Talk:Line of succession to the British throne/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Prince Alexandre of Belgium

As he just died recently and was in direct line for the throne at one time (he was a half brother of the current king I believe, by the king's father's second wife.) I looked for him and his children in the line of succession, but I can't find them anywhere. They were most assuredly Catholic but they seem to be missing. Williamb (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Prince Alexandre and his sisters weren't ever in line. King Albert, his siblings until their deaths, and their descendants are in line through their mother Princess Astrid of Sweden. Alexandre, Marie-Christine and Marie-Esmerelda weren't in line because neither of their parents were. Morhange (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

King Henry I of England

Hi. I was wondering when are the descendants of King Henry I going to be added? I'm related through Robert de Muellent (or Mellent, however you look at it)..I'm probably skipped though.

Thank you, David101jam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.189.150 (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Never, unless they are also descendants of Sophia of Hanover. Only descendants of Henry I's descendant Sophia have succession rights. Surtsicna (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie and illegitimacy

I realise that Wikipedia is not a forum, however I must ask this. Back in 1685, the crown passed from Charles II to his brother James II, and not his son the Duke of Monmouth, as Monmouth was illegitimate, and thus his line was barred from succession. Having read the Princess Diana and Sarah Ferguson articles, it appears that both of those women are(or were in Diana's case) descendants of the Duke of Monmouth. Now since Monmouth's line would be an illegitimate one and thus barred, and since Diana and Sarah are both his descendants, does it not naturally follow that THEIR children are part of an illegitimate line, and thus ineligible? Surely Princes William and Harry, and Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie as descendants of Charles II's bastard son are thus themselves removed from the line of succession? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Rgne (talk • contribs) 17:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If a person who is in the line of succession marries a person who is not in the line of succession, their children will be in the line of succession. As simple as that. If it weren't true, the Queen would have never been able to ascend the throne as her mother had no succession rights. Besides, being descended from Charles II means nothing to succession to the British throne. The question makes sense though and I used to think about it too. Surtsicna (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The point was never whether Diana or Sarah were in line to the throne or not. If people only married other people in the line of succession, then the family would become very inbred. The point was that Diana and Sarah are both descended from an ILLEGITIMATE bloodline. Thus their children (William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie) are also ALL of illegitimate ancestry. The fact that the Spencers and Fergusons are not listed in the article is irrelevant. It's that all four Princes/Princesses are descended from the wrong side of the bed as it were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Rgne (talk • contribs) 17:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think that the Queen herself is not "descended from an illegitimate bloodline" and that she herself is not of "illegitimate ancestry"? Of course she is. So are all of her children and I'm pretty sure that we are all descended from at least one illegitimate person. An illegitimate person has no succession rights from the moment of their birth and (under current legislation) can't obtain those rights. In other words, they have as much succession rights as either of us does. As I said, being descended from a person who has no succession rights does not bar a person from succeeding if the other parent has (or has had) succession rights. Surtsicna (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In other words, the illegitimate children never had any right of inheritance themselves, and so have none to pass on to their own descendants. However, later individuals in those bloodlines are not "tainted" so as to prevent them from receiving the inheritance of another, legitimate, line. And, as was already pointed out, the example used was prior to the Act of Settlement of 1701 and, thus, has no effect on the current line of succession anyway. LarryJeff (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Does the Royal Marriages Act "regulate the line of succession"?

I contend that it does not in any meaningful way. First of all, there is no cited source saying that it does. Secondly, the effect of the Royal Marriages Act is to declare certain marriages, that would otherwise be lawful, null and void for all purposes. This does indirectly affect the succession, because only children whose parents are married can be included in the line of succession. However this influence is only indirect. The Royal Marriages Act itself says nothing directly about the line of succession. One might equally argue that any law affecting what kind of marriages are lawful thereby affects the line of succession.

For example, the marriage between Charles, Prince of Wales and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall was solemnized at a venue that would not have been lawful prior to the passage of the Marriages Act 1994. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Charles and Camilla could have a child together, then that child's place in the line of succession would be dependent on the legality of Charles and Camilla's marriage, which itself would depend on the Marriages Act 1994. Yet no one would say that the Marriages Act 1994 "regulated the line of succesion". Therefore it makes no more sense to say that the Royal Marriages Act "regulates the line of succession". Grover cleveland (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, especially on the point that a statement that succession is "governed by" the Act should be removed if it cannot be sourced. Although, in the case of an individual whose status is affected by the Act, that fact should be mentioned where that individual is listed. LarryJeff (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again! I will just quote one excellent source. C. Grant Robinson,Principal of the University of Birmingham and Fellow of All Souls College, wrote in Select Statutes, Cases and Documents to illustrate English Constitutional History 1660-1832 (4th edition, London, 1923), "This Act, which is still law, prescribes the conditions under which members of the Royal Family can contract a valid marriage, and provides very stringent safeguards against undesirable marriages, which might affect the succession to the throne or lower the status of the Royal House". The bastardisation of such children was one of the chief purposes of the Act and, as has been pointed out previously, it was decided by the House of Lords in 1843 that the prohibition was personal and followed members of the Royal Family beyond British jurisdiction. The children of these marriages should be deleted from this worthless and hypothetical list. You try to get that done, however, and those Wikipedians who seem to spend their lives working on it will rise up against you! AnthonyCamp (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC).

(1) For someone who thinks this article is worthless, you seem to spend a lot of time here discussing it. (2) The text which you quoted - specifically the part you italicized - does not say that the Act directly regulates succession. That's describing the result of "undesirable marriages." No one has said the marriage act has no effect on the line of succession, or even that it wasn't the driving force behind the passage of the act. However, as has already been pointed out, it's an indirect effect. The direct effect of the act is to either prevent or void these undesirable marriages. This results in the secondary effect of removing the offspring of any such voided marriage from the line of succession. LarryJeff (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

According to Bogdanor, surely another "excellent" source, the motiviation behind the act was actually the personal annoyance of George III that his brother had contracted a secret marriage, while he himself had been forced to marry for dynastic reasons. In any case, the actual plain text of the act says nothing about the succession to the throne. And if the act _were_ specifically designed to regulate the succession, it was singularly ill-designed for that purpose: why would it be restricted to descendants of George II, when at the time of enactment it was at least conceivable (if unlikely) that the succession might pass to someone outside George II's descendants? Grover cleveland (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't the same criticism be applied to the 1953 Danish Act of Succession - an act specifically designed to regulate the succession at a time when it was at least conceivable (if unlikely) that the sucession might pass to someone not a descendant of Christian X? Opera hat (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

I agree that the Royal Marriages Act did not 'regulate' the succession but it had such a direct and important bearing on all Royal marriages that it should undoubtedly be mentioned in the preamble to this article and the children affected by it removed. That George III was 'forced to marry for dynastic reasons' is surely not correct. He was, as he himself said, thoroughly convinced by Bute's reasoning of the impropriety of marrying someone who would be subject to direct party political influences in England. He wanted someone 'who binds me to nothing' [Sedgwick (1939) page 39] and the result can hardly be considered a 'dynastic' marriage. The King in turn convinced his wife of the 'dangers of women becoming involved in the corrupt political world' [Hibbert (1998) page 48] and they both as a result viewed his brother's marriage into the turbulent and politically active Luttrell family with complete dismay. By 1772 the evidence of his marriage is that they were well-suited and faithfully devoted to one another [Ayling (1972) 217] and he had no regrets on that score. The Act was designed to stop such marriages in the future but the Parliamentary debate on it revealed considerable doubt that the King could have the right in law to prevent his grandfather's children from marrying as they wished. The debate was suspended until the Judges gave their opinion that whilst 'the care and approbation' of the King's own children and grandchildren 'do belong to this realm, they could not find it anywhere precisely stated what other branches of the Royal Family were also included' [Gattey (1985) page 111]. It is probably for this reason that the Act was limited to the descendants of George II and does not relate to all the descendants of the Electress Sophia. AnthonyCamp (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

Emily Hime - birth date wrong

Entry 1006 - Emily Hime was born in 2008 (5th February) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.122.242 (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Leopold Windsor

Leopold Windsor (b 2009), son of Lord Nicholas Windsor[6] Lady Helen Taylor B (b 1964), daughter of the Duke of Kent

appears at no 26 on the list but does not appear in the list on www.royal.gov.uk

I presume that as his parents are Roman Catholics he has now been baptised as a Roman Catholic and so is excluded.

This appears to be a problem as when someone who is a Catholic has a child the child is not formally excluded until they are baptised —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.88.40 (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed at: [[1]] Alan Davidson (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Consorts in the line of succession

Isn't The Duke of Edinburgh, husband of Queen Elizabeth II, 495th in the line of succession now and not 489th as stated? Seems the article needs to be updated a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.130.40 (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing/Correction

missing: Prince Benedikt of Bentheim-Steinfurt born 12th may 1995, Vienna (Father: Prince Wolfgang of Bentheim-Steinfurt) >> http://thepeerage.com/p29697.htm#i296969

correction: PHSH Princess Alexandra of Bentheim-Steinfurt (b 1924) (grandmother of Benedikt) died 4th September 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.77.64 (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

correction: Lady Tamara van Cutsem lost her place in the line of succession due to her marriage to Edward Bernard Charles van Cutsem in 2004, as her spouse is a Roman Catholic. Their son, listed as Jake van Cutsem, has been baptised as a Roman Catholic and also lost his place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.128.253.105 (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} I believe that correctly speaking on the Line of succession to the British throne that 'Amelia Etherington' who is supposedly 62nd in the line to the throne is wrong. I believe that the correct person is a man called Max Spalding-Gardner. Hope this issue is fixed up quickly. Thanks~ Regards, iCommandoz

ICommandoz (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that Amelia Etherington does not belong at all and should be replaced by Max Spalding-Gardner? That Max Spalding-Gardner should be inserted above Amelia Etherington? If the latter, why would he be inserted between a parent and child? In either case, who is this individual--what is his line of descent? Perhaps if you had followed the instructions in the edit request template. LarryJeff (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a source for your claims, which are not supported by the sources given in the article. Algebraist 23:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Lady Tamara van Cutsem is married to a Roman Catholic, Mr. Edward van Cutsem. Their children are being raised as Catholics, and Jake would thereby be removed from the line of succession.

This list is a massive waste of time

Can it even be considered encyclopedic? It's not really informative in any way. I can understand listing the first 100 or 500 successors to the British throne, but to have a giant list of thousands of people who will never have a chance in hell of claiming the throne seems a bit overboard to me. Acablue (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the list is a useful reference on whether someone is an heir to the British throne. Maybe a minor factoid for someone's biographical article (say right here on wikipedia) but nevertheless interesting. --Kvasir (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

If you read the discussions here you will quickly see that this is far from being 'a useful reference'. Beyond the first forty or so there are so many problems that in my view it has no value whatever. AnthonyCamp (talk) 09:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC).

I don't think so. The list shows the extent of those individuals who are bound by Act of Settlement 1701 and the Royal Marriages Act 1772. These two Acts wouldn't have applied to everyday Jane and Joe but to those specific people on the list. Where else can we find this list publically available? Imagine your marriage has to be approved by the reigning monarch of the UK, even though you may not have anything to with the UK as a country or consider yourself a royalty. I, for one, was surprised to learn that many on the list no longer carry titles.

In short, the interest here is not only who is eligible for the British throne, but what implications there are for these people. --Kvasir (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, was surprised to learn that many on the list no longer carry titles. Well, ever since British princesses started marrying commoners (c. 19th century), there have been plenty untitled individuals in the line of succession. The current queen's eldest grandchildren are untitled. I do agree, however, that it is interesting to see the names of notable people, be it royalty or actresses. Surtsicna (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The challenge is that it appears someone has attempted to create a very novel and complex navigation structure within the list itself - navigating family lines, orders of succession, etc. It is very difficult to follow within a wikipedia article. Perhaps the Line of Succession is a concept suitable for its own wiki over on Wikia, so those passionate about it could in fact create articles and lists for each, category hierarchies of families, etc. without having to worry about sourcing and the objectivity necessary on wikipedia. For this article, I'd recommend focusing on the list as a concept, maybe listing the next 10 or 20... maybe up to 50-100 as long as it didn't overwhelm the narrative within the article itself. or split into a seperate 'List of' article. Please weigh in. Cander0000 (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Please check the extensive discussions and the voting in the archives. The views of all those who have contributed to date cannot simply be ignored. Alan Davidson (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

let's flip this around, to perhaps get some traction. Keeping in mind the Wikipedia guideline on directories, this article is a poor place to build a complete geneology of british "royalty". Wikipedia doesn't have the structures necessary to build up and navigate massive family trees that dedicated genealogy sites, commercial or otherwise would have. If we presume that a good use of this article would be narrative on the line of succession, and the top '100' that can be considered notable, build a case that this article should list significantly more than the Top 100. Are the top 250 notable? the top 500? the top 5000? Cander0000 (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I am saying, this has been discussed thoroghly before. Please have the manners to discuss this before imposing your view. This occurred in the archive. Please read archive 6 and respond to that before proceeding. If you disagree with the majority, I suggest the procedure should be arbitration not a unilateral change. In response to your comment "there is no clear advocacy for such a massive list on the talk page" - yes there is - go read not only archive 6 but all of them. Alan Davidson (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

And when will you remove the cildren who are disqualified from succession by the effects of the Royal Marriage Act 1772? Those like Kvasir and Surtsicna who are defending this worthless article do not understand the effects of the Act. The list should be reduced to the first 20 or 30 names; only then could it be considered 'encyclopaedic'. To be vaguely 'interesting' is not enough when we know that the whole list is entirely speculative. In several places it includes people whose right to be included is disputed and in others it includes people who we know should not be there. AnthonyCamp (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC).

I don't know about all that, or where all these editors that objected so many months or years ago on the archives are currently at. Consensus can change. I've made a play at getting the list closer to a size that can be reasonably discussed - whether that's trimming it down to the 20 the AnthonyCamp suggests, or some amount more. Please give some time for other editors to weigh in... or not... only the coming weeks will show where there remains vast support for a 'super-list'. Cander0000 (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"Those like Surtsicna" do not "defend this worthless article". Try reading my comment. I only said that seeing the names of notable people is interesting and it is always clear whether a notable person is in the line of succession. Comment on the content, not on the editor. Surtsicna (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Of the six people who have contibuted to this latest discussion there are 3 each way. Less than a year ago there was substantional contribution and a vote for several options; for the status quo. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Clearly there is a great deal of work to be done here—with respect to accuracy, completeness, clarity of presentation etc.—and I regret that I don't really have the time to participate in that effort at present. However, for what it's worth, I am strongly in favor of keeping this list as comprehensive as possible (i.e., including every person who is in the line of succession). While I greatly appreciate those who help to remove people who should not be here, find missing lines of descent, identify Catholics and so forth, I don't think the massive deletion of content from this article is helpful or warranted. Alkari (?), 5 May 2010, 04:00 UTC

Is this article complete?

This article seems complete (although it is difficult to be sure how up to date it is). But all ancesters and lines are covered. It starts with Sophie of Hanover. She had several children, but only two had children. The first was George I. The second was Sophia Charlotte of Hanover who only had one child (Frederick William I) who married his first cousin, and daughter of George I Sophia Dorothea. So all descendants of Sophia of Hanover are the same as the descendants of George I. The last entry on the article reflects this.

From there, there are only two lines – George II and Sophia Dorothea. The list of descendants of George II is complete.

Sophia Dorothea had 10 children (plus 4 who died young). Of those 10, the article is complete for the first seven. Children 8 and 9 (in line) are Sophia Dorothea of Prussia and Louisa Ulrika, Queen of Sweden. (The 10th child had no children).

The 8th child Sophia Dorothea of Prussia had five children – the first child is listed in the article and ends with number 1778 (at the time of writing) - it then said “list incomplete”. Did it say "incomplete" because there are more descendants of this child? The second child Elisabeth Louise married her uncle Prince Augustus Ferdinand of Prussia so all descendants are lists higher and is listed in the article as “Luise”. The third and fifth children died as infants. The fourth child was Philippine who did not produce an legitimate children.

The 9th child Louisa Ulrika, Queen of Sweden had 4 children. The descendants of the 1st child are listed higher as stated in the article. The second, third and fourth children had no surviving legitimate children.

So the article is complete - is it not? (Again I appreciate it may not be up to date in relation to some deaths or births - and the exclusions may be questionable - but there are no more lines to be followed).Alan Davidson (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Not quite, because a whole line is left out at - "Descendants of Dorothea of Brandenburg-Schwedt (1736–1798)

Descendants in the line of Sophia → George I → Sophia Dorothea of Hanover → Princess Sophia Dorothea of Prussia → Dorothea of Brandenburg-Schwedt" near the bottom.

This Dorothea of Brandenburg-Schwedt also had a son Wilhelm (1760-1830), the ancestor of the dukes of Urach, some of whose descent is Catholic and some not. Unsurprisingly Dorothea is separately an ancestress of Queen Elizabeth II, through her son Louis, but also of Boris Johnson, current mayor of London, through Louis' brother Frederick. King Boris of England, anyone?86.46.225.99 (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Is Boris Johnson in the line of succession? Is he descended from Frederick of Württemberg through a legitimate line? He is descended from an illegitimate daughter of Prince Paul of Württemberg but that is irrelevant. Surtsicna (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I will check out both. But it is so close to finished. Alan Davidson (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Old vandalism needs to be fixed

Please see Line of succession to the British throne#Descendants of Princess Henriette of Nassau-Weilburg. That section was either completely vandalized or it was a vandalism itself. Prince David Chavchavadse? Prince Michael Chavchavadse? Surtsicna (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are you querying these names? Details of the family (as Tchavtchavadze)appear in Nicolas Enache, "La descendance de Pierre le Grand, Tsar de Russie" (1983). AnthonyCamp (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC).

I was querying those names because they looked suspicious. I was wrong if those people really exist. Thanks for answering! Surtsicna (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Eligibility because (married to a) Catholic

Are we sure that it is simply being Roman Catholic that bars eligibility, or is it not being Anglican/Protestant? Would a Moslem or a Greek Orthodox be able to be titular head of the Church of England?Eugene-elgato (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

A Muslim, a Jew, a Greek Orthodox, a Russian Orthodox, a Buddhist... all legitimate descendants of Electress Sophia except for Roman Catholics and those married to Roman Catholics can succeed to the British throne. Surtsicna (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not correct. The Act of Settlement speaks of the heirs of the body of the Princess Sophia "being Protestants" and requires "That whosoever shall hereafter come to the Possession of this Crown shall join in Communion with the Church of England as by Law established". The Coronation Oath Act also requires the monarch at Coronation to take the oath to "maintain and preserve inviolately the settlement of the Church of England, and the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government thereof, as by Law established in England". It is, of course, one of the problems of this worthless list as to how to interpret "being Protestant" prior to accession. AnthonyCamp (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC).

My understanding is that they absolutely don't have to be protestant prior to succeeding, but they do have to take up protestantism and conform to the Church of England once they become heir of the body of the electress Sophia. Certainly only Papists are explicitly excluded from the succession. john k (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• What happens if you marry a Catholic, thus losing your place, and then you get divorced? Would Prince Michael of Kent regain his position if he divorced Princess Michael? Prsgoddess187 02:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It is "forever". The actual words of the Act of Settlement 1701 provide "That all and every Person and Persons that then were or afterwards should be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or should professe the Popish Religion or marry a Papist should be excluded and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit". Alan Davidson (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Mistake on the line of succession

There is a small mistake on the line of succession where Prince harry has been wrongly been named prince henry.

Greg Adams (4/6/2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.163.196.116 (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

His correct name is Henry Charles Albert David. He is known as Harry. Alan Davidson (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Leopold Windsor

Why would Leopold Windsor, both of whose parents are Catholic, not be mentioned as excluded from the line? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that some act is required (other than birth). This was discussed in [Archive 6]. There has been no notice that Leopold has been baptised. Alan Davidson (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 88.130.29.104, 25 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Hello,

pleas change some of the entries in the list of succession, because they are incomplete/wrong names:

1. Adelheid Brena (b 1955), daughter of Jörg Brena-------------> Cornelie Adelheid Diaz-Cespedes (birthname Brena)
2. Friedmann Landsberg (b 1977), son of Adelheid Brena --------> Friedemann Niels Landsberg
3. Fabian Berron (b 1982), son of Adelheid Brena---------------> Fabian Nikolas Brena
4. Leonard Berron (b 1986), son of Adelheid Brena ------------->Leonard Serge Raphael Brena
5. Kaija Landsberg (b 1978), daughter of Adelheid Brena--------> Kaija Valeska Landsberg

88.130.29.104 (talk) 10:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hope it was helpful

Fabian Nikolas Brena

Thanks for the suggestion.

I'm sorry, but requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources. If you can supply appropriate references, please reinstate the request.

Also, I suggest you get an account, then you can help us improve articles. Chzz  ►  14:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

New entries

Two questions. A daughter to Lady Davina was just added - and sourced with a newspaper article. However, two other entires were added, but I can find no source on Google: Merle Lithander (b 2010), daughter of Patrick Lithander and NN Lithander (b 2009), child of Wilhelm Lithander. Can someone provide a source? Second, how can a "W" appear next to the first child, if it is a 2002 publication? Alan Davidson (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, in my haste I forgot to provide sources. But I got the information from Nobiliana.de where it lists public business profiles for both Patrick and for Wilhelm's wife that mention both children. Morhange (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not doubting you, but I cannot find anything on the website. Is there a particular link I should use? Alan Davidson (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem :) This is the one for Merle [2] and for her cousin [3] Morhange (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I can see the first, but not the second. What am I missing? Alan Davidson (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Lady Amelia Windsor

How can she be in the Line of Succession?

In the first paragraph it states that anyone converting to Catholicism, Marrying a Catholic or holding Holy Communion, will be barred from the throne, with the Line then passing to the next Protestant "as should have inherited and enjoyed the same, in case the said person or persons, so reconciled, holding communion, professing or marrying, as aforesaid, were naturally dead."

Thus when her father was married, in the Strict Law of the Line of Succession, he effectively passed away that day. Lady Amelia was born AFTER the marriage(of course, otherwise she would be illegitimate). Or to put it another way, she does not officially exist as regards the Line of Succession, being the child of someone who "died" years before she was born. If legally her father was treated as though he "were naturally dead", long before her birth, she can have no claim then? 41.132.229.132 (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The children of Prince and Princess Michael of Kent are both in the line as well. Your question is very good but it seems that the Act is not interpreted the way you interpret it. Surtsicna (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There are two flaws I can see with this interpretation: first, the Act doesn't say he is to be treated as dead *at the moment he becomes ineligible*, it says that he is to be treated as dead *if the Throne would otherwise have passed to him*, i.e. at the moment the previous monarch dies (although it would be interesting to see what would happen if the Catholic first-in-line were to be passed over in favour of his brother (or other more distant relative) and were then to have Protestant children); and secondly, being the child of a dead parent (i.e. being born posthumously) doesn't prevent succession anyway - two obvious examples are Sir Ranulph Fiennes, Bt and Prince Charles Edward, Duke of Albany. Proteus (Talk) 12:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

All this, and beyond that, reliable sources show Lady Amelia in the line of succession, and showed her older siblings there as well prior to their conversions to Catholicism. The Act of Settlement says that the monarch is the heir of the body of the electress Sophia, unless that person is Catholic or married to a Catholic. So if all descendants of George VI and the duke of gloucester, along with the duke of Kent, died tomorrow, the heir of the body of the electress would be Lord St Andrews - but he is married to a Catholic, so we go to the next in line, Lord Downpatrick - but he is Catholic; then we'd go to the next in line, Lady Marina Charlotte, also Catholic, and so we'd end up on Lady Amelia. BTW - if the Duke of Kent became king, would Lord St Andrews automatically become Duke of Cornwall, in spite of his disqualification from the throne? john k (talk) 13:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The rule they appear to follow is that as soon as a child is confirmed Catholic, he or she is removed from the line of succession. Confirmation is when the child is considered to take on an adult role in the church and makes a mature decision to follow the faith. All three of these children appear to have been raised Catholic. I don't know that "conversion" is the right word. Like other Catholic children, they went to Mass, attended religious education and were confirmed in due course. Lady Amelia is close to the age that her sister and brother were confirmed. I imagine she'd be removed if she's actually confirmed Catholic like they were and will stay if she decides not to be. The same will apply to their younger cousins Albert and Leopold Windsor. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed how they seem to view things, but (a) it's rather untested, and (b) it would be rather open to abuse if applied literally - what is to stop an unscrupulous heir who wants to be both Catholic and monarch going to Catholic mass every Sunday, taking Catholic holy communion, etc., but refusing to be confirmed? Moreover, Catholics are generally confirmed at about 14; what would happen if an heir who had been confirmed Catholic were to say, a decade down the line, that at 14 he was effectively under the control of his parents, that he had only been confirmed because he had been under family pressure, and that it would be wrong to deprive him of the Throne on the basis of an act he hadn't done of his own free will? To be honest, this is just all symptomatic of a barmy law which attempts to control succession based on something as personal and idiosyncratic as religion... Proteus (Talk) 13:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The prohibition against being Catholic appears bigoted and unfair and probably should be done away with, but I'm American and was raised Catholic. The age of confirmation varies depending on the diocese. I was confirmed at age 13 and teenagers in this particular diocese are usually in their last year of high school. In the neighboring diocese confirmation is given at the age of 8 or 9, based on the bishop's beliefs about the sacraments. Most kids are probably confirmed because their parents want them to be, so it would be an argument if an heir to the throne became Catholic and later claimed he'd been coerced, but I doubt it will ever be a real issue. In this case it's purely academic since these people are so far away from the throne. I'd say 16 or so appears to be the age that is standard for confirmation in the Windsor family and Lady Amelia is about 15. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought the point of confirmation was when people are christened they don't exactly have much of a say in the matter, so you confirm your membership of the Church when you're old enough to exercise that choice. If people could later claim they weren't old enough to make the decision, why did they take it so early? Opera hat (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a difference in interpretation of the meaning of the sacrament. I don't know what the royal family's reasoning is, but they may take an Anglican/Protestant approach. They usually look at confirmation as the act that welcomes a child into the church as an adult member. That's also how a lot of Catholics look at it and the way I viewed my confirmation when I was 13 or 14. But it's more than an initiation ceremony. Catholics also view confirmation as a sacrament which strengthens and deepens and helps perfect baptismal grace. Those who confirm a child at the age of 8 to 10 might say that they will need the grace conferred by the sacrament as they approach adolescence. The Orthodox churches actually confirm a child at the same time they baptize him, usually in infancy. Catholics generally don't confirm a child until he's able to understand the sacrament. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England says that the Duke of Cornwall must be both the monarch's eldest son and the heir apparent to the Throne, so I would imagine not. Proteus (Talk) 13:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that just taking communion would be sufficient to be excluded. The actual words of the Act of Settlement 1701 provide "And it was thereby further enacted That all and every Person and Persons that then were or afterwards should be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or should professe the Popish Religion or marry a Papist should be excluded and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit". So there are five circumstances: (1) the person is "then" a Catholic (meaning in 1701); (2) "afterwards should be reconciled ... with the See of Church of Rome"; (3) "shall hold Communion with the See of Church of Rome"; (4) "should professe the Popish Religion"; (5) "marry a Papist". Alan Davidson (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Does this then mean that when any of George or Nicholas's children themselves marry and have children, that those children will then be in the Line of Succession, up until the point that they take Catholic confirmation? And then THEIR children will be in the Line of Succession up until the point that THEY take Catholic confirmation etc? 41.132.229.132 (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. But now I wonder how many non-confirmed Roman Catholics are excluded from the line in our article. Have Infanta Leonor of Spain and her younger sister been confirmed? I doubt that. If not, shouldn't they be in the line as descendants of Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg? There are many other examples. Surtsicna (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be how the current royal family interprets and applies the law, which is why the official site lists the line of succession as it does. Note that it doesn't go much past the descendants of first cousins of the Queen. I don't imagine they care or have thought much about the descendants of Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg since they will never take the throne. If they did, they might well list Leonor and Sofia since they have not been confirmed Catholic. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

But the argument about Leonor and Sofia goes in favour of the proposal to shorten the list in this article. Just imagine how many other unconfirmed Catholics should be in the list. Surtsicna (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it probably would be a good idea to shorten the list to conform with the official site or at least the top 100. The current list is probably riddled with inaccuracies. It's an entertaining parlor game but it doesn't really have any relevance. The people we're talking about ARE listed on the official site and are in the top 50. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if I were cutting the list down to size I'd probably stop with the descendants of the children of King George V. That still takes you into the somewhat dodgy legitimate and illegitimate descendants of the Earl of Harewood and who is eligible and who is not, etc., as well as the arguments about the various Catholic Windsors but it would be more manageable. Those are the only people who would ever be reasonably likely to come within sight of the throne, even assuming a disaster of horrific proportions. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Article is still a mess

This has been raised several times in the past including by my self. It is most unfortunate that we have such a huge list on this page which forces us to require a large number of warnings in the tag at the top of the article. It would be so much better and more useful to the reader along with looking a lot more professional if we had Line of Succession to the British throne Focusing on the first 10 or 20 in line, and with some details about each person presented like a nice article. We could then link to a separate article for this huge list that the vast majority of people who come to this page probably are not looking for. Many will not be interested in who that 500th person inline to the throne is.

So once again, i make an appeal for some commonsense on this matter but I will not get my hopes up. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Could we not have the first 20/40/however many displayed as you describe, and then a show/hide button if someone wants to see the full list? It wouldn't make the article any shorter, but it would look shorter to the casual visitor. Opera hat (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a sensible suggestion. Surtsicna (talk) 11:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is a good idea, if we could do something like that maybe the tags about problems with the article could then just be put above the show / hide section rather than at the top of the article. Its the long list that makes those tags needed rather than the top 20 / 40 or so which have plenty of reliable sources and are not disputed or original research. Such a change could really make this article look a lot better. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

So, the three of us agree that we should show the first 40 individuals (as listed by the official website) and hide (not remove) the rest? Surtsicna (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It has previously been suggested (and resolved) that the skipped parts be hidden, but it is a big job. After that resolution, noone voluteered to do it. I will attempt it now. That will address this in part. As for the length, that has been discussed several times. I disagree about hiding the substantive part, for the reasons given in the poll in the archive. The length is the result of British law. Also, the top 40 here is not the same as the top 40 on the official list. Alan Davidson (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I love the list as is. I think it's really fascinating to see who's in line, even if only remotely. It says a lot about the twisted web of the monarchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.98.174 (talk) 08:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Written by an Englishman?

The lack of real knowledge in this article is summed up in the phrase "Under British law, a child born to a married woman is assumed to be the child of her husband." There's no such thing as British law. Scotland and Northern Ireland have different legal systems entirely. Whoever wrote this is only an expert in self-promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.24.137 (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Check your Blackstone's. This is an centuries old common law rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.98.174 (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a genealogical site

Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, with no distinction made of a claim to notability or labeling it something else e.g. 'line of succession'. The top 10 or 100, maybe has encyclopedic value, the rest really boils down to someones personal interest, and should either be hosted on a genealogical site, or a personal web host. Remember, you can start your own wiki, or get behind the Wikipeople project.Cander0000 (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there are a whole series of problems with this article, which I have identified before. I would restrict it the first 30 or so places on the British monarchy website. PatGallacher (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, this site is a result of British law. It lists those in line according to law. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

In some ways it certainly is more of a parlor game than a real encyclopedia article, but I still think it has some encyclopedic value. In terms of problems of subjectivity and OR, my feelings has always been that this article should be constructed as follows: 1) use reliable sources to establish the rule of succession (male-preference primogeniture) and explain how it works; 2) use reliable genealogical sources to construct a basic list; 3) use more recent journalistic sources to keep this list updated as closely as possible with recent deaths and births; 4) include everybody born after their parents' marriage unless we have reliable sources to state that they are a) Catholic; b) married a Catholic); or c) are descended from marriages not considered legitimate because they were contracted in a manner contrary to the RMA. This would probably lead to some Catholics being included, but we could note at the top that we are only excluding known Catholics. I think this would avoid OR issues. There would be some original synthesis going on, but I don't think it would make any sense to say that the synthesis is being used to advance a novel argument. john k (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Good ideas, and I recommend the adoption of this plan as a guideline for the article, with the modification that "persons born to Catholic parents or to a family reliably reported to be Catholic are presumed to be Catholic unless evidence indicating otherwise or casting doubt on the person's affiliation is adduced" (because information about the religion of royally-descended individuals, even when known, is seldom explicitly stated -- most information published is about the family to which the person belongs). To what extent have these criteria not been applied heretofore? FactStraight (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the basic idea is that everything needs to be sourced to a reliable source. I'm not sure about your modification. If Albert Windsor is in the line of succession because he hasn't been confirmed/taken catholic communion yet, then isn't Infanta Leonor of Spain as well? On what basis do we decide this? john k (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason for not limiting this list to the first 30 is that that is not the topic of this article. The topic of this article is determined by statute; it's a very long list. That's the nature of the topic. It is correct that the topic is a difficult one. Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can still argue synthesis and original research though. Personally, I think this article is ridiculous, a true sideshow attraction. Seven Letters 04:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the statutory list maintained by any primary source. Its not necessarily incumbent upon this article to attempt to reproduce the entire list, any more than articles about any law include the full text verbatim. Many articles select some portion of the population being discussed to highlight (Top 30, Top 100?) and cite the authoritative list as backup. If there was some official geneaology site, it could be cited.Cander0000 (talk) 06:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It is meant to be the Line of Succession to the British Throne - determined by British law. Alan Davidson (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a remarkable article, and those of us who think it's unreal can ignore it. After all, how "real" is Pokémon Diamond and Pearl??86.42.217.180 (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Karoline Matilde Vlangali-Handjeri

Karoline Matilde Vlangali-Handjeri is listed as the oldest person on the list (age 110). The List of Living Supercentarians <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_living_supercentenarians> site won't list her until there is recent evidence (like a newspaper notation of her birthday). She continues to be listed on many external sites as living, both lists and family heir sites (that is there has been no note of her death). Is there any news in this regard? (The next oldest is: Nikita Sergievich Cheremetev (b 1908)) Alan Davidson talk) 03:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No notice of death is not the same thing as still alive. It's very possible that the only information about her is from books from the 1960s (like Addington's Royal House of Stuart, from 1969), and that she died years ago. john k (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You are stating the obvious. The question remains? Alan Davidson (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to think she most likely died in the 80s or 90s, unless some positive evidence of her survival can be presented. We should probably list her as a question mark. john k (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Precisely, in other words, the question remains unanswered. Alan Davidson (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Having read the above commments, can I suggest we limit this list to known individuals who can be verified through reliable individual sources as being alive within the last 5 years? I don't understand how we can have a list on Wikipedia completely unreferenced save for a few other lists likely out of date.

Example would be:

HRH The Prince of Wales^B (The Prince Charles; b 1948) son of Queen Elizabeth II <ref1></ref><ref2></ref> The Celestial City (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Bernhard

Since i'm not English, nor speaking it fluently, I will not edit the current subject, however, I'm here to point your attention to HRH Prince Bernhard, which died seeing in this topic Shoulden't he be excluded from the list? ps: I'm dutch, my account is only active on the dutch version of Wikipedia Taalverslaafde (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Seanmraymond, 20 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please remove: 1768. Marie Antoinette Hoyos (b.1920) She passed away in 2004. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Adalbert_of_Prussia_%281884%E2%80%931948%29

Seanmraymond (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.   — Jeff G.  ツ 15:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.preussen.de/de/heute/aktuell/archiv/prinzessin_marie_antoinette_von_preussen_gestorben.html

Here's a source. [4] Died at Marbella 1 March 2004. Opera hat (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Another point in case as to why this list should be limited to the top 20 or, at most, 50. We have lots of non-notable people on this list, but yet to modify their list according to births and deaths, reliable sources are required! Has Christina Schmalz had any children yet, and is Agathe Schmalz still alive? How to get reliable sourcing on that kind of info, in any kind of time frame that would keep this list up to date? -- DevSolar (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why it's so important that the list be exactly up to date. If someone has died and we find out about it, we remove them from the list. Including them when we don't have a reliable source that they have died is no more inaccurate than using old census figures for the population of a town. john k (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Llg89, 24 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Peter Gleason (b 1989) Llg89 (talk) 09:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I don't see any mention of such a person in a quick search--please provide a reliable source explaining their connection to the throne. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 134.225.193.183, 30 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Number 792 in line is listed as "Baroness Johanna von Er<ffa (b 1999) daughter of Baron Rudolf von Erffa" - presumably that Less-than sign is a typo and should be removed... -- 134.225.193.183 (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

134.225.193.183 (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Done LarryJeff (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

DNA Test

There should be some sort of DNA test done to prove that all these people are truly what they claim to be. As an example...Princes Philip, Charles, William, Henry, Andrew, Edward and James should all have the same Y chromosome. However I would bet every penny I have that they do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mildred Herring (talk • contribs) 11:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Charles, Andrew and Edward look just like one another and their father. William resembles young Charles and Harry, while he got most of his looks from his mother's side of the family, resembles Prince Philip as a child. James is obviously too young, but he resembles his sister as a child, who looks like their father. If you bet every penny that all seven of them aren't related, you'd be a very poor woman ;) Morhange (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the bulk of her money is in some other unit. I myself have only 3 pennies. —Tamfang (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Another Suggestion

Hello guys! I'd just like to make another suggestion to shorten the list.

I know that this project is somewhat genealogical -- however, (if I am reading the purpose of the Wikipage correctly) this is a line of qualified succession to a royal throne, and therefore, all people in the list should meet the requirements before they are put up on this page (as stated on the corresponding Wikipedia article):

• A person is always immediately followed in the succession by his or her own legitimate descendants (his or her line) except for any legitimate descendants who already appear higher in the line of succession. Birth order and gender matter: older sons (and their lines) come before younger sons (and theirs); a person's sons (and their lines) irrespective of age, all come before his or her daughters (and their lines). (Elder daughters and their lines also take precedence over younger daughters and theirs.)
• The monarch must be a Protestant at the time of accession, and enter into communion with the Church of England after accession.
• Anyone who is Roman Catholic, becomes Roman Catholic, or marries a Roman Catholic is permanently excluded from the succession.
• A person born to parents who are not married to each other at the time of birth (a bastard) is not included in the line of succession. The subsequent marriage of the parents does not alter this.

However, it is obvious that some in the list do not qualify for succession to the English throne, no matter how distant the relations are. For example, King Juan Carlos of Spain is said to be in the line of genealogical succession because of his relations to Queen Victoria of England. Having said that, he is Catholic, and thus, he is disqualified from taking the throne and should be kicked out of the line of succession (and probably with most -- if not all -- of the Spanish Royal Family).

Just want to make that clear. Thanks! 71.171.79.176 (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you notice that the Catholics are not numbered? —Tamfang (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.109.25.248, 20 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}
Page: "Line of succession to the British throne"

In list. No.3 should not be Prince Henry of Wales, but Prince Harry of Wales.

81.109.25.248 (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Harry's birth name is Henry. Harry is a nickname and he is listed here by his legal name. Morhange (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Albert and Leopold Windsor

There has been discussion about whether baptism is sufficient to exclude a person from remaining in line. Recently the Royal Official list was changed; in part to include both Leopold and Albert Windsor. First - is this because baptism is insufficent to exclude them or is it simply because they have in fact not been baptised formally. Secondly, the order on the Official site differs to this list. Being children of a male (Lord Nicholas Windsor, born 1970 son of Duke of Kent), it would seem that they should come before the daughter of the Duke of Kent and her children (The Lady Helen Taylor (born 1964)and her 4 children). But, the Offical site lists Albert and Leopold after Lady Taylor and her four children. It should be noted that Lord Nicolas is excluded having converted to catholicism. Perhaps the Official site's view is that a daughter (and her heirs) are in line before the excluded male's heirs. In any event, I recommend this list be changed to reflect the Official List; unless someone can suggest a compelling reason why the Official Site is wrong. Alan Davidson (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The list must reflect the official list. Pretty arrogant to assume that Wikipedians know better than the Royal Family on this matter. My best educated guess is that these children will both be in the line of succession unless and until they are confirmed as Catholics when they are teenagers. Confirmation is the entry into full church membership and adult status in the Church. Mere baptism is likely not counted as enough to remove them from the line of succession since it isn't a decision they made. Note their older cousins, who were in the line of succession until they were confirmed. The third child is too young to be confirmed and will probably be removed as well in a year or two if she is. All three of the older cousins seem to have been raised Catholic by their Catholic mother. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The list should normally reflect the official list but doesn't have to. I doubt the Queen herself edits the list at the official website so it is not arrogant to assume that Wikipedians who cite sources know better than editors of the official website. After all, the "all-knowing" official website claims that the United Kingdom came to exist in 1603![5] Assuming that they should be included (and I am not saying they shouldn't be), how can we explain why they are listed below their aunts and first cousins? That's simply illogical; children of a son have always ranked above children of a daughter. If a person's conversion/marriage does not remove his/her children from the list, does it not leave them where they would've been had the conversion/marriage not taken place? If it doesn't, where does it put them? Does it always put them behind their grandparent's other children and grandchildren? Surtsicna (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Answer to my own question: It doesn't always put them behind their grandparent's other children and grandchildren. Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella Windsor both rank above their aunt and her children. That makes Albert and Leopold's places in the line even more dubious. Surtsicna (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing that someone official is not monitoring the official web site and the information on it. If there's a mistake it will eventually be changed. Unless and until they decide to change the information there, I will oppose any effort to deviate from the information on the official site. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The mistake called inventing a country has been there for months. Anyway, I have sent an e-mail to the editors of the website. I hope we'll get an answer soon. While I don't dispute Albert and Leopold's succession rights, I find their places in the line quite dubious. Why would they come after their aunt and cousins? Surtsicna (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This is just another example of how a source, even an official one, can be dead wrong and inaccurate. While there may be debate about what constitutes papistry, there is no debate that the children of a son come before the children of a daughter. The official site is just plain wrong. It's silly to suggest that, "The list must reflect the official list". Wikipedia is not compelled to repeat errors merely because an official site has them. In this case, other sources trump the official site. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I continue to support using the information on the official site unless or until they change it. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with Noel S McFerran. An official site can be wrong and in this instance, it most certainly is. Bookworm857158367, do you think that Wikipedia should say that the United Kingdom came to exist in 1603 simply because the official website of the British monarchy said so? The website could be wrong even if the Queen herself edited it. Claiming that the UK came to exist in 1603 would be wrong even if the UK's queen said so. Surtsicna (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Noel and Surtsicna. This is just absolutely, 100% wrong. The royal family's site gets all kind of things wrong, and certainly should not be followed in lockstep when we know it's wrong. john k (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

King James became King of both England and Scotland in 1603, which is likely what they meant even if the United Kingdom didn't officially come to be until about 100 years later. I'd suggest that you e-mail the webmaster of the site and request clarification. I still will not support deviating from the official site. Perhaps you can include a footnote indicating that there is a discrepancy between info on the site and what is known about the rules governing the placement in the line of succession, but the actual list should reflect what is on the Monarchy's official site. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? The monarchy's official site is wrong. In practice, a younger brother has succeeded ahead of an older sister on several occasions, most recently in 1901. The monarchy's own list shows Andrew and Edward ahead of Anne, and Helen Taylor's sons ahead of her daughters. It's wrong, and we shouldn't follow it. john k (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it's the official list and that should count for something. If it's wrong, they'll change it. Until then, leave it in place and put a footnote indicating that the order is believed to be incorrect, based on some authoritative text listing the traditional order of precedence. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It isn't the official list. Information put online by the Buckingham Palace webmaster has no statutory force, nor does said webmaster have any particular hidden knowledge that the rest of us are lacking. john k (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the Buckingham Palace webmaster is in the employ of the royal family or their representatives and is more official than a bunch of amateur royal buffs on Wikipedia. Yes, the order of precedence appears to be wrong but until it's changed on that official site I don't think it should be changed here. Instead, note the discrepancy in a footnote. In any event, I don't think the inclusion of Nicholas Windsor's kids is incorrect because neither have made the choice to be confirmed Catholics and probably don't count as "adult Catholics" for the royal family. Their cousins set a precedent in what they have to do to be removed from the list -- confirmed Catholic, not just baptized or raised Catholic. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with including Nicholas Windsor's kids on the basis of the royal website, but they should clearly be ahead of Lady Helen Taylor. I'm sure there are plenty of reliable sources from before 2001 that included Lord Nicholas Windsor ahead of his sister; that his children would now somehow be after her and her children is clearly a mistake, and we should not replicate it. john k (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If Albert and Leopold Windsor are included in the Order of Succession, why is Alexandra Long (daughter of Ragnhild Long) excluded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.69.162 (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sitrep: I don't know whether anyone else emailed the royal.gov.uk people, but I did, to point out their error. I don't know when they did it, but, as of earlier today, that error has been rectified DBD 17:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No, hang on. Our list is wrong too! DBD 17:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

WAYYYY too freakin big.

Absolutely no need for the length make is smaller —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.185.255 (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is big because the subject is big. Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It IS, however, far too long and problematic. I still say it should be cut down to the descendants of King George V, the only people who are remotely likely to come in sight of the throne. When you include every single descendant of Victoria and even further back you have arguments over Catholic or non-Catholic, legitimate or illegitimate, probably miss births because these families are private citizens who may or may not announce births or christenings. You have some of that even with the top 100 but it is far more relevant and manageable and can be cited reliably. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the article needs to deal with the subject of those in line after the descendants of George V. I don't think it necessarily needs to try to list everybody in the line of succession, but we could give prose about the various lines. So we could list the individual descendants of George V, then have paragraphs dealing with 1) the other descendants of Edward VII (Fife line and royal house of Norway); 2) descendants of Alfred of Saxe-Coburg (Romania, Yugoslavia, Tuscany*, Russia, Prussia, Leiningen, Hohenzollern, Hohenlohe-Langenburg, Schleswig-Holstein, Galliera); 3) Descendants of the Duke of Connaught (Sweden, Denmark, Ramsay); 4) Descendants of the Duke of Albany (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Abel Smith); 4) Descendants of the Empress Frederick (Prussia, Hanover, Greece, Hesse); 5) Descendants of Princess Alice (Mountbatten, the Duke of Edinburgh)...and so forth. While the precise line of succession is difficult to source, the general lines are much easier to find reliable sources for. john k (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It is meant to be Line of Succession to the British Throne - not Line of Succession to the British hrone from George V. Alan Davidson (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It also should not go on ad infinitum. It's hard to cite, likely riddled with error and has very little relevance after the descendants of George V. None of the rest of those people are even remotely likely to come near the throne, even if some unthinkable disaster happened. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The more distant lines have, however, been discussed in reliable secondary works - for example, Addington's The Royal House of Stuart or Eilers's Queen Victoria's Descendants. john k (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

not just smaller necessarily, if there were only 50 people in the line of succession, data dumping a structured set of data into an article primarily intended to be in prose form is still where the mistake is being made. There is some attempt being to quasi-lay this out like a family tree, with indenting and section headers being used in place of nesting and attributes that an appropriate tool like this might have.Cander0000 (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

By definition it cannot go on ad infinitum. It is largely complete. Alan Davidson (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone sterilised them all? Rich Farmbrough, 21:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

Seriously though, I did some experiments, replacing

Emperor Fred

Prince Fred son of Emperor Fred

Princess Frederika daughter of Emperor Fred

with

Emperor Fred

• Prince Fred son
• Princess Frederika daughter

The result was a saving of more than 20%. Rich Farmbrough, 22:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

If I may... I see both sides of the argument here: The line of succession is certainly notable, just like something as The U.S. Constitution is notable. On the other hand, we don't quote the constitution in its entirety, either, but summarize on its core points, history etc., because Wikipedia is not a library (and not a genealogical website either). My suggestion would be: 1) That the list be reduced to those people in whom being on the list, and the actual ranking on the list, is in itself notable, because they can be considered claimant to the throne by some stretch of the imagination - which would pretty much limit the list to the offspring of Queen Elizabeth II. 2) Replace the rest of the list with paragraphs of prose on all the other houses. Perhaps somewhat longer for offspring of George V., shorter the further down the list it gets. If those in favor of keeping as much information on the list as possible cannot be bothered to write those paragraphs, they should ask themselves why those houses should be notable at all to anyone else. For those interested in finding out whether a certain person is in position 1300-something, provide references to genealogical books or websites. I understand the fascination with genealogy, and royality. But Lukas Schulte, (1786th in the line), is not a notable person. Neither is Angela Piltz (1156th), Kelly Knatchbull (478th), Louisa Soltmann (181st) or even Angelica Knight (96th). -- DevSolar (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why none of those people has their own article. A subject's notability only bears on whether there should be an article about them. That some of the people in the line of succession are not notable does not mean they cannot be listed in an article about the line of succession itself, which obviously is notable. john k (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a valid point. The first 50 or 100 people is notable and easily verifiable; a list hundreds of people long is really not. This list should be shortened. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

But it is a list of people in line - according to British law; not a list of notable people - being in line does not mean they deserve their own page. . Alan Davidson (talk) 07:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

But I'd bet Wikipedia is the only place in the world where the entire exhaustive list exists. The Palace and the UK government would have absolutely no interest in knowing who the 1,439th person in line is, simply because there is zero practical chance they will ever inherit. In that sense, the bulk of our list is extremely trivial. Not to mention colossally OR. The lower details are interesting, no doubt, for close followers of such things, but of no interest to anyone else. The list as a whole is certainly notable and deserves to stay, but individual entries become less and less notable the further down the list they come, and after a certain point they cease to have any notability whatsoever. The only question is: where do we draw the line? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, as I've said before, I'd draw the line at the descendants of George V, with short paragraphs about lines of descent from earlier monarchs. I don't think we need every single one of Queen Victoria's numerous legitimate and illegitimate, Catholic and non-Catholic great-great-great grandchildren included on this list. George V takes us back 100 years and they're the only people who are remotely likely to inherit. The others are private citizens for the most part who don't bother to announce births or deaths and it's difficult to get accurate information about them. Lots of potential for original research there. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The likelihood of accession has little to do with it. I mean, what are the odds, really, that anyone farther down on the list than No. 4 or 5 would ever accede to the throne? One in 10,000? Nor does this article go against the Wikipedia policy regarding genealogy. An article on my great-aunt Adelaide would be out of place. An article on the ruling family of a major western nation is quite another thing. OTOH, I do think the page itself is unwieldy in its length. Perhaps it could be split into separate sup-pages for each new level of cousin-ship, as it's presently divided on the page itself. --Michael K Smith^Talk 16:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Royal trivia fans, what's the highest number N such that some throne has been inherited by someone who was once Nth in line? —Tamfang (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Please talk to your MP about changing the law. As long as the law does not "draw the line at the descendants of George V", it would be inaccurate for this article to do so. One might just as well have a "List of the states of the USA", but not include the smaller ones because they don't matter as much. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll point out that the monarchy's official web site limits it to the top 20 or 30. I see no good reason not to shorten this list. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

100 years? In 1589 the French succession 'went back' 319 years. But that's male-only; I wonder what the corresponding record is for cognatic succession. — I suspect that the creation of this list appeals to some people because it's big (unlike Line of succession to the Swedish throne) and well-defined (unlike Line of succession to the Saudi Arabian throne). —Tamfang (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The standard is not the interest level of the Palace or UK government. There are many pages of little interest or relevance to others (like fictional TV and cartoon characters). As Noel states, it is the law of the country. Alan Davidson (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a law that provides for a line of succession. It enables it to be quickly ascertained who is heir to the throne, and who would be next if the heir were to die or become ineligible. And who would be next after that person, and so on. But there's no law that says the list must only ever be presented in its entirety, down to the last possible person who could have even an infinitesimally small chance of succeeding. Which is why nobody's ever concocted such a list. Or if they have, it's been as a pet hobby and not something that publishers would have any interest in publishing, (a) because it's going to be inaccurate or out of date on the very day it's published, and (b) nobody would care to know the details anyway. After the top 50 or so entries, everything on our list is quintessentially OR because there are no external citations that could support them. I guess someone somewhere has put together a list of all known performances of Beethoven's 9th Symphony, anywhere, ever - but would it profit anyone to have such a list published? Hardly. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will try to make it clearer: The US Constitution is notable, but we do not list it verbatim because it ain't the job of Wikipedia. The Bible and the Qur'an are notable, but we don't quote them in their entirety because it ain't the job of Wikipedia. The line of succession is notable, but I strongly feel we should not list it in its "entirety" either, for the same reason. If you disagree, please point out what makes the line of succession fundamentally different from the US Constitution, the Bible, the Qur'an, or the collective works of Ernest Hemmingway. Please also point out how you intend to ensure (or intend other people to ensure) this list to be correct at all times, in its entirety, with no dead persons listed or newborns unlisted. -- DevSolar (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I am somewhat sympathetic to the argument that there's no need to give the entire list, and that there are OR concerns with, in particular, the designation of some people as Catholic. That being said, I don't understand the obsession with the idea that the list must be correct at all times. Obviously, that's impossible. But, so what? We update the list as we can on the basis of what reliable sources say. That is no different from any other list on wikipedia, and I don't see what harm is caused by such a practice. If a dead person is on the list, or a newborn is not, that is unfortunate, but doesn't really change the basic contour of the list as a whole, and we are forced to rely on slightly out of date information for wikipedia articles all the time. Beyond that, should we shorten the list? I don't know. I don't really see what harm the list does in its current form, and it would be a shame to simply delete all the work that has been done on it. But there are some serious OR issues that ought to be dealt with, and I don't think there'd be any harm in restricting the lis to, say, descendants of Edward VII. john k (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, most of these concerns would be eliminated if we adopted the proposal I made earlier, where we remove most of the list but replace it with prose paragraphs describing the various different lines. john k (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Similar to my suggestion (list people with de-facto claims to the British throne, prose on all the other houses). The issue I have with the up-to-date-ness of the list is that you can't even state "current as of <date>". We go to great lengths that Wikipedia contains facts, we even require those facts to come with citations, and I cannot figure why, for this article here, all this should be tossed for a "we assembled this from bits and pieces, and it's close enough" approach. -- DevSolar (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It'd be easy enough to do a "current as of 2001" based on Willis's Descendants of King George I of Great Britain, which was published in 2002. john k (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Which is not what is being done here, and which would be increasingly difficult to justify as time progresses, and which would - again - be copy-pasting information that has been gathered elsewhere (not even mentioning possible copyright issues). It is the encyclopaedic value of a "current as of nine years ago" list that I challenge. Everything that a visitor would want to know about the succession list could be gathered from a 25-to-50 person list plus a reference to said book, or similar sources. -- DevSolar (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what is wrong with a list that is based on the ten years ago list but with updates we are able to make using reliable sources. But I'm not sure we disagree about the best solution - cut down the list to just descendants of George V or Edward VII, use prose to describe the more junior lines. john k (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read the archives. This issue has been thoroughly dealt with. If necessary we could cut and paste all those arguments here again. The size is the result of British law, not notability. Alan Davidson (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I do see that fraud of a "straw poll" the hobby genealogists did here last year. (Hint: If you're serious about getting an opinion, make it a "yes" / "no" vote. Splitting the "no" into dozens of different flavours is a trick as old as democracy itself.) I do see that the people who argue for a complete list stay the same half-a-dozen, while the criticism is brought forth by many different individuals that merely aren't as stubborn and persistent as you are. I do see you are the one bringing up that particular argument again and again like a prayer wheel: "It's the British Law".

What I do not see is a statement in British Law that the line of succession must be listed on Wikipedia in its entirety. We have a consensus that the line of succession is certainly notable, and should be written about. I don't think anyone will argue that having the first 20 - 50 people of that line listed is a nice thing to have.

It would be nice to hear your argument on 1) the difficulty of keeping this list current, regarding the difficulty of getting information on some of the very non-notable people in this list; 2) the criticism of Original Research since this is pieced-together information from a multitude of (mostly uncited) sources; 3) the apropriateness of doing this within the scope of Wikipedia, instead of a private website which I am sure would be a welcome addition to the Weblinks on this page. But Wikipedia is not the place for your royal genealogy hobby.

People voiced constructive criticism. Do you have a reply other than "it's the British Law" (which has been your only argument on this subject as far back as I could be bothered to check)? -- DevSolar (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The arguments are many and have been voice and thoroughly discussed - by many others. I suppose my point about British Law is that Wikipedia has an enormous number of list sites, many literally can have no end - top movies, top games, top footballers, oldest people ever; but the list here is established by legislation. Also, go further back in the archives, there is much more. Many of us can remember. (Please make an argument, and do not direct this at any individual - please). Alan Davidson (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No, that's the point you're missing. The succession rules are established by legislation. But the list of all the people in line to the succession at any given moment is not. Where in British law will you find all these people mentioned? You won't, because they're not mentioned, because there is no list set out in the law. Yes, the list can be derived from the law, but the list itself is not the law. It's just a handy aide-memoire, if you like. It has its benefit only in respect of the people at or near the top. After that, it's rubbish (no offence to royalty buffs intended). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

One could even mount an argument that the ENTIRE LIST is OR, except any parts of it that have been published elsewhere. That means we're confined to the 50-odd or however many names that appear on the royal website. After that, the best we can say is that Name X appears to be next in line, based on our own, personal calculations of what we understand the law to say, and our own, personal understanding of the religious status of that person, etc. By definition, it has to be based on our own personal interpretations, because no reputable source (and probably no source at all) has ever published the list past a certain point themselves; they haven't even calculated it privately, for all we know; and why not? because it becomes a completely pointless exercise quite quickly. For Wikipedia to take it upon themselves to continue the list to its bitter and obsessively compulsive end is virtually the definition of Original Research, which is BANNED on this website. You will not find anyone, anywhere, to support the later names; that's because it's all an internal Wikipedia construct, not any sort of official line of succession, which it almost purports to be. See, others can be hard-line too. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, JackofOz. It appears the list beyond the 50 or so names at the top is original research, and should be removed. We have to base articles on published reliable sources. I remember thinking this years ago, and I'm a little surprised this list is still here. Mlm42 (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I see - repeatedly bullet-pointing arguments in boldface isn't enough. I don't feel like wasting more of my time on this. -- DevSolar (talk) 08:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Succession boxes

There is a problem with the succession boxes in individual bios, particularly surrounding those with positions in the 30s. Columbus Taylor and Lord Frederick Windsor, for example. Could an interested editor review them to make sure they're correct?   Will Beback  talk  20:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The succession boxes should just be removed, imo. john k (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem. They are now fixed. As to whether they should be there or not, I care little. DBD 23:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably 999,999th in line for the throne. The farther out we take this the more speculative we become. Is there a good reason for calculating the succession beyond the 30th successor? It's rather improbable that the 31st person, much less the 1700th, might assume the throne. Do we even know if these 1793 people are all still alive?   Will Beback  talk  13:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The number of people on the list does have a cut-off point - unless you're descended from the Electress Sophia of Hanover, you aren't in line. As she lived three hundred years ago she has rather a lot of descendants, yes, but all these people are in the line of succession, and the article would be incomplete without them. Opera hat (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that everyone should be included in this list. However I started a discussion of the succession boxes, which appear at the bottom of biographies, here because this seemed like the best venue. I'm not proposing any changes to this article.   Will Beback  talk  06:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

After the 20th or so person, the succession boxes can become extremely inaccurate the further away one is in the line of succession. They should be removed. Seven Letters 20:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Go on then. Be bold! — DBD 23:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I see that DBD is removing boxes past the 25th place. I think this is a good move. For one thing, every time someone in the succesion dies or is born every box in a lower position would have to be adjusted, which makes it hard to keep them accurate. It's sufficient to have the full list here.   Will Beback  talk  23:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

They are in line of succession to the British Throne, and I do not see any reason to remove the succession boxes. They are no problem and I'm therefore against the removal, especially if this removal is done unilateral. They can be only removed if there is a broad consensus. The only technical difficulty would be to keep the correct succession position in the box. So we could keep the succession box, but remove the succession position in those boxes regarding the persons who are at a low position in the line of succession (let’s say, those descendants in the line of Sophia of Hanover, descendants of Princess Maud; position 61 and lower. This is still manageable). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.40.7 (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

My edits did two things: removed the succession boxen and removed reference to place in line. Where the latter occurred in text, I generally left a sentence such as "he is in line..." in the text. So it is noted that these people are distantly in line, but we don't have to maintain the numbers — that is my rationale for removing the place numbers.

My rationale for removing the s-boxen is that they are simply unnecessary. Even without numbers, they will still require upkeep with births and deaths either side of several articles (i.e. #324 has a son, so #324 and now-#326's articles need changing for instance) DBD 15:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I would actually prefer that the s-boxes are put back. Probably 99% of the articles they are used in also have another succession box, and chances are, those will have to be changed as well when new births happen, but this is a lot less work than just . For example, Princess Isabella of Denmark is in the line of succession to the Danish as well as British thrones. When her new twin siblings are born, her article will need to be changed to reflect her new siblings, and the succession boxes for both her article and the article for Prince Joachim of Denmark will be altered to reflect the new members in the line of succession (or possibly Prince Christian's as well, if Mary has child one of each gender) But it's not like royal families have babies every other month, so this is something that can be easily maintained. They are in the line of succession to the British throne just as much as the Danish, so I think the boxes should be restored. Morhange (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

To the anon: The deletions weren't unilateral; they were the result of a discussion here in which no one gave an opposing view. I don't think there's any objection to saying that people are in the line of succession. The problem is with assigning a specific number using a big box in dozens or hundreds of biographies. While the position in the succession is relatively stable and well known for the first couple of dozen people, it becomes less stable and more speculative the farther down the line one goes. Short of a fact-acting plague or the bombing of a royal event, it's highly unlikely that anyone who is far down the line would succeed to the throne, so the numbers do nothing more than indicate a vague degree of relation to the current monarch. The official royal website lists 38 people in the succession.[6] We could use that instead of cutting it off at 25. But we shouldn't go past 38.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to the original reason for the thread, Columbus Taylor was incorrectly listed as 33rd while the official site lists him as 30th and Lord Frederick Windsor was listed as 37th while he is officially 36th. Those are just two, given as examples. It's hard enough to keep this list up-to-date, do we want to multiply the work and the possibility for errors?   Will Beback  talk  22:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that the "official" list (by which people mean this page [7]) is wrong. The sons of Nicholas Windsor (assuming that they are not excluded as papists) by law come before Helen Taylor and her children - but the people at the royal.gov.uk website have not corrected this in spite of numerous requests. Any book or website can include inaccuracies. This particular webpage has been inaccurate for several months. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would we assume that Nicholas Taylor and his issue wouldn't be excluded due to their Catholicism? I haven't heard of any groundswell of support for repealing the Act of Settlement 1701. In any case, the element of conjecture is another reason to avoid being overly precise about the succession in individual bios.   Will Beback  talk  10:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The dispute is not about whether Nicholas Windsor and his children are to be excluded. The problem is that his sons (Albert and Leopold) are included in the list on royal.gov.uk, as they (presumably) have yet to be confirmed in the Catholic church. However, they are on that list in the 34th and 35th positions, following their cousin Estella Taylor. The contention addressed above is that is the wrong spot for them--instead, they should be 29th and 30th, preceding Nicholas's sister Helen Taylor.LarryJeff (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)