensus means. Consensus doesn't mean that a decision agrees with you, you should remember that. And your "uppity" attitude weakens your own arguments. I didn't pretend I know anyone's opinion but you seem to think you know it. But you are forgetting one thing: You are not God, you're just another Wikipedian! Arrogance has seldom helped anyone. It's not going to help you. Now, as to the issue: I've seen several lists being truncated on the English wikipedia over the last few months, and always with flimsy arguments. That's what I wanted to point out. And I am, and I remain, of the opinion that the list needs to be restored to its former length, or, at least to all descendants of Queen Victoria. As I pointed out, someone worked very hard creating this particular list. But some Wikipedians, such as you, don't seem to be able to appreciate the work of others. I believe a Wikipedian should be constructive, but what some Wikipedians do is destructive and, therefore, not worthy of a true Wikipedian. Well, I won't expect you to deal with these arguments - you already showed contempt to them in your previous post. But I just wanted to repeat it in case someone more understanding and less snobbish happens to come across these words. --Krawunsel (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
You're the one who claimed that the decision, while reflecting what certain editors wanted, was not in line with the opinion of "the average Wikipedian". And I still ask: how can you know what "the average Wikipedian"'s opinion on anything is unless you ask them? The truth is that you can't ask them because there's no such thing as "the average Wikipedian", which is why I asked you not to use that argument.
On any given WP talk page, there is a limited number of people contributing to a discussion of an issue, and it is that very specific group of editors who collectively come to a consensus. That's how WP works. Any of the millions of other WP editors who did not actually take part in the discussion are essentially irrelevant to it. Unless they weigh in later with new information, new arguments, or whatever. What we have at the moment is a consensus and a decision. If there is a new argument for changing the status quo, you are most welcome to bring it to the table. The argument that truncating the list is somehow trashing the conscientious work of the editors who created it has been thoroughly thrashed out previously. You call these reasons "flimsy" - well, that is not what the consensus thinks of them. To continue on that line now sounds very much like a complaint without any substance. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
As you say, "someone worked very hard creating this particular list". Unfortunately that makes it original research and therefore unacceptable. TFD (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Er, sorry but your wording makes absolutely no sense. . Many people worked very hard creating, for example, the RMS Titanic article, does that mean that it is considered, by you, to be original research? People working very hard to create an article does not necessarily make said article original research. Perhaps it would make more sense to say some editors found this article to be original research based on genealogy, open interpretation of the Act of Settlement and a strange need to have specific citations for the number of each person in line. People working hard to create an article =/= original research. Morhange (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
What does hard work on an article have to do with "original research" (which as such I don't think is such a bad thing, despite it being discredited on the Wikipedia). Whoever created that lengthy list must have had sources, don't you think so? And then it's not "original research". And, Jack-of-Oz, the way you treat my argument about work of Wikipedians being destroyed tells me that you don't like it because it's substantial. That's why you treat the argument in such a derogative way and call it "thrashed out". And, of course, you don't want anyone to question what you call the "consensus". Face it - the debate has been reopened! --Krawunsel (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
When one takes information from different sources to create a list not contained in any of the sources it is original research and synthesis. The research may be good or bad, but is not acceptable according to Wikipedia policy. My suggestion is to get this research published in a reliable source which can then be used as a source for the article. TFD (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally the succession acts will be amended.[2] TFD (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The meaning of what "original synthesis" is is a bit unclear. If taken literally, it is arguable that virtually every article contains "original synthesis" in some degree. john k (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
In this case the synthesis is clear. We would be explainining how a set of rules should be interpreted. While the rules may appear to be clear, we cannot interpret them. See for example O'Donohue v. Canada. While his action failed, it could be that there are laws which would effect the succession act. What for example is a "Protestant"? TFD (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
There are plenty of reliable sources that explain how this set of rules should be interpreted. They don't necessarily list the whole line of succession in order, of course, but I don't think the question is nearly as clear cut as you do. john k (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong picture

The picture used for HRH The Prince of Wales is incorrect. The image should be of Prince Charles, but is instead an image of HRH Prince Phillip: the Queen's husband. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.131.246 (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the image is actually of the Prince of Wales. Alkari (?), 21 October 2011, 03:08 UTC
Of course it is a picture of Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales. TFD (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
So which prince of wales is it a picture of? Charles or Phillip?Beefcake6412 (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
There is only ever one Prince of Wales. TFD (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
And Phillip has never been the Prince of Wales. He has to settle for Duke of Edinburgh. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

New rules

didnt the new rules this week in perth change the line, putting anne higher than edward and andrew? Alan McBrazil Burger (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope. The changes to the succession (which have yet to be aproved by the 16 Commonwealth realm Parliaments) aren't retroactive. It will effect only the newest generation. However, I'm not certain if the changes will effect Peter Phillips' daughter (when/if she has a brother). GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the intention is to apply them only to desendents of the Prince of Wales - since he currently has no female desendents, nothing will actually change in the line of succession when and if the legislation passes. This does mean that if (after it passes) the PofW and his sons were to be killed, along with Andrew and his daughters, Edward would still take precedence over Anne.--Scott Mac 21:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Yep. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know whether the proposed end to the ban on marrying Catholics is also limited to the descendants of the P. of W.? Alkari (?), 29 October 2011, 21:44 UTC

If the change will not be retroactive, doesn't it mean that the right to succeed would have to be limited to the descendants of a more recent monarch? If not, it will be very hard (if not impossible) to determine who the new rules should apply to; for example, should they apply to the Crown Prince of Norway's (living and possible future) children or only his future grandchildren and further descendants? A closer example would be the above-mentioned daughter and unborn child of Peter Phillips. Surtsicna (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The commonwealth leaders stated that the change would only apply to descendents of the Prince of Wales. It isn't an issue of retroactivity, it is an issue of scope.--Scott Mac 23:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
(ec) The change applies only to the descendants of Charles, Prince of Wales. It doesn't even apply to Charles himself (not that it would have made any difference in his case, because he was first-born anyway; but assuming he'd been born after Anne, this change would still have kept him as heir apparent and would not have installed Anne as the new heiress apparent). Btw, there will be no more heiresses-presumptive, as no later-born male child can now supplant an heiress.
So, whoever's on the current line of succession and whatever place they have on the line, remain unchanged. Even people who were previously rendered ineligible under the old rules by marrying a Catholic, remain ineligible even though those rules won't apply to any of William or Harry's children who marry Catholics. Or Harry himself, if he marries a Catholic.
The thing reflects the reality that the only people who have an ice cube's chance in hell of ever becoming monarch are Charles and his descendants. But think how it would stuff things up if it had been made retroactive: how far back would they have gone? and why stop anywhere short of Sophia of Hanover? That would have legitimised a whole bunch of people, delegitimised certain monarchs, and the upshot would have been that the current monarch would definitely be someone other than Elizabeth II. That really wouldn't do. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Taken literally, Cameron's statement implies that male primogeniture will be ended for the decendents of the PofW, however the ban on someone married to a Catholic ascending to the throne will simply end. That would mean that those currently disqualified would now be qualified to succeed - as the disability would end. I suppose that does change the line of succession by restoring the likes of Prince Michael of Kent. (Although King Michael and his wife Queen Michael of Kent are an unlikely future.)--Scott Mac 23:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Er, you do know her given names are not "Michael of Kent", don't you. :) That's just her current title. She'd become Queen Marie, or Queen Marie Christine. Not that she ever will. It isn't clear whether the new religious freedom will apply to anyone at all on the line of succession, or only to Charles's descendants. But even if it is applied widely, there's still absence of retroactivity, which means that people who are currently unmarried would now be free to marry Catholics without it affecting their chances of succeeding, but those who've already been excluded under the existing rules remain excluded. I think that means Michael and Michael remain out of the picture. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, there will still be heiresses presumptive, such as sisters, nieces or other relatives of a childless monarch.

Quite right. I was only thinking of direct descendants of the current monarch. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no "only people who have an ice cube's chance in hell of ever becoming monarch" thing in law. Everything has to be precise. That is why it occurred to me that the right to succeed might become limited to the descendants of a recent monarch - perhaps the Queen herself. Surtsicna (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Even that would have placed Anne and her descendants above Andrew and Edward and theirs. But that's not how the change has been described. It applies only to Charles's descendants. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Strange that they didn't include all of the Queen's progeny in the proposed amendments; oh well. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Not so strange, if you think about it. They clearly wanted not to upset the current line of succession at all, and the way to do that was to start with someone who has only sons; or daughter(s) all of whom were born after any sons. Only Charles fits that bill. The change applies to people who are either (a) still at least 2 steps away from the throne (William and Harry) or (b) not even born yet (their children). The first person who could ever personally benefit from this change would be a first-born daughter of William who had a younger brother. This currently hypothetical princess might become queen in approximately 65 years time. And if Will and Kate's first-born is a son who survives, it would then go down to that son's first-born daughter, who might get to the throne in about 100 years time, by which time the monarchy may have ceased to exist. We'll all be dead, that's for sure. So, it's not like the world has suddenly turned upside down. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I noticed in the medias, the keep saying older daughter - where it would be more accurate to say eldest child comes next in line. Cameron's statement of first born daughter for William & Catherine, is misleading. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The law only legislates for who can inherit the throne. It doesn't legislate for a "line of succession" at all. Currently, anyone who who be due to inherit is barred if they are a Roman Catholic, or married to one. I supect all that will happen is that this provision will be removed, so that if anyone who would be due to inherit married a Catholic, they still can. If that's so, those currently debarred would cease to be.--Scott Mac 01:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


Essentially, the legitimate existence of this discussion is precisely why we have provisions against original research and (particularly) synthesis in articles. It is not possible for us to synthesise the future composition of the line from the announcements that have thus far been made. While it is still reasonable for them to be discussed, no conclusions can make their way into the article; all we can say at this stage is that changes "to end cognatic primogeniture" and "to end the bar on marriage to catholics" "have been proposed". As and when the draft legislation is published in the UK we will be able to see more precisely how it will be implemented, and alter the article to describe the (still "proposed") amendments in more detail; when they receive royal assent we can rewrite it into the past tense and update the list accordingly to reflect changes in reliable sources. In the interim, patience is a virtue. Happy‑melon 16:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm patient. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The British government does not maintain an official list of those in line to succeed??

Are we sure? if this is the case shouldnt there be a verifiable and reliable source? I have no idea if it does or it doesnt but if a statement like that is made surely it should be supported by a verifiable and reliable source?Lewisdl (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit difficult to prove the absence of something. If you find the official list maintained by the British government, post it as a source and delete the comment in question, and no-one would argue. -- DevSolar (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The relevant site would be either the Palace or the Privy Council Office. The Palace does present a list, while the PCO does not. However, the PCO is only relevant to the U.K. Canada, Australia, etc., also have privy councils that must decide (in the fullness of time) the heir to the throne. TFD (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Correction: Australia has never had a Privy Council of its own, and in 1986 it abolished appeals to the UK PC. The High Court of Australia is the final avenue of appeal for Australians. There is no mechanism for declaring that the Australian monarch is someone other than the UK Monarch. And such a hypothetical declaration would be contrary to the Statute of Westminster. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
@Jack of Oz, the privy council in Australia is called the Federal Executive Council. You are confusing it with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The reason the monarch of the U.K. becomes the Queen of Australia is that the succession act is identical. However when Edward VIII abdicated, he would have continued as King of Australia had the Australian parliament not passed an act authorizing the abdication. TFD (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Australia could have passed such an Act, but it did not. From His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936: Canada, Australia, the Union of South Africa, and New Zealand gave their permission for the Act to apply in their respective realms. The Irish Free State passed its own act. Confusingly, Canada also passed its own separate act (not sure what would have happened if that act had clashed with the UK Act in any particular). In any case, the Australian EXCO does not have the authority to decide who the heir to the throne is. That matter is governed by legislation, not by the whim of a small select group of people. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The point is that a claim has been made that the british government does not maintain a list. unless there is a verifiable and reliable source such a claim should not be made. Lewisdl (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is against scientific practice. The existence of something can be proven. The absence of something can only be a hypothesis. -- DevSolar (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
You are misapplying a common truth. While the absence of something cannot be proven, that doesn't mean that statements on wikipedia do not need to be sourced. The two issues are completely orthogonal. 76.116.26.245 (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

One answer would be to submit a freedom of information request. --Speedevil (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter what "scientific practice" is. If a claim cannot be verified by reliable sources, then it does not belong on Wikipedia. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Would the "Official Website of the British Monarchy" qualify as "British governement"? Official website sussession listing — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnQuébécois (talk • contribs) 19:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You joined the conversation late. This article once had hundreds of people listed and the objection was that it was OR. There are of course reliable sources for the first 40 or so in line to the throne. TFD (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The question was from recent, point being that the article says no official governement list exists, yet their seems to be a list as shown on the "official" monarchy website seems to contradict that statement.--UnQuébécois (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The actual source says, "Neither the royal family nor the U.K. publishes an official chart tracking Sophia of Hanover's living descendants", which is how the conversation began. But the article does not accurately reflect the source. TFD (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The statement that the gov does not maintain a list is innacurate even by the source, as it does not maintain an exhausive list, but it does maintain a limited list, the first 38 are listed on the official website of the royal family. The article should state something along the lines of: the uk governement does not maintain a complete list of every member in the line of succession...--UnQuébécois (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Full cognatic succession

Don't the 16 Commonwealth realm Parliaments have to approve the succession rule changes, before they take effect? GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and also all 10 Canadian provinces, and maybe Niue and the Cook Islands. john k (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
And all 6 Australian state parliaments. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Since imperial law is still in force in Canada, the U.K. would only need to obtain permission of the Canadian parliament (or privy council were parliament not sitting) for the law to become effective there according to the Statute of Westminster 1931. But in Australia where imperial law no longer holds force and each state is directly linked to the Crown, rather than as in Canada through the national Crown, it may require the consent of each state. It may be that republicans in Australia and separatists in Quebec will impede the legislation. TFD (talk) 11:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
@TFD, Not sure what "Imperial Law" you are refering to in regards to Canada, but the U.K. has no say at all in any Canadian laws, including since 1982 ammendments to the Constitution. In my opinion, but not apparently PM Harper's, it would require a constitutional ammendment to make any changes to the "Office of the Queen". Ha! try and get all 11 legislatures to agree on that!--UnQuébécois (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
The 1931 Act says that the Imperial parliament will make no laws affecting Canada without her permission and the 1982 act provides a method for Canada to amend constitutional law. But it is not clear what constitutes Canada's consent. Canada's constitution remains an anomaly in the world - it is an act of the UK parliament which may be amended according to a formula. But no act of the UK parliament may limit the actions of future parliaments. TFD (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a "constitutional lawyer", nor a politician, however my understanding is that the 1982 "Canada Act" effectively removes any legislative authority the Uk might have retained over Canada. Canada is a completely sovereign country that unfortunately still has a foereign head of state. The Uk can pass all the laws they want, they would not have any actual status in Canada. --UnQuébécois (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
See Patriation#Legal questions. It appears the SCC would probably consider unilateral acts or orders in council from the UK to be invalid, but might consider them valid if made with consent. TFD (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I do not think that any competent Canadian governement would want to set a precedent "consenting" to a foreign, any foreign legislature, to make laws for Canada. It's all academic, and we can speculate all we want as to what might happen, but the reality is that the UK can not make Canadian laws, just like the UK can not make laws for the USA, regardless of parliamentary supemacy.--UnQuébécois (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
If the Canadian parliament or privy council requests that the UK parliament amend an imperial law then then the imperial parliament is not a "foreign legislature" "mak[ing] laws for Canada". Do you think that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has no force in Canada because it is part of an act of a "foreign legislature"? TFD (talk) 06:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you are either a> missing the point, b> being obstinent or c> just plain do not understand. As of 1982, Canada Act: "2. No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, 1982 comes into force shall extend to Canada as part of its law." - removes the "request and consent" provision of the statute of westminster. Laws that are already in force are not affected by the Canada Act, but can not be modified by the UK, in regards to Canada, only Canadian legistation can modify them. In theory, yes the UK could repeal the Canada Act, but in reality it would have no effect as "No act of parliament...shall extend to Canada..." as an act repealing the "Canada Act" would be passed after the coming in to force of the constitution act 1982 and would not apply to Canada... The Canada Act was the Canadian governement's last "request and consent", and became part of Canadian law.--UnQuébécois (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
As you said, you are not a "constitutional lawyer" and even if you were, could have no way of determining how the SCC would rule on this issue. TFD (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The concept I've tried to explain to you is not my own creation: Parliamentary_sovereignty_in_the_United_Kingdom#Accepted_changes. I am not a constitutional lawyer, that is a fact, I am not a professional hockey player either, that does not mean I do not understand the game. I wish you good luck.--UnQuébécois (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

New addition

Just curious, as an addition has been made to the list, who is The Hon. Raymond Campbell-Windsor (b. 1997)? and how does he fit in? I might just be having a moment of senility here.--UnQuébécois (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


Seems to have gone now Lewisdl (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Confused!

Hey, I'm a little confused, shouldn't the first 39 on our list match the list given by the Royal website? Right now it's not looking that way. Thanks! --UnQuébécois (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Act of Succession

Electress Sophia was the wife of the Elector of Hanover and grand-daughter of James I. When Queen Anne's only surviving child died, the Electress Sophia became the nearest Protestant in line for the English throne. The Government were anxious that her Roman Catholic brother, James (known as the Old Pretender), should not inherit the throne and so, in 1701, they passed the Act of Settlement ensuring the succession of Sophia. In 1705, because she was of German nationality she was naturalised as a British subject by the Act for the Naturalization of the Most Excellent Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and the Issue of her Body. Sophia died before Queen Anne, but her son succeeded to the throne as George I. The effects of the 1705 Act had been complicated slightly by the Royal Marriages Act 1772, which included a proviso that the marriages of certain descendants of King George II would be null and void unless the consent of the Crown had first been obtained. This however does not apply to the descendants of Princesses who have married into foreign families and, as most of George II's descendants were through the female line, the restriction has a limited effect.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)).

Sounds like Original research to me. --UnQuébécois (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
You added, "By the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701 the succession is limited to the descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover". I do not see this in constitutional texts or in the wording of the 1701 Act. TFD (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Added a citation. Opera hat (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, however, the reference provided previously states that the act of settlement stipulates that the throne was to go to Sophia or her descendants. --UnQuébécois (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The source you added is ambiguous. It equally means that Sophia's descendants who are not Protestants are excluded from the throne. The Act does not say that only her descendants may ascend the throne and no constitutional law books say that. TFD (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Not my reference, one that was there.--UnQuébécois (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
But I did ad another reference stating the same, Sophia or her descendants. Just a quick question, reading the current version of the act of settlement, it does not seem to exclude any other faith than catholic, does that mean a Muslim or Jew could in theory... ah never mind it's not important. :)--UnQuébécois (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The Act says "that from and after the Deceases of His said Majesty our now Sovereign Lord and of Her Royall Highness the Princess Ann of Denmark and for Default of Issue of the said Princess Ann and of His Majesty respectively the Crown and Regall Government of the said Kingdoms of England France and Ireland and of the Dominions thereunto belonging with the Royall State and Dignity of the said Realms and all Honours Stiles 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" (my emphasis). Seems pretty clear to me that this restricts the succession to Sophia's descendants. Opera hat (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The Act does not say that if the line were to become extinct that the throne would become vacant. Presumably the inheritance would pass to the next heir according to common law, and the section pertaining to the heirs of the body of Sophia would become obsolete. In any case, I have started a discussion thread at WP:NORN#Line of succession to the British throne. TFD (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The next heir according to common law would be different in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (the senior descendant of Mary Tudor, Queen of France, currently Lord Jersey) and Scotland (the senior descendant of Mary Stewart, Countess of Arran, currently Lord Derby, I believe). Opera hat (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
This thread should have been killed at birth. We're here to discuss how to improve the article; it's not a message board for anything related to the succession. The opening question - and it's not even a question but a set of declarative statements - is not about anything in the article. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree entirely. To the extent that there is a question, it is whether the article should address the eventuality of all however-many-thousand living people currently in the line of succession all dying at once. Oh please. Happy‑melon 21:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Original message was left after the user made a change and removed referenced material. Did not mean to start anything extraordinary!--UnQuébécois (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
To get back to the actual point, then: the Act of Settlement says the succession "shall be, remain and continue to [...] Sophia and the heirs of her body being Protestants". The royal.gov.uk website supports the interpretation that this restricts the succession to descendants of Sophia and nobody else. User:TFD disagrees. Opera hat (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Here's another source which I happened across (actually, it's used as a reference in another article) confirming the rather obvious conclusion that the Act of Settlement limits succession to descendents of Sophia. To quote the relevant portion: "According to the Act of Settlement, only Protestant members of the Royal Family who are descendants of Princess Sophia ... can be considered for the throne." As to the (maybe sarcastic) comment in another section on this page stating some editors think the crown would cease to exist if somehow there were no eligible descendents of Sophia, I'm pretty sure no one ever said nor implied such. Rather that, since it is an Act of Parliament which currently controls the succession, such a situation would require a new Act to stipulate the future of the monarchy. --LarryJeff (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The Act does not say that, and the source is just a news article. That the Crown would cease to exist is not a sarcastic comment. Various peerages also cease to exist in the absence of heirs to the body of the original holder of the position. But of course Sophie was not the original holder of the Crown, but was chosen as successor to William and Mary. So there is an issue of whether there were no heirs to the body of Sophie the Crown would become extinct or whether it would pass to the next heir of William and Mary. See for example the 1882 succession laws for Monaco: "Should the throne become vacant, particularly for lack of a direct or adoptive heir, the territory of Monaco shall form... an autonomous State under the name of the State of Monaco."[3] TFD (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The fact that peerages can become extinct is completely irrelevant. A peerage is a dignity held from the Crown, which is the fount of honour; when its limitation (whether hereditary or for life) expires, the dignity reverts to the Crown. The Crown itself cannot become extinct. Even in 1688, when the throne was deemed to have become vacant, nobody thought that England thus became a republic: Parliament granted the (still-existing) Crown to William and Mary. As Parliament settled the succession on the Electress Sophia and her descendants, it would be for Parliament to decide to whom the Crown should pass in the extremely unlikely event that those descendants fail. Monaco's succession laws may provide for the establishment of a republic where there are no heirs to the Principality; the laws of the United Kingdom do not. Opera hat (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Lady Amelia Windsor

The article for Lady Amelia Windsor (#29) states (uncited btw) that she converted to Catholicism in January 2012. Doesn't that means she now needs to be excluded? Just wanted to bring it up. --06:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I would wait for confirmation (a citable source), she is still listed on the royals website.--UnQuébécois (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Number of people "potentially in line"

"The work of genealogical authors and amateur researchers suggests that there are several thousand people potentially in line." Surely the entire population of the earth is "potentially in line", if everybody's descent could be traced back far enough? I, for example, am a descendent of Edward III, so I am "potentially in line" along no doubt with several million others. Surely the real question is how far the line of succession can reliably be traced? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Under the succession act, the Crown was settled on Sophia and her direct descendants, of which there are several thousand. My understanding is that in the event she had no descendants that the common law of inheritance would decide an heir, but other editors believe that the Crown would cease to exist. TFD (talk) 07:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I understand the point now: we Plantagenets can never get our kingdom back. I would think, however, that if the line of Sophia's descendants failed, Parliament would simply legislate to give the throne to someone else. It's been established ever since 1688 that the throne is in the gift of Parliament. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe they could hold a lottery. TFD (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Once every 4 or 5 years, and call it an election?--UnQuébécois (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The article should say, "eligible to succeed." "Potentially in line" is an odd and confusing phrase. Kauffner (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Isla Phillips

at the risk of opening up an old can of worms, can I ask if anyone has a reliable source to show that Isla Phillips is indeed 13th in line to the throne

Now we all know that she is indeed 13th as she follows her sister Savanah, but if we follow the logic that currently limits this list to Marina Mowett, then surely we now have to limit the list to the first 12 in the line of succession until such time as we have a reliable source to go beyond.Lewisdl (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ive just checked references B, D, and W and none of them show Isla at 13th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewisdl (talk • contribs) 10:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Quote from the Queen's Press Secretary
Daily Mail.

Ok so we have reliable sources for Isla being 13th in line but where are the sources to say that Zara Tindall is 14th through to Zenouska Mowatt being 46th. Note I'm not desputing their positions just pointing out that we don't have reliable sources that say that they are 14th to 46th.Lewisdl (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

When the list was cut back if I recall correctly it was said that sources for the numbering were needed for everyone so probably everyone after 13 has to be removed until such time as a reliable source is updated. - dwc lr (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
That's precisely the point I am making. Which of course is totally bonkers. Can you imagine what the article will look like when William and Kate produce their first child. The article will list only three people.Lewisdl (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I quote from Wikipedia:No original research: "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, ... provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources." I submit that inserting Isla Phillips at the 13th position and adjusting the numbers next to the remaining names in the list is "an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources." Does anyone here believe such an action possibly does not meet any of the criteria of being obvious, correct, or meaningful?--LarryJeff (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you but the same could be said for adding David Lascelles at 47. It is obvious that he is next, correct, and meaningful but we are repeatedly told that we cannot add him as we don't have a verifiable source that shows him in this position. I would contend that if we allow Zara Phillips to be listed at 14th then we could equally allow David Lascelles to be listed at 47th Lewisdl (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Isla Philips is listed at the monarchy's official website.[4] When heirs to the throne are born, we should not amend the list but note that it was prepared before that person was born. For example, "This list was prepared 31/12/2011. Since then the palace announced the birth of IP who is now 13th in line." We should not just update the list because other changes may have occurred. That would be a particular problem if the list contained thousands of names. TFD (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Problem now solved down to 40 with the monarchy website being updated. Have to admit I thought it would take them longerLewisdl (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you that "the same could be said for adding David Lascelles at 47". I don't disagree with you that it would be ok to add him, just that it is a different question. The "obvious, correct, and meaningful" exception is specifically applied to what the original research policy identifies as "routine calcuations"—not to the question of whether a particular individual should or should not be on this list.
Yes, when this list contained 1000s of names and editors argued long and loud on both sides of whether it needed to be cut, the position was put forth that sources were needed for each person's number. That was just a silly argument compared to all the valid reasons there were to cut the list down. Having numbers next to the names just makes the list a little easier to read. Inserting Isla Phillips at #13 and moving Zara Tindall to #14, and so on is neither more nor less valid (nor in violation of Wikipedia policy on original research) than it would be if we had inserted Isla Phillips between Savannah Phillips and Zara Tindall in an un-numbered list.--LarryJeff (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. If Burke's presents a list that it says is in order of succession then we may add numbers. However, if we add or remove a person, then that is synthesis, because we are taking information from different places and forming a conclusion. Another individual may have been removed from or added to the line of succession unknown to us. (In fact reliable sources do not even agree who is in the line.) TFD (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I just don't think taking a newspaper article about the birth of Isla Phillips, which states she is now #13 in the line of succession, and combining that information with the list which previously had Zara Tindall at #13 to reach the conclusion that now Mrs Tindall must be #14 is what WP:SYNTHESIS is addressing. Certainly it's not in the spirit of the example provided in that policy about attempting to lead the reader to a value judgement about the number of wars which have been fought since the founding of the United Nations. As for the argument that another individual may have been removed from or added to the line of succession unknown to us, that seems to be one of the contributing factors to where the compromise cutoff point was reached when the original list of 1000s of names was trimmed to the current version. The people on this list are close enough to the royal family that births or deaths in their families are going to be in the news. To take that idea to its extreme conclusion, you could say the same thing about practically any article: "There may have been some new development we don't know about, so we ought not include the information we do have because it might be incorrect." Obviously, we can't think like that, or there would be no Wikipedia. Instead, we just use the best data we have in a good faith effort to be as accurate as we can. --LarryJeff (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
A person on the list may have secretly married a Catholic, they may died unreported, their parents' marriage may be found to be null, they may not be the biological son or daughter of their parents, or may be excluded for other reasons. When we renumber the list we are interpreting constitutional law and assuming certain facts to be true, which is synthesis.
Consider too Tony O'Donohue's case. Had it succeeded it would have meant that Catholics were not excluded from the succession in Canada. Such a ruling would mean that we had misinterpreted the law since 1982, when the UK passed Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is, the list in the article may be wrong, but we do not know that yet.
TFD (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
So what if any of that stuff happens? Maybe we should all just give up editing these articles and trying to make Wikipedia better, because in the time we've been having this discussion, five people on the list may have either died or given birth to secret Catholic babies. Let me ask one question (because I'm sincerely trying to understand what you think should happen here), then I'm probably done with this thread. Given that we have reliable sources for (1) the fact of Isla Phillips's birth and (2) that she is #13 in the line of succession, how do you think the article should be updated to reflect this information—is it (a) leave it alone and pretend we never heard of her, (b) put her at #13 and delete everyone below her, (c) insert her in the list and just remove all the numbers, or (d) some other option I haven't thought of? --LarryJeff (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we have to do anything as far as Isla is concerned. We now have a really reliable source I.e. the british monarchy website wich correctly list her and the next 27 people correctly. Like I said earlier I was surprised how quickly the website was updated I had expected I to ale several weeks which would have created real problems for this page. I still think the policies on having verifiable sources is correct and the policy on synthesis, original research etc are also valid. It's just the fact that we have to be patient before we can update this article? 109.145.213.91 (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Succession boxes

A large number of aricles feature people who are in line of succession to the British throne, but why they are in line is not quite clear. One such person is Prince Friso of Orange-Nassau (currently in a coma after a sking accident), but it took some research to find out what his claim to the succession was. After having found the relevant information, I added it to the succession box.

Since this applies not only to Prince Friso, but to many entries, I thought this an appropriate place to mention it - this site has over 200 watchers, so I can expect some feedback. If editors are agreeable, we could have a new field in the succession box "claim = " which will enable comments such as this to be added without them being bold. A note on usage would recommend that this box field only be used if the person in question is not mentioned in this article.

Comments? Martinvl (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the templates and use the s-ttl template, field "creation" to get the claimant text. Is this a good idea, or should we request a field "claim"? Martinvl (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
It may not be necessary for everyone who's not listed in this article. Perhaps for anyone whose ancestry chart in his or her own article doesn't go back far enough to include a past monarch? For example, at Katharine Fraser, Mistress of Saltoun you can expand the ancestry chart to see her descent from Victoria. --LarryJeff (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, Prince Friso's claim goes back to George II. I was thinking of cases such as his rather than Katharine Fraser's. Martinvl (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't saying we don't need to show the person's claim. I like the idea. I was just offering an alternative criterion for deciding when to use it. I just picked Katherine Fraser out semi-randomly from the 4th generation of Victoria's descendants. --LarryJeff (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Please add any further comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. Martinvl (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

She said it

This edit caught my eye, and I got to wondering. Say someone near the top of the line of succession decides they don't want to be the monarch and they want to dispense with as much rigmarole as possible and just be left alone. Would it be sufficient for them to simply claim to be a Roman Catholic? Or would proof of baptism in a Catholic church be required before they could be relieved of the burden of monarchy the Act of Succession places on them? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 23:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This is all hypothetical of course, but I imagine they could refuse to take the accession oath, allowing the Accession Council to proclaim the next in line instead. DrKiernan (talk) 07:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The activities of the AC are purely ceremonial, of course.Ordinary Person (talk) 06:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

How far should the list go?

Looking through the history of this article, I notice that one editor extended it to include all descendants of Queen Victoria. This was then reverted. I find it a little surprising however that the descendants of Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood, are not included in this list - after all the descendants of her brothers are included in the list. May I suggest that they are included as well as George V and all his deceased descendants. In this way we can see how each person got their claim. Deceased persons would be formatted in the same way as descendants who are not eligible for succession to the throne, but with no reason other than a date of death.

Those who are deceased are George V, his six children, Princess Margaret and maybe half a dozen more, so they would not have a dramatic effect on the length of the list. Martinvl (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, and I might not, but the current "limit" to 40ish on this list was decided on due to lack of credible references, the pain in keeping the list up to date, and so forth. I remember there being a discussion about this.--UnQuébécois (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
We need a reliable source that provides a list of the next in line and cannot add to the list people who appear nowhere in a list of succession in reliable sources. If for example a person on the list were to have a child we cannot change the listing until a reliable source published a new list. The relevant policy is WP:SYN. At present there are no reliable sources that extend beyond the first 40 or 50 in line. Note also that there are issues of constitutional law that may influence the line and we are not able to decide those issues, just report what experts say. TFD (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
That is indeed the problem. Wikipedia has a policy that every entry in this list must have a verifiable source saying that a person is in nth position. We all know how the line of succession works and there are many genealogists that could construct a line well beyond the descendants of Victoria but without a verifiable source saying that person x is nth in line to the throne they can't be added. It is a policy though that does appear to be flexible when new births occur higher up the list. The recent birth of Master Lewis being the latest example. Lewisdl (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
The list is currently resticted to the descendants of George V - I don't propose going any further other than to include deceased descendants (to show where the current claimants' claim arises) and to include all of his children, not just his first four sone. I see no problem with adding a new-born to the list as long as all the precendants are verifiable. If somebody come up with a precedant which is not verifiable, then we can flag that person as "Claim not clarified". (In practice, I do not believe that the Monarchy will clarify dubious situations unless there is areal possiblity of that person becoming king or queen - for example one of George V's descendants was born out of wedlock, but his parents married a few years later. If the monarchy has not said anything, then neither should we). Martinvl (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Visual "succession"

Something I noticed, and liked, that they did with this article on the french wiki, is a tree showing the "succession", in addition to the indenting list we have here. fr:Ordre de succession pour le trône britannique --UnQuébécois (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You should copy it over. TFD (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
It is not that easy - it uses some graphic templates that are specific to the French version of Wikipeida. Meanwhile, I have created a slightly different tree which is designed to show both who is in the line of succession and why they are there - see User:Martinvl/succession. Comments? Martinvl (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
It's also very incorrect. Not listing Lady Helen's children while listing Prince Michael, Lord St Andrews and Lord Nicholas Windsor when all three are out because of converting or marrying a Catholic. Morhange (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The content regarding living people is identical to the version in the main artcile, except that it include a number of people who are deceased. Martinvl (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
If you are referring to the visual version on the French Wiki, it clearly states that names not in bold are either deceased, or excluded from the line. I simply like the presentation, it gives a better visual of where people are in relation to everyone else.--UnQuébécois (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
In my example, I copied the table from the English version of Wikipedia, added entries for those who are deceased and did a little reformatting. I did not change the order at all. Martinvl (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I have "stolen" (with help from a user on French Wikipedia) the templates in order to implement this, I am just waiting on an admin to add some content to a java script page to finish. Even if we choose not to do this here, the template can/could be used elsewhere when a "tree view list" is desirable. For example in animal classification, it is nice to visually see how things line up, especially when the list starts getting long.--UnQuébécois (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I am developing the English-language templates that will marry into the java that UnQuébécois has acquired. If anybody want a preview (or are willing to help translate the French), please visit User:Martinvl/SimpleTree/doc. Also, if anybody has a better name than "SimpleTree" (which will not clash with existing templates), please say so. Martinvl (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I had already created the templates needed to go with the javascript. {{TreeList start}}, {{Treelist end}}, {{TreeList/Branch}}, {{TreeList/Branch End}} and {{TreeList/Terminal Branch}}. Only waiting on an admin to add the java for them to work.-- User:UnQuébécois.
Sorry, didn't want both of us to do double work! I figured I got the ball rolling, I would let you know my progress before we both got in too deep!-- User:UnQuébécois.
Added "nowiki" terminator on behalf of User:UnQuébécois and added his name to the above postings. Martinvl (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi UnQuébécois, Thank you for doing the legwork in contacting the French authors of the original article and in contacting the Admins. Well done - my French is nowhere near good enough to allow me to use when begging favours. I also saw your templates, but when I reproduced the original templates, I found a little more than just getting links to the Java script sorted - one also has to sort the documentation and that is something that I have done. I have got all the templates in my userspace linking up to the documentation. As soon as the Admins get the Java links working, I should be able to see it in the documentation.

I also have a few comments about your choice of names:

  • I am happy with the name "TreeList".
  • We should be consistent with the use of upper case and lower case letters. I propose that apart from the word "TreeList", we use lower case letters throughout - this is in accordance with Wikipedia naming policy.
  • Likewise, we should be consistent in our use of the "/" separator. Since we will have a number of templates in the TreeList family, I suggest that all our calls be "Treelist/xxx" where "xxx" is the specifier.
  • I would prefer the top element to use the word "begin" rather than "start" - the words "begin" and "end" are complementary pair as are the words "start" and "finish".
  • I would like to replace "terminal branch" with "terminate branch" - this a verb that describes an action that we are requesting the text processor to do, not an noun that has an attribute.

I know that this might sound pedantic, but after more years in the IT industry than I care to remember, being sloppy about definitions at this stage causes a lot of work later on, especially where the user has to make allowances for inconsistencies. I look forward to your comments. Martinvl (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Martinivl (talk · contribs), Thank you for working on the documentation, one less thing for me to worry about. in response to your comments:
  • I have no problem with you liking the name TreeList. :)
  • Naming policy consistency is good.
  • So, if I read you correctly, we should set it up: {{TreeList/begin}} or {{Treelist/start}}, {{TreeList/end}}, {{TreeList/branch}}, {{TreeList/branch end}}, and {{TreeList/treminal branch}}? That sounds good to me.
  • I understand what you are saying about start/begin, however I find that start and end are complementary also, you have starting points and end points. I was looking at it as in the list starts here and ends here.
  • Using terminal branch was because of the descriptive nature, it is a "terminal branch" in the list with no further branching from the "parent". Reading "terminate branch" does not seem as descriptive to me, I was trying to come up with something easy for the "reader" or "contributor" to understand. (embranchement and branche van bot be translated into english as branch) I played with the "branching" names for a while, but nothing is in stone yet, 'branch end' could easily be 'last branch' and 'terminal branch' could be 'final branch'.
I have always tried to take my target audience into account when coding.--UnQuébécois (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Form of names

The British monarchy website is definitive in terms of the line of succession, but it is not necessarily decisive in terms of the form of people's names. I suggest we use the titles of their Wikipedia biographies in the absence of some good reason to the contrary. Martinvl (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC) This section was posted by User:PatGallacher, but due to a technical problem, his name was hidden.

Can your provide an example? TFD (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Certainly: "Mrs. Michael Tindall", who everybody knows as Zara Phillips. PatGallacher (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I would argue for Mrs Zara Tindall, in the same vein we have Lady Helen Taylor, Lady Davina Lewis, Lady Rose Gilman which is of course their correct styles, but we could maintain consistency and display the married woman's first name along with her new married surname. Morhange (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Not quite true. She is either known as "Lady Zara Tindall" or "Mrs Michael Tindall". Since she has declined to use the title "Lady", the latter title is used. Martinvl (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

She is never known as Lady Zara Tindall. She hasn't just declined to use the title Lady, she is not entitled to it, nor any other title. The others are all daughters of a Duke etc.. PatGallacher (talk) 10:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I stand partially corrected, but Debretts styles her as "Miss Zara Philipps, also known as Mrs Michael Tindall". I understnad that the "Miss" title is used professionally (as in horse riding) and the "Mrs" title socially. Martinvl (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Looks to me that it should be either "Zara Philipps" or "Miss Zara Philipps" in this list, but not "Miss Michael Tindall".--UnQuébécois (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
She was "Mrs Mike Tindall" in the Court Circular recently. Opera hat (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
So no consistency in the "Mrs" under husbands name.--UnQuébécois (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

What if we show the person's formal name with the name used in their Wikipedia article in brackets? E.g., "Mrs. John Smith (Jane Jones)". TFD (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

How I about, for Esquires/Misters, Masters, Misses, Mses and Mrses we just drop those titles altogether? For one thing, it's blasted difficult to decide when a young man stops being Master and becomes Mr (e.g. right now, Mr Samuel Chatto (15) and Master Arthur Chatto (13)). It would also eliminate the Zara problem (since we could hardly list her as "Mike Tindal"!). What do we think? DBD 09:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The criteria for WIkipeida is verifiability, not truth - in this respect we should be following an authoritative website and the Monarchy site is probably the most authoritative site available. If you disagree with the Monarchy website, then why not contact the webmaster and state your view (in your personal capacity of course). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs)
I agree, Dan. Practice on wikipedia is to avoid using honorifics. We don't use "Mr Joe Biden", "Miss Maud Behn", etc. on other articles or lists. This page does not follow wikipedia guidelines or style. DrKiernan (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Historically, the use of Mr. was restricted to members of the gentry and not used for persons of lower rank. See for example present state of Great Britain and Ireland (1738), which uses "Mr." to describe some untitled employees of the palace, while omitting it for their social inferiors.
Practice says that we should avoid titles as well, and only use them in relevant biographies. But it makes sense to include them here, because of the nature of the subject.
TFD (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I have been bold. Please take a look and tell us what you think. DBD 20:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
At the moment it is a mess. If you are removing honourifics, you shoudl also remove "HRH" and the prefix "The". In addition, the wording "Zara Tindall (also Phillips ...)" does not make sense. At least write "Zara Tindall (Zara Phillips ...)", or better still, leave out the "Phillips" part altogether - the family tree wil show who she is in relation to the Queen. Martinvl (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Funny, I would "vote" for "Zara Phillips" as that is what she goes by! But yes all the extra non sense on any of the names should go. People can easily click on the name and go to the page if they want more info on the person in question, and all the alternate names/titles/etc.--Education does not equal common sense. (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
If we remove Mr., Mrs., Miss etc. then we should remove Queen, Prince, Princess, etc. TFD (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm in favor of removing all the "HRH"s etc. Apart from being against wikipedia's style guidelines, I think it distracts from the actual list of names. It's unnecessary, and even has an air of obsequiousness about it. DrKiernan (talk) 07:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Using style guidelines, we would not use any titles at all, except in naming the articles about the individuals listed. But if we are to use them, then we should use the ones provided by the sources. Incidentally the article itself has an air of obsequiousness about it. TFD (talk) 07:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The descendants of the Princess Mary, Pricess Royal and Countess of Harewood

Why are the legitimate descendants of the Princess' two sons not included in the list but only mentioned? They are "descendants of George V" in the same way as the persons from the point 1 to 47 of that list. I don't get it... Kowalmistrz (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't have an offical list that showed their names. (The list for her sons was called from a newspaper dated 1953, but was actually a copy of an older list, published before her grandsons were born). The report showed the Countess as about number 10 on the list) Martinvl (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
You do not need to see an official list of those who are in line of succession to the throne because there is no such list. The list on the British Monarchy's official website is prepared by the staff editing the website and is based on the rules of succession to the throne, which is governed by law. The same list, longer or shorter, can be prepared by anyone. There is no an official record of those who have rights to the throne in the UK, like it is in Denmark for example, where the proper Cabinet member makes a note whenever someone new with rights to the throne is born or someone from the line of succession dies. So, to prepare such list of persons eiglible to succeed to the thone of Britain you just have to follow the rules governed by several acts, such as the Act of Union 1800, which restates the provisions of the Act of Settlement 1701, and the Bill of Rights 1689. The order of succession is also governed by common law, which stipulates for example that succession passes first to an individual's sons, in order of birth, and subsequently to daughters, again in order of birth. That's what need to have references in our case here and not the line of succession itself! The line of succession is made by someone, according to some rules (as all lists are! ;-)) and does not exist per se. Thus, we can surely say that after the daughter of Prince George, Duke of Kent, the succession passes to the line of his sister, George V's daughter, the Princess Mary, Princess Royal, Countess of Harewood. After her, the rights to the throne are inherited by her sons, in order of seniority. After her elder son, George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood, the succession passes to his own children in the same way of male-female and elder-younger relations as always (however, the son of Lord Harewood, currently the 8th Earl, is father of two children born out of wedlock, Emily and Benjamin Lascelles. He later married their mother so they were legitimised, but it did not change the fact that being born illegitimately to the Earl excluded them from the throne). And so forth, down to the descendants of George V's two sisters who have such. And so on. It's quite simple :). Kowalmistrz (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
We cannot complete the list ourselves because it would be synthesis requiring us to use information from different sources. While there is no "official list", there are lists prepared by reliable sources. Since individuals may forfeit claims or new heirs born without our knowlege, we cannot be certain that the list is accurate. Also we do not know how the authorities will ultimately interpret the laws. TFD (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I certainly saw a historic list (Pears Cyclopeadia, 1960 I think) when I was a teenager which mentioned the Earl of Harewood and his sons, so it has certainly been published. No doubt we could look up some old copies of Whitaker's Almanac and check there if we wanted to be pedantic about a citation (as opposed to the newspaper report). We do not have any information as to whether or not the descendants of Mary have adopted Catholicism, which is why I noted them as "the descendants of ...". It should be noted that Amelia (I think) Windsor, although baptised in the Roman Catholic Church, has not yet been confirmed, so is not debarred from the throne. For this reason, I see no problem in adding newly born children to the list regardless of parent's religious views on the assumption that they will be included in a relevant list when it is next published. (Such an expectation would fall outside WP:CRYSTAL). It was also convenient to lump all of Mary's g-grandchildren (and their descendant together) as the list is probably long enough, but in its current form if lists all of George V's descendant, albeit it by lumping some of them together. Martinvl (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Synthesis prevents us from taking facts published in various sources and presenting conclusions not explicitly stated in any of the sources. TFD (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, however, it does not prevent us from including obvious information. Person X (included in the line) has a legitimate child, the news paper reports the birth, but does not specifically mention that the child is now in line or in what position they now are, we can still include them in the list.--Education does not equal common sense. (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
We can mention it but cannot update the list because it would force us to assume that the original list was the WP:TRUTH, that no other changes had been made which were not reported and, if not stated in the news article, that the person is eligible for the succession. See synthesis. TFD (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Although it would be easy to find a reliable source that said the current Lord Harewood was in line, if a source can't be found to state specifically that he is currently at number 48 in line, he doesn't go on the list. This goes back to when the article included nearly all descendants of Electress Sophia and was the longest on wikipedia - see the exhaustive and acrimonious discussions in the talk page archives. It was rather ironic that no-one could find a reliable source to say that the 7th Lord Harewood was (then) 46th in line until his obituary was published. Opera hat (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Does it really make sense to cite the official website as a reliable source when we know that their list contains a big, factual mistake, which is why we ignore that part of the list? (I am talking, of course, about The Lady Helen Taylor an her children being listed before her brother's children). Is it synthesis or OR to correct that obvious mistake made by the supposedly reliable official site? Surtsicna (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to use multiple sources. Just use the one that is most reliable, in this case the Debrett's website and include the Palace's website as a link. TFD (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

All the above=

The hairplitting and endless fight to collapse this list even farther, has made most of the people who actually had any interest in royal succession leave in droves. This article has become a dueling ground for hairsplitters, nitpickers and nitwicks of that ilk. Williamb (talk) 10:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Expansion of List

Are we finally expanding the list? --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 19:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I have reinstated the links for people who do not have a page in their own reight. The fact that these links are redirects is sufficient that the link be there. The link does not have to point to an artcile dedicated to that person. Martinvl (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

So that make three times that the same IP's "edits" have been reverted. Does that count as 3RR? --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 17:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Citation clutter

I would like to suggest that we reduced the number of citations associated with individual names - in principal we only give the most recent citation unless there is a contradiction in which case we give both and add a note commenting on the contradiction. In addition, I suggest that when a person on the list dies, the citation remains and that in the case of people who are already dead, the last citation made during their lifetime be added. Martinvl (talk) 10:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Master

An editor removed the honorific "Master" from the names of untitled infant heirs to the throne with the notation, "per Master (form of address)#Current usage.[5] That article says that it has "almost died out", which is sourced to Leslie Dunkling's Dictionary of Epithets and Terms of Address (2012).[6] Apparently it is still used in the royal family's website and therefore no reason to exclude it, as we include honorifics and titles for all other persons listed. TFD (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. If we agree to use the form on the royal family website with additional names such as "Harry" or "Zara Philips" in brackets where appropriate, we will remove a large amount of edit-warring as we will have a fixed reference point. BTW, I understand that the title "Master" is used up to the age of 18, so when "Master X" reaches his 18th birthday, we should replace "Master" with "Mr". Martinvl (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, the source is a dictionary of forms of "direct address", i.e., spoken address and the entry is for "First name, Master" not "First and last name, Master". While I accept that it may be unusual for anyone to verbally address a child as "Master John", it may not be unusual to address him as "Master John Smith" in a letter or invitation, especially if it were of a highly formal nature. TFD (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and added Master back to the under-18 boys on the list (Chatto, Taylor, Nicholas Windsor's sons, etc) Morhange (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
You changed the two 18-year-olds from Mr to Master, despite what Martin said directly above, and despite the titles they are given on the official website. Alexander Ogilvy is only two weeks off his birthday. DrKiernan (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Excuse my poor math skills, but doesn't 2012 - 1996 = 16, and not 18? Cassius Taylor and Alexander Ogilvy are both still 15, and Samuel Chatto is 16. Are we doing this according to the official succession site, which seems to use "Master" for boys under 15, or are we doing 17 and under? Morhange (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the official site is a good source, actually. Largely, because they have got Leopold and Albert wrong in terms of both placement and title. DrKiernan (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

My preference is to remove all the "Mr" and "Master"s, etc. None of these people have any special title or style, and so it is unnecessary to give them one. DrKiernan (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

These are titles but have lost their stature because of their wide usage. Notice that the armed forces still retain the usage as a form of address for junior officers, for example, Mister Roberts TFD (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I've said it before (here), and I'll say it once again – we really ought to just drop Master, Mr, Miss, Mrs and Ms. KISS. DBD 07:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
What about Queen, Duke, Earl, Viscount, Honorable? TFD (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Those titles are special and specific. The point about Mr, etc., is that they are not unusual or noteworthy, and by removal we can avoid having to choose (or argue) between Ms and Miss and Mr and Master. DrKiernan (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. This is the only acceptable solution. People in this list must be referred to in exactly the same way as they would be referred to in any other context in any other article. We would never use "Mr" or "Miss" in other articles either, not to mention the pathetically outdated "master". Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

DrKiernan's comments about current usage of Master and removal from use in this article happen to be correct in this instance, and it is difficult to see why TFD felt so aggrieved as to complain and even more difficult to agree with 48hr block awarded against DrK [[7]]Qexigator (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC).

In general we should avoid titles altogether, except in article names. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies says, "The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person, but are optional after that." I see no difference between calling some persons viscount, lord or lady because their father is an earl, calling another the honorable because his father was a peer or calling others mister because their father was the son of lord or lady. Nor is their any reason to call persons prince, princess or duke, since these are not the names they are known by in their drivers' licences or what they are called if they appear in court, and has no relevance to their position in the line of succession.
The use of titles suggests a high degree of formality, which we should either use or reject. If we do use it, then we must be consistent, not arbitrarily choose which ones to use. Incidentally, mister is a title, applied to persons who have no other titles.
TFD (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, formality isn't the criterion here. This is an encyclopedia text, and as such is not supposed to be in any more formal register than any other article, so indeed, on that criterion alone we ought not to be using any titles at all, including "Royal Highness" and all the rest. But the criterion that matters is not formality but encyclopedic information value. The use of "Mr" is completely useless because its information is zero (because, as you rightly say, it just signals the absence of any other title.) Other, more substantial titles such as "Lord" or "Prince" might be felt to be of encyclopedic value insofar as a reader might be interested in knowing how the positions of the line of succession are distributed across the various ranks of nobility. If editors feel that's not of importance, I have no problems with leaving it all out. I would also recommend leaving out the "HRH" bits, whose information value is also near-zero, as they are generally redundant to the title of "Prince". Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
"Mr." is a title that implies gentility and is now widely used as a polite form of address for all men without other titles. It retains its traditional use in the armed forces, where junior officers as called "Mr.", and in other formal situtations. I think we use the titles in the source or avoid them altogether, since discussion of the correct use of titles in different situations is beyond our function. TFD (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


Fut.Perf., formality is definately important here; the whole point of this article is to contain in it a formal, current line of succession. It is certainly of encyclopedic value to have the list presented so as to show what exactly every person's full/legal persona is, even if one may not appear on a driving licence as 'Viscount X'-It gives people more information about the family member and several in this discussion seem to agree with me, the ones that dont arent giving any valid points for what is wrong with just including this information-It is not about how the people may be referred to commonly or in other articles-that is why for example we had the Zara Philips name in brackets, but legally she is Mrs Michael Tindell, and that specificaly posed a problem when dropping the titles-she couldnt be listed as Michael Tindell, so the editor put Mrs Michael Tindell in brackets which doesnt have any continuity with the rest of the article. Brackets should be used to show extra info like common names, but the actual list should be maintained in a formal way ie if you imagine that the list would be in a way that the government would publish in an official form. So, totally formal. In summary, the way the list was before was complete showing the formal line with additional info in brackets, and that is the way it was for ages before TFD started this whole discussion for which there isnt enough consensus or reasoning for the changes. And remember, skipping and omitting information (which is what these recent edits have done) will annoy more people than having it there. So, for the sake of completeness and clarity (especially for all those who come to this page and are very interested to find out if and what royal or peerage title someone has or to confirm if they are Mr or whatever) I have changed back to the way the list was before-which has Mr for all males that have no other title, as that was discussed in the past and it agreed that Master was out of date and there was no agreed percise age up to which to use it, and that Mr served the same modern purpose for all in formal usage. If anyone is still intent on dropping all titles from article please let a longer discussion develop for fair consensus to take place otherwise it may become disruptive and you could be barred. The edits that were peviously made were just done too quickly for such a major change, and this is all somewhat trivial anyway. However, as I previously said it is actualy very important to maintain formality in a lsit such as this. So, hopefully everyone can understand what Im saying and realise that it is more controversial to take meaningfull info away and if you are not interested in the titles, then think that it doesnt do any harm to keep them there for others who may be extremely interested and may even be the reason for them coming to the article-not to see everyone's place in the line but merely to see who everyone is and what the full names of all the Queen's closest relatives are. Especially for foreigners or those with not much knowledge of the Royal Family-eg one might see 'Zara Philips' and wonder if she is a princess or what, and if that info has been left out-the Mrs confirms that she isnt an HRH. So, I have changed it back because thats how it was for ages and it is better for EVERYONE like that because it doesnt omit encyclopedic valuable info.Nocrowx (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

There is most certainly no consensus for the version you prefer. You are edit-warring: stop it. As for your argument, you are mixing up different meanings of "formal". I agree it may be useful to inform the reader about what titles somebody has, but that is not the same thing as assuming, in our own style of presentation, the same mode of expression that would be found in a ceremonial listing. The style we use in our article titles on these people is quite informative and sufficient. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
As I have already said there was no proper consensus for the version you prefer. All I have done is change it back to how it was for a long time and you are edit-warring if you change it back again. Nocrowx (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Line_of_succession_to_the_British_throne/Archive_13&oldid=1136262313"