Talk:Succession to the British throne/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Confusion about offspring of children born out of wedlock

Are offspring, born to parent(s) born out of wedlock, not included in the line of succession even though their parents may have been married? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danishjaveed (talk • contribs) 16:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably not. So, Benjamin Lascelles is the eldest son of David Lascelles, 8th Earl of Harewood, but he is not thought to be in line to succeed to the earldom because he was born out of wedlock. His younger full-brother, who was born after their parents' marriage, is thought to be the heir. It is assumed that the monarchy follows the same pattern: that later legitimacy does not affect the succession. However, as far as I know, this has never been tested in a court of law or written down formally as a rule. DrKay (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. As far as I know Anne Boleyn was pregnant with the later Queen Elizabeth I out of wedlock, but Elizabeth was born after the eventual marriage. Mary I, her predecessor, was deemed to be a bastard at the time she was reinstated as heir to the throne by her father Henry VIII, who considered his marriage to Catherine of Aragon to be annulled. It took an Act of Parliament to reinstate her. During the reign of Mary I, Elizabeth was deemed to be a bastard, as Mary I didn't consider her mother's marriage to Henry VIII to have been null and void. Consequently the marriage of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn was declared null and void and then Elizabeth became the out-of-wedlock kid. The same Act of Parliament that reinstated Mary, however also kept Elizabeth in the line of succession and that was not changed. Henry VII, who took the crown by conquest rather than by inheritance, originally claimed it as the Lancastrian candidate, by virtue of his descent from John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford. His relevant ancestor (John Beaufort, Marquess of Somerset), was born out of wedlock, but legitimized after the marriage of John of Gaunt and Katherine. A separate provision was however made that he and his brother were excluded from the succession. Henry Tudor got to be king anyway. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no confusion. In the United Kingdom legitimation by subsequent marriage of parents was first introduced by the Legitimacy Act of 1926, now amended by the 1959 Act, but both specifically state that 'It is hereby declared that nothing in this Act affects the Succession to the Throne'. AnthonyCamp (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC).

They're both repealed by later legislation, and the 1976 act is only valid in England and Wales. Fifteen realms, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own legitimacy laws. DrKay (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Atheists?

Do atheists need to be removed from the order of succession? 213.122.201.244 (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Not as long as they're protestant atheists. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Protestant/Catholic Succession Problems

A series of succession problems that involve the religion-based restrictions on succession and infants inheriting the throne:

Suppose we have a childless King George whose heir presumptive is his younger sister Charlotte. George marries and has a son Philip, then George tragically dies the next day. Baby Philip has not yet been baptized. The Act of Settlement says only "Protestant" heirs of Sophia may succeed. Does that mean Philip is not a Protestant and thus not eligible to succeed, so Charlotte becomes queen? When Philip is baptized as a Protestant a month later, does he displace Charlotte from the throne?

Suppose King William and Queen Catherine are happily reigning, and their childless son George becomes a Catholic. This makes their daughter Charlotte heiress presumptive. In due time King William dies and Charlotte becomes queen. The rules say a Catholic cannot become king, but don't prevent him from transmitting a claim on the throne to his children. George marries a Protestant woman and has a son Philip who is baptized as a Protestant. Does Philip displace Charlotte from the throne? Does he do so immediately upon birth, or upon baptism? (This basic scenario was also discussed in a previous section)

I have some even more convoluted scenarios we can discuss after I've gotten a few opinions on these. Akwdb (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Is that so? I always understood that (under the old rules) a person who marries a Catholic, but remains Protestant himself, was personally banned from succeeding, but that they (and only they) could pass their place in the the succession to their Protestant children. As becoming a Catholic yourself makes you legally dead where the succession is concerned. And dead people are not supposed to be able to have relevant offspring. Very interesting.... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Having said that, I'm pretty sure such an occurrence cannot displace the reigning Queen (ic Charlotte) from the throne. It could make the theoretical Philip to be in line of succession, after her and of course her children and other offspring. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

From the article about the succession to the Crown Act 2013: "However, the sections that ban Catholic succession were not repealed. Catholics are still officially termed as being "naturally dead and deemed to be dead" in terms of succession. This discrimination was first legislated in the Bill of Rights 1689. Jacob Rees-Mogg (Con) also confirmed “the Act of Settlement deems somebody who has been a Catholic for a minute to be 'dead' in terms of the succession, and it passes over them 'as if they were dead'. It is an absolute. If at any moment in their whole life they were in communion with Rome, they are excluded from the throne, deemed to be dead”. Mark Durkan (SDLP) compared this with McCarthyism, “In effect, it is the McCarthyite question: 'Are you now or have you ever been a Catholic?' For anybody who has ever been a Catholic in any shape or form, that is it, they are out; they count as dead for these purposes”."

I'm pretty sure now, that our hypothetical Philip is chanceless when concerning this. If his father was dead where the succession is concerned at the time of his birth, his offspring begotten after he became a "dead" person, cannot be of any relevance to it. Once you're dead, where the succession is concerned, the children you get after the fact can obviously not be considered. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

And to take a go at your first question. I think that unbaptized children of Protestant parents can be considered to be in communion with the CoE. Specially as they are already considered to be in line to the throne during the relevant pregnancy... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Another problem. Lord Nicholas Windsor, a son of the Duke of Kent, became a Catholic in 2001. According to the article about him, his children were all baptized as Catholics, and yet this section of the article still depicts them as eligible successors. I think we have a problem with that particular section of the article. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Under current law, in the first scenario Philip succeeds with Charlotte as regent and in the second, Charlotte is displaced from the throne by Philip. In practice, as in 1837, when it was possible for Victoria to be displaced from the throne had Queen Adelaide been pregnant on William's IV death, or in 1936, when Edward VIII renounced the throne, provisions are made to prevent confusion. So, in 1837 Victoria was proclaimed queen "saving the rights of any issue of the late King" and in 1936, the abdication act removed the rights of both Edward and all his descendants, should he have any.

With regard to Nicholas's children, the law appears to be interpreted currently as broadly as possible and so if a person has not explicitly declared themselves a Catholic (through confirmation), then they remain in line. This interpretation was challenged by Jacob Rees-Mogg in Parliament during the debate on the Perth Agreement because he pointed out that the Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement were drawn up specifically to exclude a minor who had been baptized Catholic but was not yet confirmed from the throne. So, this situation is not clear and is unlikely to become clear unless it becomes directly relevant and someone mounts a court challenge or proposes legislation to address it.

I do not feel that any change in the article is necessary at this point since these are esoteric points at best and it will be difficult to impossible to find appropriate sources. DrKay (talk) 05:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe Charlotte can be displaced in the second scenario. This is not the same as a posthumous birth, that always implies a pregnancy at the moment of succession. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Lady Helen Taylor was displaced further down in the line of succession by each of her elder brothers' children even though each of her elder brothers were themselves "dead" for the succession (one for being a Catholic and the other for having married one). The law treats the father as naturally dead and all his children are treated as posthumous births. DrKay (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that protestants having married Catholics were as "dead" as Catholics themselves, as they are reinstated now, and indeed their children were eligible when Protestant. Aren't the children of the Earl of St.Andrews Catholic themselves? The whole thing seems counter-intuitive to me and I'm also doubtful that the legislation is all that clear and uncontented....

That having been said however, let's assume this is right, then under the new rules a means to prevent such a mess has been legislated away! Under the old rules, the hypothetical Catholic Prince George, as a descendant of the Sovereign, would have had to ask permission for his marriage under the 1772 Marriages Act, which prudently could have been refused. Under the new legislation (as he would not be one of the first six in line to the throne anymore upon becoming Catholic), there is no need for that anymore! With obvious consequences. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: has an interesting theory about Catholics being "dead" in the line of succession and therefore not being able to produce further children eligible for the throne after becoming Catholic. The page has not historically reflected that, but it would solve the problem of baby Philip born after Charlotte becomes queen. @DrKay: I am not advocating changes to the article, just bringing up, as you said, esoteric scenarios for discussion. Thanks for your input! Akwdb (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

But then again, DrKay may very well be right..... He often is you know! :-) Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Ridiculous non-sequitur.

" The ban on Catholics themselves was retained to ensure that the monarch would be in communion with the Church of England."

This statement. in the third paragraph, is ridiculous. Are there only 2 religions in the World ? What would happen if Prince George became a Scientologist ? How does banning Roman Catholics "ensure" that the potential heir is a member of the Church of England ? Lathamibird (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Now revised. Qexigator (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Include all members of the royal family?

The line we currently present is limited to the descendants of Elizabeth II. The argument is that no one else is likely to succeed. But how likely is it that anyone but Charles's descendants ascends? Savannah Phillips is barely more likely to ascend than the Duke of Gloucester. Including all members of the royal family would make for clearer criteria, however. The Queen's cousins have been carrying out royal duties for half a century, the entirety of her reign, and consequently have a high public profile. Surely the readers would be curious to know where they figure in the line when they open this article? Surtsicna (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a second list lower down. I think they should be merged if the tree list at the top is to be retained. DrKay (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not even notice it. I do not understand why both exist. Surtsicna (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The reason was to ensure that the full tree list, which was a later, and innovative, contribution, was retained when merger happened in May 2015.[3] That is now accomplished by placing it where the earlier shorter list was, and removing the latter. Qexigator (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Is this true?

http://www.closerweekly.com/posts/queen-elizabeth-prince-william-kate-middleton-king-queen-prince-charles-138913 I'm not sure if this is a reputable site. Earthscent (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

total garbage. AnthonyCamp (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC).

Good! Earthscent (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is Prince Charles listed as skipped? Removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:399E:2570:94D2:73ED:783:E606 (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

In lead, link "throne"

The current version of the article (images apart) has the word "throne" in the opening sentence and not less than 25 more "throne/s", but none of these link to the Throne article. The second sentence switches to "Crown", with no explanation, like the much earlier version of October 2007.[4]. That also is unlinked, but "Crowns" in the third paragraph is linked. In many contexts the words may be treated as interchangeable, and one section of the article is actually headed "After the union of the crowns". The Bill of Rights uses both words, and one or other is used in the titles of the Perth Agreement legislation: Succession to the Crown Act 2013 (United Kingdom), Succession to the Crown Act 2015 (Australia), Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 (Canada). Edward's Abdication Act has "demise of the Crown" and "succession to the Throne", and his Declaration has "renounce the throne". Ours may not be to reason why, but an inline link to "throne" as soon as the text allows would improve the article. As I understand it, we are asked to avoid blueing the bolded opening words that repeat the title. Perhaps it will be acceptable to revise the third sentence by inserting "throne", per Act of Settlement: IV. And whereas the laws of England are the birth-right of the people thereof, and all the Kings and Queens, who shall ascend the throne of this Realm, ought to administer the government of the same according to the said laws...[5]. Qexigator (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Top image

I will be going ahead to reinstate the image of the historic coronation chair which has been at the top of the article from May 2015. The article has not been improved by replacing it with a monochrome image of the throne as at 1902, in the year after Queen Victoria's demise, together with an inappropriate caption. The ornate chair now in use,[6] like the one shown in the 1902 image, is placed in the chamber where the lords of parliament meet, in the presence or absence of the monarch. The 1902 image shows not one throne, that of the monarch in the line of succession, but two side by side, as arranged for King Edward and his Queen Consort. A monarch uses such a throne, on the dais under the canopy, when presiding in parliament, on occasions such as the state opening, for delivering the speech from the throne. Regular editors here, and any reader of the article "Throne of England", will be aware that there is no single seat which is the "official" throne: there is one in the throne room in Buckingham Palace, and an historic seat is used for the monarch's coronation.[7] The notion (in the caption for the 1902 image) of "mock thrones" in other palaces is an invention of a source which cannot be regarded as reliable. It is at best a misdescription, unsuited to the Wikipedia article. The caption cites 'At Home with the Royal Family' (Harper and Row 1986), and the blurb at the link is: "Discusses the day-to-day lives of the Royal Family and the operation of the Royal Household, from the organization of a royal banquet to what Princess Di received for Christmas." Qexigator (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

That is merely Google's description of the book. Here is a quote from the acknowledgements page of the actual book:

"The authors would like to express their gratitude first and foremost to the staff of the Press Office at Buckingham Palace for their unending patience and readiness to answer queries despite the obvious limitations imposed upon them; in particular the Queen's Press Secretary, Michael Shea, who in pointing out the obstacles in researching such a subject nevertheless gave as much help as permitted. We would like also to thank the many friends, past and present members of the Household, who have proffered advice without any breach of confidence. While Peter Russell did not sign the Official Secrets Act during his years of royal service, as is now required of all members of the Household, he has nevertheless respected the trust that the Royal Family place in those who serve them.

We would like in addition to thank the following for their practical help and encouragement: Lieutenant-Colonel Sir John Miller, KCVO, DSO, MC, Crown Equerry and the Superintendant, Major W. Phelps, of the Royal Mews; staff of the College of Arms, the Tower of London, the Imperial War Museum, the Household Division and members of the Yeoman of the Guard; Earl Greenberg Productions (CBS TV) California, Richard Moberger, Rosemary and Robert Stack, Lynn Redgrave, Cunard Line Ltd and the staff of the QEII, Denis Cockerton for the drawings of Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, Alan Howard Evans, John Howes, Joseph Gordon, Dr John Edmunds and Dr Christopher Gill (University College of Wales, Aberystwyth), John Lawton, Eileen Wallmen, Catherine Sugden, Hardy Amies Ltd, Norman Hartnell Ltd, the staff of Harvey Nichols, Harrods, Fortnum & Mason Plc, Garrard and Co. Ltd, and the many Royal Warrant holders who kindly answered our questions, and last, but by no means least, our appreciation goes to Mr William Shakespeare for providing the chapter titles.

In any book of this nature there are invariably anecdotes and stories which are apocryphal and open to conjecture. We have, therefore, tried to include only information that within the obvious confines of the subject, we have been able to verify. Any opinions expressed are our own, as are any unwitting errors or omissions."

Peter Russell worked for the Royal Household, and Paul James, a journalist, author, and broadcaster, has written extensively about the monarchy. Throne rooms exist only to impress guests; they have no official role, unlike the Sovereign's Throne in the House of Lords, on which no one except the monarch is allowed to sit. The Coronation Chair is a religious artefact; again, it has no official status. At Home with the Royal Family is quite evidently a reliable source. Firebrace (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the above information, confirming that the book is written in a journalistic style with journalistic sources. The article itself is about the line of succession to the present day monarchy, from early times in Scotland and England, and on by the Acts of Union and Settlement to the present day. It is neither about an item or items of modern furniture, in whatever building any such furniture is situated. or its function in any one interior or another: nor is it about 'the day-to-day lives of the Royal Family and the operation of the Royal Household', nor 'anecdotes and stories which are apocryphal and open to conjecture'. The 1902 image, and the caption citing the 1980s source, written in a gossipy style, no doubt in good faith, with 'practical help and encouragement' ranging from a crown equerry to royal warrant holders, are not supportive of the article's text. Qexigator (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the book was written by people with social skills who know how to communicate to a general audience, but it's also very detailed, factual, and contains a list of references. You are right to say the article is not about furniture, and so I will be deleting the current 1855 image to avoid suggesting that St Edward's Chair is somehow the one true throne of England or the UK. By the way, Queen Victoria died in 1901; Edward VII's coronation was in 1902. Firebrace (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning 1901, now corrected above. Qexigator (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

It would seem that we are once again at an impasse. If there is no official throne, why give undue weight to the Coronation Chair? (WP:UNDUE applies to images and captions.) There has been a throne in the House of Lords chamber since the Middle Ages, and every royal palace throughout history has had its own throne, including Windsor Castle, which, as a palace, pre-dates the Coronation Chair by 200 years. Why not a collage of British thrones? Or, more appropriately for the subject, none at all. Firebrace (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not difficult to see that the use of "throne" in the article's title is a figure of speech, alluding to the enthronement of successive monarchs in the solemn coronation ceremony, rather than to the particular attribute of a reigning monarch's position as convenor and dissolver of parliaments. Qexigator (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

A monarch accedes to the throne upon the death of his or her predecessor. Queen Elizabeth II first opened Parliament on 4 November 1952—seven months before her coronation. At the State Opening, she read and signed the Accession Declaration, and then gave her first speech from the throne. A coronation is not even legally necessary. Firebrace (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

That information is covered in the aritcle's Accession section.Qexigator (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Got a source for your claim about "throne" alluding to the enthronement of monarchs in the coronation? As you know, our job here is to find reliable sources, not write whatever pops into our head because it 'just makes sense'. This line at Throne of England has no citation: "The term can refer to very specific seating, as in King Edward's Chair, which has been used in the coronations of British monarchs for eight centuries". It appears to be original research: I have searched all of the books, and none of them mentions the chair. "Throne" is a metonym "for the kingly office" according to one source. Not quite what is claimed in the article (a metonym for the actual monarch). Firebrace (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The article history shows it began in 2004 apparently with the present title. Editors appear to consider the use of the expression "the British throne" acceptable, and the allusion is sufficiently obvious not to have excited discussion on this page. The matter can be allowed to rest there. Or have you a proposal for an acceptable amendment or addition to improve this article's text? Qexigator (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I am going to delete the image of the Coronation Chair until you can demonstrate, with reliable sources, that in this context "British throne" is an allusion to, or metonym for, the Coronation Chair, and not the Sovereign's Throne in the House of Lords, which has existed in various forms for about as long as the Coronation Chair, and which two reliable sources call the official throne. Firebrace (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for those additional sources (below). The most reliable for the present purpose is probably EB 1929. The image of the throne currently used by the Queen is agreeably colourful, and happily its use at the top of this article is logical enough, regardless of the weakness in stating that the throne in the House of Lords "has existed in various forms for about as long as the Coronation Chair". Qexigator (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

+The image now in place at the top of the article (which was made available on 14 August 2017)[8] well demonstrates that the chair has an official use in relation to parliament by reason only of its position in the House of Lords Chamber for use on occasions such as the State Opening of Parliament. The image incidentally has the advantage of being directly comparable to chairs of state in parliaments of other Commonwealth realms such as Canada[9]. The article is not about any one chair as a piece of furniture installed in a particular place, but the "line of succession" to the position of the Sovereign, who, as such, presides over parliament as constitutional monarch. It is beside the point to add here that the throne in the image has been unofficially written about as "the official throne of the British monarch". Further, Parliament's own official website[10] does not support those unofficial sources. The image can more simply be described for the present purpose: "The throne in the House of Lords used by the British monarch during a State Opening of Parliament." Qexigator (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers third-party sources not closely affiliated with the subject. Firebrace (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources

• "The Queen opens Parliament from her throne in the chamber of the House of Lords. It is the only true throne of the sovereign; the ones at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle are unofficial." – Antony Jay, Elizabeth R, 1992, p. 22

• "There are thrones both in Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, and the Coronation Chair in the Abbey, but the throne in the House of Lords is the real throne." – Sir Herbert Dunnico, Mother of Parliaments, 1951, p. 42

• "The official throne of the queen in the United Kingdom is the chair in the House of Lords …" – Doug Lennox, Now You Know Royalty, 2009, p. 85

• "Once the Queen is seated on the throne in the House of Lords, the official throne and the only one, despite the mock thrones at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle …" – Paul James; Peter Russell, At Home with the Royal Family, 1986, p. 147

• "The British coronation chair is not, properly speaking, a throne … The actual throne of Great Britain is the oaken Gothic chair in the House of Lords occupied by the sovereign at the opening and prorogation of parliament." – Encyclopedia Britannica, 1929, vol. 22, p. 163

Firebrace (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment on above sources: Antony Jay's chapter 1 "Pomp & Circumstance" certainly goes to some length attempting to explain the State Opening of Parliament, using a relaxed turn of phrase accepted for use in a script for the BBC documentary film "Elisabeth R.", but whether or not he was the author of the caption on p. 22, facing the Press Association photograph of the Queen reading the speech from the throne, the comment: "It is the only true throne of the sovereign: the ones at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle are unofficial", is one of repeated comments expressing a private point of view about the importance of this or that, not validated by reference to any official or authoritative source, and the book has no bibliography. The remark is on a par stylistically, for example, with the book's use of the cliche "up for grabs" on p. 17, the jokey phrase "a bit like a travelling circus" on p. 24, and the recurrent use of "tribe" and "tribal" on pages 18-24. That is not to deny that the book is full of interesting information pleasantly enough presented for the intended audience/readership, nor to deny the excellence of the comedy series Yes, (Prime) Minister (which at the time entertainingly informed and amused insiders and outsiders alike). The blurb on the book's dust jacket refers to the Queen signing Acts of Parliament, a solecism that appears also on p. 225 of the book itself. This does not induce us to treat this as a "secondary source" that is preferable to an official one on the question of the "official" status of the throne in the House of Lords, any more than would the style, content, sources and intended readership of At home with the Royal Family. There is no reason to rate Doug Lennox's "Now You Know" book[11] higher than either of those for the purpose of this Wikipedia article. The (anonymous) 1929 version of EB article "Throne" is a truncated version of the article in the 1911 edition, which had an opening paragraph that gave a more intelligible context for the article as a whole.

Given Dunnico's career in Parliament, and as a Freemason and "social reformer and churchman", it may be that when putting emphasis on the throne in the House of Lords as "the real throne" he was influenced by loyalty and, at least in some measure, by feeling a need to distinguish this emblem of the sovereignty over the United Kingdom, including Dunnico's native Principality of Wales, that vests in the king in parliament, as distinct from any Freemason's or Bishop's throne. But, of the five unofficial publications, perhaps Dunnico's quoted remark in the context of the book's title The Mother of Parliaments is the closest to what could be considered as "official". We can accept that he is speaking from his personal involvement in parliamentary matters, but he seems also to be indulging in some advocacy for a cause dear to him, albeit sincerely and in good faith. Qexigator (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear, it now seems the official Parliament website, which states: "the Monarch signs their name to every Act of Parliament", is no better than a secondary source. Sorry, but I have provided five reliable sources – one of which is an esteemed encyclopedia, and another was verified by Buckingham Palace – and you have nothing to offer but scorn and conjecture. If we ignore the Encyclopedia Britannica's definition of a throne, the Coronation Chair is certainly a British throne, but it's not THE British throne to which you claim the phrase "succession to the British throne" alludes. For one thing, until quite recently in the chair's history it was possible for tourists at Westminster Abbey to pay the vergers a fee and sit on the chair. It also has been vandlised; eminent Gothic revival architect Sir Gilbert Scott described the chair as "a magnificent piece of decoration, but sadly mutilated". And this is supposed to be the "Throne of England"! Poppycock. Firebrace (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

edit conflict: My comment below at 18:54 was posted before sight of yours of 18.53. Qexigator (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

reply to 18:53: The bald statement The Monarch signs their name to every Act of Parliament before it can become the law of the land excites no confidence in the "Education Service" named at the top of that page. Are we to suppose this is meant to be a reference to the Royal Assent Act 1967? Qexigator (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

+ Please let me clarify: my point was that the article title alludes to the disembodied concept of enthronement of the monarch, not to any one of the chairs, in the Abbey or Palace of Westminster. Is it not apparent that the ceremonies of State Opening of Parliament and Coronation, from their origin to the present day, are intended to give the monarch's enthronement outward and visible form, for the cohesion of the Crown, Lords and Commons of Parliament and the people of the realm, as one body politic? It looks to me that Antony Jay's book helpfully says something to that effect. Qexigator (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You haven't clarified your statement; you have contradicted it. You originally said "It is not difficult to see that the use of "throne" in the article's title is a figure of speech, alluding to the enthronement of successive monarchs in the solemn coronation ceremony". Firebrace (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

No contradiction, as a more careful reading would show. Shall we leave it there? But anyhow, I have already indicated that, to my mind, the current image which you have put at the top is a welcome embellishment and improvement to the article. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

+ the Sovereign's Throne in the House of Lords, which has existed in various forms for about as long as the Coronation Chair (Firebrace above): Information, plans and pictures at articles such as Palace of Westminster, White Chamber and Painted Chamber, together with the Parliamentary website for the Palace of Westminster[12] and its linked pages, may be taken as explaining the "official" significance of the throne in the present House of Lords, as mentioned by Dunnico. Qexigator (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

References

"informally"

In the above discussion no act of parliament, order in council or proclamation has been presented to support the proposition that the throne in the House of Lords is officially mentioned as the "official" throne referred to in the article or its title. Given that acts of parliament, orders in council and proclamations are a major expression of official practice and are determinants for the conduct of public officials, including members of the government, civil servants, the royal household, and all officials in the service of the Crown, it is apparent that a use of that term found in other sources, such as those cited in the caption, is at best informal and in any case inconsistent with the content of the article, and beside any point expressed in the article about the line of succession. For example, the article cites Edward's Abdication Act,[13] the wording of which (excerpt below) suggests otherwise, and the article, apart from the caption, is composed in similar terms, as are other linked articles such as Act of Settlement 1701. If there is an article where the unofficial sources can usefully be discussed and cited, it is not this one.

• excerpt: "...His Majesty ...has been pleased to declare that He is irrevocably determined to renounce the Throne for Himself and His descendants,... and has signified His desire that effect thereto should be given immediately:...Be it ... enacted... as follows :— Effect of His Majesty's declaration of abdication. (1) Immediately upon the Royal Assent being signified to this Act the Instrument of Abdication executed by His present Majesty... shall have effect, and thereupon His Majesty shall cease to be King and there shall be a demise of the Crown, and accordingly the member of the Royal Family then next in succession to the Throne shall succeed thereto and to all the rights, privileges, and dignities thereunto belonging. (2) His Majesty, His issue, if any, and the descendants of that issue, shall not after His Majesty's abdication have any right, title or interest in or to the succession to the Throne, and section one of the Act of Settlement shall be construed accordingly...."
• see also (italic emphasis added):

• Bill of Rights [1688]:[14] "Recital that the late King James II. had abdicated the Government, and that the Throne was vacant, and that the Prince of Orange had written Letters to the Lords and Commons for the choosing Representatives in Parliament... .. to provide and preserve their said Majestyes Royall Persons most happily to Raigne over us upon the Throne of their Auncestors... And that every King and Queene of this Realme who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeede in the Imperiall Crowne of this Kingdome shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parlyament next after his or her comeing to the Crowne sitting in his or her Throne in the House of Peeres in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled or at his or her Coronation before such person or persons who shall administer the Coronation Oath... "
• Act of Settlement (1700):[15] "IV The Laws and Statutes of the Realm confirmed. And whereas the Laws of England are the Birthright of the People thereof and all the Kings and Queens who shall ascend the Throne of this Realm ought to administer the Government of the same according to the said Laws and all their Officers and Ministers ought to serve them respectively according to the same according to the said Laws and all their Officers and Ministers ought to serve them respectively according to the same The said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons do therefore further humbly pray..."

Qexigator (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

As mere Wikipedians, it is not our job to interpret 300-year-old Acts of Parliament, Orders in Council, or proclamations. Original research is banned on Wikipedia. Third-party sources not closely affiliated with the subject are preferred on here. If you would rather do original research, I suggest you write a book about succession to the British throne, then you can pore over as many official documents as you like and interpret them however you like. Firebrace (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, but please do not protest too much: perhaps it would be better, if you can, to give sufficient reason for the unneeded remark based on your chosen sources. And please be aware that editing does not absolve a person from taking note of information readily available and directly to the point in question, or condone dismissing or pooh-poohing such information when another draws attention to it. Qexigator (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to provide reliable sources for your claim that "It is not difficult to see that the use of "throne" in the article's title is a figure of speech, alluding to the enthronement of successive monarchs in the solemn coronation ceremony". Firebrace (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Noted. Obviously my remark is addressed to editors who have been editing the article, and to any other reasonably intelligent person looking at this page. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, but it's not obvious that "the use of "throne" in the article's title is a figure of speech, alluding to the enthronement of successive monarchs in the solemn coronation ceremony". So where's your reliable source for that claim? Cheerio. Firebrace (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That comment is mistaken. It is not and never has been my understanding, claim or proposition that the Coronation Chair is the throne alluded to, but I can see that one of my above comments may have been read in that way. Please note also another of my comments "....the article title alludes to the disembodied concept of enthronement of the monarch, not to any one of the chairs, in the Abbey or Palace of Westminster." To my mind, that is also sufficiently apparent on an intelligent reading of the Bill of Rights, Act of Settlement and Edward's Abdication Act. Qexigator (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That was after I produced five reliable sources in favour of the Sovereign's Throne being the actual British throne out of several possibilities. You back-pedalled to include the Sovereign's Throne in a slightly different version of the allusion,[16] which you had previously dismissed as "the particular attribute of a reigning monarch's position as convenor and dissolver of parliaments".[17] You also found a reason to "pooh-pooh" every single one of the extra four reliable sources, having already "pooh-poohed" the first (At Home with the Royal Family), which was written with the cooperation of Buckingham Palace and some other officials. Your death-grip on this article and snooty obsession with original documents are an embarrassment to Wikipedia. "An intelligent reading" – even calling yourself intelligent now. I'd leave that for others to decide... Firebrace (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

+ More than enough for information not in the article and less than peripheral to the topic.[18] As said above: "It is beside the point... that the throne in the image has been unofficially written about as 'the official throne of the British monarch', it is "inconsistent with the content of the article, and beside any point expressed in the article about the line of succession", and "If there is an article where the unofficial sources can usefully be discussed and cited, it is not this one." Qexigator (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

How was the caption "with the Stone of Scone visibly placed beneath the seat, for 700 years used for the coronation of monarchs of England, of Great Britain, and of the United Kingdom" not less than peripheral to the topic. At least be consistent if you want your arguments to be taken seriously. Firebrace (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the question. The topic is about the line of succession and its history, including the earlier history of the monarchy in the separate kingdoms of Scotland and England, and the later union, which the use of the Coronation Seat for the solemn crowning of the monarch - both before and after the current statutory title stemming from the Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement - helpfully illustrates, as referred to in the caption. Perhaps you were not aware of that, but why object to it? It is not comparable with the caption for the HoL throne that you have proposed against the reasoned objections above. Qexigator (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Why object to it? Because, if anything, the throne alluded to in "Succession to the British throne" is not the Coronation Chair, as you have claimed, but the Sovereign's official throne in the House of Lords, which has existed in various forms since the Middle Ages. Firebrace (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Please note my comment above: "....the article title alludes to the disembodied concept of enthronement of the monarch, not to any one of the chairs, in the Abbey or Palace of Westminster." Qexigator (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Now explain how it can allude to the enthronement in the Coronation Chair at a coronation in the Abbey (what you originally said), and not allude to any one of the chairs either in the Abbey or Palace of Westminster, both at the same time. Firebrace (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Firebrace: It appears to me that your more recent comments are off the mark, are not helpful in the work of improving the article, and that further discussion on those lines is pointless. Qexigator (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Enthronement

In any case, the monarch is not "enthroned" on the Coronation Chair, but a throne placed on a dais behind it.[19] The one used by Elizabeth II in 1953 was made specially for the occasion.[20] Not only is the allusion to the Coronation Chair not "sufficiently obvious", it is not even factually correct. Firebrace (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that to our attention. It is consistent with the present version of the article. Qexigator (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

A person desiring, in good faith, to be better informed about chairs and thrones in connection with the British crown and parliament could be advised to consider David Monaghan's article on "Speaker's Chairs",[21] which mentions that an "object may serve both a symbolic and functional purpose. The location, height, and decoration of the Speaker's Chair help to reinforce its position as the focal point of the space. They also combine to emphasize the authority of the Speaker within the House itself. The Speaker's Chair in the House of Commons [Canada] dates from 1921 and is a permanent fixture within the Chamber. However, this was not always the case....". Speaker's chairs may appear "throne-like", but have never been regarded as thrones. The function of the sovereign's throne in the House of Lords (unlike the Lord Speaker's woolsack) is comparable (to reinforce its position as the focal point of the space...emphasize the authority of the occupant). But it is well enough known that in the case of a House of Commons Speaker, his authority is ex officio and has sway in the House, while an enthroned sovereign is bringing his/her own regnal authority to the Lords Chamber, as the present article explains. Qexigator (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Once again, we are not here to pontificate and endlessly lecture other users from atop our high horse. A new image has been chosen for the lead which evokes the topic of succession to the British throne. Unlike the Coronation Chair, previously featured in the lead, the Sovereign's Throne is a throne. Moreover, it is the only official throne of the British monarch. We all know the term "British throne" does not refer to any piece of furniture, but to the office of monarch (except User:Enkyo2, who, when starting Throne of England on 12 February 2009, thought it referred to any throne or throne-like chair on which the monarch sits,[22] a bit of original research that you cited on 10 August 2017,[23] and which I have since erased from the article). You have expended a lot of energy clinging to a mistake because you spent a lot of time making it. Here at Wikipedia, we respect the clear logic of written language; we are not driven by gut feeling and authority, regardless of right or wrong. I hope one day you will learn to adapt and leave your ego at the login page. I will let you have the last word – it obviously means a lot to you. Firebrace (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Firebrace, for letting us know your opinions and the way you would like us to look upon your work here. Noted, that you repeat the error of supposing a mistake on my part, and seem to have needlessly driven yourself into the sort of incivilities from which we are expected to refrain. However, to my mind, as before said, the image which you have placed at the top, and some recent edits stimulated by the discussion, have improved this and another article, which is what matters. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Prince Henry in current line

Given that in announcements of his public engagements (such as below) he is named as Prince Henry, that is how he should be named in this article, which concerns his public status in the royal line of succession:

• Court Circular, 5 September 2017[24]:

'Prince Henry of Wales, Patron, Rugby Football Union, this morning attended a briefing session at Twickenham Stadium, Whitton Road, Twickenham, Middlesex.'

'The Duke of Cambridge and Prince Henry of Wales this afternoon visited the Support4Grenfell Hub at the Phoenix Brewery...'

Qexigator (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

He is known to the public as Prince Harry. This bizarre notion you have that we must toe the official line is getting silly. Firebrace (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

His name as "Prince Henry" is better suited to the topic of this article, whether or not his nickname, given in the linked personal biography article, is added in parenthesis ("familiarly known as Prince Harry"). To my mind, adding that would be acceptable. Noted that your feeling is that using the Prince's given name as it is used in public announcements is bizarre, and that it should not be used in the article in case, as you may suppose, that would be seen as toeing an official line. But, less emotively, it could be supposed that it would be silliness to let his nickname be used while suppressing his actual name. Strictly, of course, he is "Prince Henry of Wales", but the immediately following description "the younger son of the Prince of Wales" suffices in this context. Qexigator (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Goodness, "suppressing his actual name", as if we are robbing the prince of his identity. Firebrace (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Editors are expected to attend in good faith to improving the content and presentation of the information relevant to an article's topic. Qexigator (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

+ "Prince Harry's official title is His Royal Highness Prince Henry of Wales", 2017, Clarence House:[25] see article revision as of 09:13, 9 October 2017.[26] Qexigator (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

We should use Henry, as that's his actual name. GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

That's his formal, official name. But Harry is just as much his name as Henry is. There would be a huge bunch of people for whom "Prince Henry" would mean nothing. Nothing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Jack: Also, a huge bunch for whom "Prince Harry" would mean less than nothing, but that is no answer to the point that his name is Henry. While his nickname "Harry" is much used in UK popular press, Henry is better suited to the topic of this article, and the nickname is made easily accessible by Wikipedia for any reader who simply clicks on the link. It would surely be pedantic, unnecessary and UNDUE in this article to add after his name (whose popular nickname is "Harry"), perhaps also patronising to readers looking for well presented fact based information. We may surmise that most coming to this article are more interested in the line of succession as such, generally, and in respect of certain details including names and descent and position in line, than in the current nickname of any one them. Qexigator (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not quite as simple as saying it's a popular nickname though. It's the name he chooses to use and it is in use on the official websites [27][28]. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but here let it be Henry, as above said, which is the simplest way of presenting this minor, and practically irrelevant, detail in this article. Anyhow, in the army he is known as Captain Harry Wales. And see popular press, 14 July 2017: "IPSO adjudication upheld: HRH Prince Henry of Wales."[29] Is his future spouse expected to become "Princess Henry" or "Princess Harry" (irrespective of any other title the Queen decides to grant him). Qexigator (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

"Let it be Henry" doesn't have quite the same impact as "Let there be light". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Right, Jack, not surprising: so far as I know there is no mention of a Henry in the Bible's beginning, or any other part of it, but he was baptised Henry,[30] and whales get a biblical mention, at least in some versions.[31] [32] Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

"Also, a huge bunch for whom "Prince Harry" would mean less than nothing" Who are these people? Firebrace (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

nationality

Does a member have to be of British nationality to succeed to the Crown? Since it only mentions "the Protestant heirs of the body," it doesn't seem clear. Autumn Phillips is Canadian and her daughters have Canadian citizenship as well as British nationality. And someone who intends to retain their nationality is marrying into the family soon. When they have issue, will it be an issue that they are dual citizens and will they renounce their allegiance (as Philip had to do with his Greek and Danish citizenship) to retain their places in succession and the Family? 98.10.165.90 (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

No, William III was Dutch, and Georges I and II were both German. Meghan Markle would not be in the line of succession, even if she was British, as she is marrying into the family. Firebrace (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

No. And British citizenship only came into existence in 1948. TFD (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Harry or Henry

Prince Henry of Wales...? I think you mean Harry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.109.159.35 (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

We mean Henry, as that's his actual name. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Is that the royal "we"? Firebrace (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

If only it were as simple as that! I have no particular wish to throw a spanner into these particular works but in 1822 Lord Chief Justice Abbot ruled that "A name assumed by the voluntary act of a man, adopted by all who know him and by which he is constantly called, becomes as much and as effectively his name as if he had obtained an Act of Parliament to confer it upon him". AnthonyCamp (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC).

The case in question, its facts and ratio decidendi were...? Qexigator (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The law requires one to not only use a different name, but it must also entirely replace one's original name for all intents and purposes, hence the word "constantly". One cannot have two legal names, e.g. Henry and Harry... Firebrace (talk) 14:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

That, I am sorry to say, is quite wrong. The English law of names stems from Henry de Bracton who wrote in his De Legibus et Consuetudinibus (c. 1235), 'Item si quis binominis sit sive in nomine proprio vel cognomine, illud nomen tenendum erit quo solet frequentius appellari' ('And so if a person has two names, whether in his name or in his surname, that name is to adopted by which he is more frequently accustomed to be called'). Where surnames are concerned the Master of the Rolls said in 1730, 'I am satisfied that anyone may take upon him what surname and as many surnames as he pleases'. It was, however, long held that it was not possible to have two or more forenames but if you look at the online statement by the Deed Poll Office which sets out the modern interpretation of the law [33] you will see that it concludes that more importance is now given to actual usage and the name that you are called and known by, than to any name given at baptism or birth registration, and (as with the surname) different communities may know you by quite different forenames and/or surnames, but all are your 'legal' names. The 1822 case was about the adoption of a surname as the result of a request in a will. AnthonyCamp (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC).

It is not unusual for someone to use their formal name in some situations and their nickname in others. U.S. President John F. Kennedy for example was known by his friends and colleagues as Jack Kennedy. Different writers will use different versions of his name depending on what seems most appropriate for the context. TFD (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

What do you think is appropriate in this context? Firebrace (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Because typically in cases involving inheritance, property and the assumption of offices people typically use their full first names rather than familiar derivatives. Even with credit cards, they are more likely to say James, Katherine, Michael, than Jim, Kathy and Mike, even if those are the names by which they are normally known. TFD (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Difference being that no one is actually named Jim, Kathy or Mike, whereas Harry is now a name in its own right. On that basis, most people, who don't know that Harry is officially Henry, would reasonably assume that he was born Harry. Firebrace (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Firebrace: Perhaps you are not aware that

• it is public knowledge that his name has not been changed from Henry by his own act, nor in form of law, nor by royal declaration of the Queen's will and pleasure, whether or not he or his family and friends or others frequently use the nickname "Harry".
• a person whose name is Henry but who was identified as a beneficiary in a dead person's will as "Harry", would still be entitled to take according to the will, but that would not of itself amount to a change of his name in law or otherwise.
• given that it is already public knowledge that his actual name as lawfully registered at the time of is birth is "Henry" and his nickname is "Harry", in this article his name is linked to the article giving his personal biography, which states in the opening sentence "Prince Henry of Wales..., familiarly known as Prince Harry (footnote: Harry is a traditional nickname for Henry)."
• the footnote links to Henry (given name), which explains that Harry was considered the "spoken form" of Henry in medieval England, and that most English kings named Henry were called Harry, and there it is linked to Harry (name), which states simply that "Harry" is used as a given name which is traced to the Middle English form of Henry, and it is also used a diminutive form of "Harold".

Qexigator (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The man on the Clapham Omnibus believes that Harry is the prince's actual name. This Wikipedia article is not a legal document, it's intended for public consumption, and whether you like it or not, most of the public have never heard of Prince Henry; they think he was born Harry. All this will be immaterial soon when the media stop referring to him as Prince Harry and start calling him the Earl of Duke of Somewhere or Other. Firebrace (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, Firebrace, since you mention the renowned Clapham omnibus,[34] editors noting the law and facts described above may also be aware

• that Wikipedia articles are for the information of all English reading visitors, not only from Clapham but from anywhere else, from China to Peru, or from Peru to China, with exclusion of none, with a view to avoiding confusion or sub-optimal information values, so far as context, accuracy and sources allow
• that The man on the Clapham omnibus "is a hypothetical ordinary and reasonable person, used by the courts in English law where it is necessary to decide whether a party has acted as a reasonable person would," ...who is thought of as "a reasonably educated, intelligent but nondescript person", and who has recently been joined by "the reasonably well-informed and normally diligent tenderer".

And noting also the Officious bystander test, as used in English law, we may surmise that it is at least as likely as not that a Clapham omnibus person would not quibble about the use of Prince Henry's proper name in this article. Qexigator (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I venture to suggest that whoever began this discussion in the first place was riding on the Clapham omnibus. Firebrace (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Firebrace. Quexigator's 'facts' are wrong. English law does not accept his idea of a 'proper name'. As the two barrister authors of Intelligible Heraldry wrote in 1948, 'there are no legal limitations to a man's liberty to change his surname: he may take any name he pleases in addition to, or in substitution for, his own, and the name he adopts and uses becomes his surname without formality'. That as he further says includes Acts of Parliaments, Royal Licences, and so on. It seems to me that this now applies as much to forenames as it does to surnames and that the occasional use of 'otherwise known as' or 'alias' would sometimes be appropriate. AnthonyCamp (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC).

Why 'wrong'? If I have referred to 'facts' it is to those in AnthonyCamp 's comment; and his further comments based on Intelligible Heraldry are consistent with the points I have made about what is within public knowledge. My use of "proper" was not synonymous with "legal". What is accepted in a legal context as a person's name could be provable in various ways, for instance, by evidence that a person is or was known by a name other than, or as well as, the person's name on a birth certificate, passport, marriage certificate, conviction certificate, army record and so forth, but that would not necessarily be conclusive on the question whether there had been a change of name. For the purposes of this article, it suffices to know that the baptismal name by which the prince is identified as Henry Charles Albert David has not been changed to Harry Charles Albert David. Qexigator (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not so sure. If the whole world knows a person by a certain name, then that is his or her name (or at least one of his/her names) and he or she does not need a piece of paper to prove it, it is proved (at least in England, that is) by common usage. This case is strengthened in that there is also the voluntary assumption and usage of this alternative name by the person involved. AnthonyCamp (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC). I should add that the comment made by the Lord Chief Justice in 1822 was, so far as I understand the case, a statement about the law at that time; it was not limited to the 'arms and name' case then before the court. AnthonyCamp (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC).

I'm sticking with using Henry, in this article. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree and I am sure the man on the Clapham omnibus would know that Harry was an informal nickname. TFD (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

If the man was over a certain age, perhaps. But to most, Harry is not a nickname, but a given name, like Jack (was a nickname for John) and Charlie (was short for Charles). There is no reason to expect a guy in his early 30s to be called Henry. Most people think he was born Harry. Firebrace (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

That's just your opinion. I think that more people would be aware that Harry is a nickname than would know it could be a name in its own right. But so could any name - George Costanza wanted to call his son "Seven." But royalty are pretty conservative and it is unlikely they would chose a non-traditional name. Note how sources phrase it: "His Royal Highness HENRY Charles Albert David of Wales, b. September 15, 1984."[35] TFD (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Evidence for that opinion would be that 'Harry' was the second most popular forename registered for live births in England and Wales in 2016.Oliver was the first. Harry was the fifth in 2006. The forename 'Henry' does not appear amongst the first ten forenames registered in either year. AnthonyCamp (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC).

Henry was no. 10 in 2016. I notice that Jack and Charlie are in the top 10, and the top 50 includes Freddie, Teddy, Alfie, Max, Jake and other derivative names.[36] But the prince was not born in 2016, he was born in 1984, when there were very few nicknames on the list.[37] There are no Henrys or Harrys either. No doubt the naming of the popularized both versions. Bear in mind we are talking about the royal family and they are more traditional.

If you are certain of your analysis, I suggest you present a published legal opinion that the prince has changed his name through usage, otherwise we must rely on the name used in official documents.

TFD (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

There is good reason to expect that the name of a prince of the UK now in his thirties has not changed from Henry to Harry. The caption to a photograph of the prince in The Times of London of 28 December 2017 uses the nickname "Harry", while on another page the same newspaper reproduces the Court Circular of the previous day stating "Prince Henry of Wales this morning guest-edited" a BBC programme.[38] See also, for another example, Court Circular 20 November 2016[39] Qexigator (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

+ ...working out a name use policy... at RfC above[40] offers a survey and summary of what needs to be said about this that is good enough to let the discussion come to rest, unless there is any new information to the contrary, well-founded on fact and free from SYN based on little else but personal preference or imperfectly understood appeals to barely relevant "sources". Qexigator (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC about Prince Harry or Henry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The name of Prince Harry is constantly changed at this article to Henry, and then back to Harry, and then back to Henry, and so on. Should he be called Harry or Henry or both? Celia Homeford (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• A construction like "Prince Henry "Harry" of Wales" of "Prince Henry (Harry) of Wales" has the advantage of probably not being changed to "Prince Harry "Harry" of Wales". Next year, we may be able to escape this conundrum by calling him "the Duke of Sussex" or similar, avoiding the first name entirely. DrKay (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  We still use Prince William's first name... Firebrace (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• It should be Prince Henry of Wales, IMHO. Also, this article should be semi-protected, as IPs are going to be more active on this topic, since Henry's announced engagement. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment: Prince William was given the title 'Duke of Cambridge' as a wedding present from the Queen. It is possible that in May 2018, on the marriage of Harry and Meghan Markle, Harry will receive a title, and be known as 'Prince Henry, Duke/Earl/Whatever of Wherever'. In which case, the media will stop using the name 'Prince Harry'. The title of his Wikipedia article would also have to be changed to 'Prince Henry, Earl of Wherever'. Firebrace (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Likely going to be Duke of Sussex. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Meghan would then be a duchess. She and Harry only met just over a year ago. The Queen is not daft. Firebrace (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• For the time being, he should be referred to as "Prince Henry of Wales (Prince Harry)" on first reference, then Prince Harry upon further references. That's how it is on his own Wiki page. Kerdooskis (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
• It appears to me there's an explosion of IP editing due to his being in the news currently, and the name is only being "constantly changed" because the article's getting a lot of attention from random people who only know him by his common name. I've semi-protected the article as a remedy. The stable version should not be changed without consensus, and I don't think a formal RfC is needed unless there's a serious proposal to change the name. Swarm ♠ 04:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• That may explain the edits over the 28th and 27th November, but it doesn't explain why it was changed four times on the 19th, twice on the 15th, twice on the 12th, three times on the 11th, twice on the 31st October, once on the 9th October, five times on the 8th October, four times on the 7th October, etc., etc. This is a long-running edit war. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• Just to point out that following the previous edit war over his name, it was "Prince Harry (formally Prince Henry of Wales)" for nine months from 8 November 2016[41] until 10 August 2017[42] when it was changed to "Prince Harry, the younger son of the Prince of Wales". It has only been (on and off) "Prince Henry, the younger son of the Prince of Wales" since 4 September 2017.[43] Firebrace (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ok, my mistake. Swarm ♠ 19:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Prince Henry (Summoned by bot) Because that is his actual name. Harry can redirect to him, unless prince harry is going to be a dab. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

We can take two examples as a means of working out a name use policy for the kid. First, regardless as to what people want to call him, at all formal occasions he will be addressed by his birth name(s). Harry is not a birth name but it is the preferred name of his mother. But Diana called his father Wills not William but when his name is mentioned it is given as William not Wills. Until the day that the kid remains only a prince he should be addressed by his birth names because eventually he will be made a Duke or Earl of some such place in England and then he will be called Duke of ? or Earl of ?. Then we have the situation with great great great Uncle The Duke of Windsor was named first Edward but called by the family his last birth name David. He was addressed as the Duke of Windsor in retirement. WP is not an environment of the informal so calling him Harry in print just does not work. You cannot equate being royal with actors as that is a profession with all the accompanying changes of name. Not every royal has the draw that actors have and i do not see there being a great clamour to start addressing in print a royal by their nickname. I can see the use of Harry when it is part of a quote but otherwise it should be Henry. Maybe someone ought to figure out what is the WP username of The Queen, review how she is changing Harry's name in WP and then go with that? At least during her lifetime.2605:E000:9143:7000:F526:D083:32BA:ED6C (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Good reasoning, but with minor (in this context) error of detail. "...Diana called his father Wills not William..." should be his elder brother not father, as shown in the article's tree list. " the kid " may be a helpful hint to compare with the names of Henry McCarty "known by his nickname Billy the Kid, also known as William H. Bonney"? "i do not see there being a great clamour to start addressing in print a royal by their nickname" , but Wikipedia uses the nickname for his personal bio. article. " figure out what is the WP username of The Queen ": we may at least note that the Royal Family website[44] currently has at least four items using "Harry", including: "Prince Harry is appointed Captain General Royal Marines, 19 December 2017", "Prince Harry guest edits BBC Radio 4's Today programme, 27 December 2017". But that is the "family" website, which links to the Court Circular page, where "Henry" is used. So in this article let it remain as "Henry". Qexigator (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lord Nicholas Windsor

Why are Lord Nicholas Windosr's children in the line of succession when they were baptized in the Roman Catholic Church ? Shouldn't they have been excluded by Law ?161.24.19.112 (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

One of the annotations (note 3) says that citations differ as to their placement and inclusion. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Prince John (1905-1919) and Prince William (1941-1972)

Should Prince John & Prince William be included in the succession plate? Though neither had any children, they were never the less in the line of succession during their lifetime. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. They should. If someone died without issue, this does not and should not be a reason enough to exclude them from the succession plate. Danishjaveed (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Neither of those princes is in the current line of succession. Qexigator (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: The Earl of St. Andrews' two elder children are listed & yet they're not in the succession. GoodDay (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

We are presenting the current line of succession, limited to the current members of the royal family and their descendants. Dead people are only there if they are relevant to the current line. I see no reason to include Prince John while excluding Princess Mary. Surtsicna (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

King Edward VIII is not relevant to the current line of succession as he has no descendants. Nonetheless, he is listed in the Wikipedia article. Using your argument, it would have made more sense to list Mary, Princess Royal, and her descendants (who are all in the line of succession), rather than listing King Edward VIII. Conversely, if the rule is to list children of George V who did not have issue, than Prince John should be listed as well. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2018

Prince William and Catherine have just given birth to an unnamed baby boy, who is 5th in line to the throne, replacing Prince Henry as 5th in line. Rocklobster15 (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Changes reverted for no reason

Hi All

New to Wikipedia editing, so not sure how or why, but someone has reverted my changes, and instructed me to bring my concerns to a talk page (very difficult to reply to them, so instead I'm writing here).

I unfortunately do not have any concerns. I edited the page to make the information it provides better understandable within its greater context, and to reduce false impressions given that could be inferred from the way the information is presented. The changes were very minor, but reverted. Does anyone know why some user is able to revert the changes without any sort of oversight. I am not looking forward to re-making the changes, that is for sure.

Thanks all, glad to be editing for the first time :)

Tarquintwinrox (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Tarquintwinrox, the probable reasons (not by me) for you being reverted are 1) This article is solely about British Succession, therefore writing about Commonwealth succession is what we would call 'off-topic'. It is a related, but not the same subject, which is normally covered by linking as a 'See also', towards the bottom of the page. … … 2) although I am not an expert on the legal position of Commonwealth realms, my understanding is that they each have their own protocols for choosing their 'monarchial head of state'. Yes de facto that probably means that they are going to choose as the UK does - to keep the current arrangement, but clearly the UK has no power to decide who a sovereign nation chooses as its head of state.

DON'T remake your changes. WP:BRD requires you to make your case here on the talkpage if you have been reverted and the onus is on you to persuade other editors of the need/rightness of your changes.

This is just an explanatory note, I don't ordinarily edit this page and I am not one of the editors you need to persuade. Pincrete (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there an example in history of the "British" heir apparent to the throne NOT succeeding to the "Commonwealth" monarchy as well? And who precisely is "choosing" the "British" successor to be the "British" monarch? Since when is it an "election" or "selection" process rather than a supposedly "constitutional" process that uses "birthright" and "primogeniture" to "choose" the successor to the "British" monarchy?

If you're "not one of the editors" whom need to be "persuaded" of something, can you provide a list of "editors" who DO need to be "persuaded"?

This article is primarily about the succession to the British throne. If you want to create '15' other articles (example: Succession to the Canadian throne etc etc.) then go do so. However, it's likely that those such articles will end up be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

None of the Commonwealth Realms, except Australia and New Zealand, have succession laws. Whoever is sovereign of the UK is ex officio their sovereign as well. Australia and New Zealand have parallel succession laws, i.e., they are exactly the same as the UK laws. TFD (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-Protect the article.

We should have this article semi-protected for a month, to stop the IPs from changing the Henry intro to Harry. At least until the RFC is completed. GoodDay (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I have put in a request, but there is a backlog. TFD (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Perth Agreement

Following the Perth Agreement, shouldn't Prince Edward's children be the other way around, eldest first? Myopic Bookworm (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Edward's children were born before October 28, 2011. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Henry or Harry, again.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Are we going to go through this Henry/Harry thing AGAIN? It was agreed to show Henry. Leave it that way, or begin a new Rfc. Don't use the 'Duke of Sussex' addition, as a way to get Harry back in. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The name of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex is constantly changed at this article to Henry, and then back to Harry, and then back to Henry, and so on. Should he be called 'Harry', 'Henry', or neither (i.e., use 'Duke of Sussex' throughout)? Celia Homeford (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex or The Duke of Sussex (without a name). He is known as 'Harry' or 'the Duke of Sussex'. Hardly anyone calls him Henry, and there's no need to confuse readers by using a more obscure term. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex – 'Henry' is still his birth name & he's going to be known as the Duke of Sussex, from this time forward. GoodDay (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex We should be consistent with how he is referred to in mainstream sources. We need to be clear which Duke of Sussex. TFD (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The wording you endorse does not make it any clearer. In fact, it makes it less clearer, because there are more people who know who "the Duke of Sussex" is than those who know who "Prince Henry" is. And mainstream sources consistently refer to Harry by the name he himself uses: Harry.[45][46] Surtsicna (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Prince Harry or Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex (which is recognisable now that "Prince Henry" is qualified with his commonly used title); "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" is a Wikipedia neologism that has been copied by so-called reliable sources. Firebrace (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• The Duke of Sussex - That is now his name, and I doubt anyone will confuse him with anyone who died before 1844.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 06:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex or Duke of Sussex or Prince Harry, (in that order of preference), per logic of Firebrace, don't mix the formal and informal (which is what 'Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex' does). In the context of this article, which is referring to his position in the line of succession, it makes more sense to use one of his 'official' designations, rather than his generally used 'nickname'. The informal isn't quite as jarring as calling his mother "Lady Di, Princess of Wales" would be - but it is heading in the same direction. Pincrete (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Presumably the man has a "legal name" and any "encyclopedia" should stick to "official" names in biographies. What name appears on his birth certificate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The family (dynastic) name is 'Windsor', and I guess that is on his birth certificate - though never used except in contexts which are consciously 'levelling' in character (school, army etc). Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex is his legal name! Monarchy is not necessarily a wholly rational institution! Pincrete (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex. This is an official setting, not a tabloid article. Darx9url (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree categorically with Darx9url, 'Henry' is his birth name, 'Harry' is his popular/press nickname - same as Elizabeth I being called 'Queen Bess' popularly. Also this is the formal line of succession and a list - adding one person's nickname seems silly/informal/needless. VeritasVox (talk) 05:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not his press/popular nickname. It's the name he prefers and uses publicly; he and his family have chosen it. 'Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex' is analogous to 'William J. Blythe III'. 'Prince Harry' is analogous to 'Bill Clinton'. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It is in some ways analogous with Clinton, but Americans have 'President Clinton' when a slightly higher 'formality index' is needed. Pincrete (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. He's only mentioned three times in the article. It is a simple matter to refer to him as the Duke of Sussex in the lead and the sidebar, and Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex (Prince Harry) in the list. His entry in the list actually read Prince Henry of Wales (Prince Harry) until a few days ago and there was no good reason to obliterate the parenthetical common name from the article. It should be restored. DrKay (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Prince Henry (Prince Harry), Duke of Sussex, is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

In the lead and the list his brothers are named as Prince William/ Andrew/ Edward, followed by their title (Duke of.../ Earl of...). If (Prince Harry) is added to Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex in one place why not the other as well? Qexigator (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

That would be another option, or to change the ones in the lead to "the Duke of Cambridge" etc. DrKay (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, for as long as it's not preceded by "His Royal Highness". People do not appear in the list under their official titles but under the titles of their Wikipedia articles. With all due respect to Darx9url, it is ridiculous to suggest that the name used by the subject, by the most reputable of sources (BBC, The Telegraph, The Guardian, etc), and by the Palace is a tabloid name. It shows ignorance of the whole issue. If (for some reason) we start referring to people by their official titles, Harry should be listed as "Prince Henry Charles Albert David, Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton, Baron Kilkeel", as given here by the Encyclopædia Britannica. "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex" is neither official nor recognizable. It is not used in any context by either the subject or the sources, and I have no clue on what basis people continue to claim that it is appropriate. Surtsicna (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex (Summoned by bot) ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex as per COMMONNAME - No different to Kate/Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. –Davey2010^Talk 00:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. My comment above didn't gain traction, so I'm going to heavily support the common name. The arguments for using Henry don't make sense because he's been called Harry since birth; "Henry" is not how he is referred to in the bulk of mainstream sources; neither of the suggestions is a wikipedia neologism; and "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex" is no more his "official" name than the alternative. DrKay (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment Given that the link to his own article now sufficiently explains this in the lead, that may be enough to alert a less than fully informed visitor and to inform one otherwise unaware that Harry and Henry are one and the same person, and always has been. Qexigator (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2018

In the "See Also" section, please remove the link to Patrilineal descent of Elizabeth II, as it is a redirect to Elizabeth II's page. 147.126.81.6 (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done per MOS:NOTSEEALSO. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Upper limit?

I heard there was a limit of 200 to how many people could claim to be 'in line to the throne'. (Presumably, if all those 200 people dropped dead at the same moment, we would have to settle for a republic.) Valetude (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I highly doubt it. If there was nobody left in the line of succession, the British Parliament (with consent of the other 15 Commonwealth realm parliaments) would chose a 'monarch. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no such limit. There are thousands of descendants of Sophia of Hanover in the line of succession. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

You heard wrong. And if there were no heirs there would be a regency, not a republic. TFD (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Accepting this bonkers scenario there is no mechanism in law for 'no heirs'. There is no Regency mechanism that could apply here outside of new legislation. As DM indicates above there are well over 1k heirs. 10:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garlicplanting (talk • contribs)

Before the article was culled several years ago, back when we were maintaining the full known list, there were roughly 2,500 people in line: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Line_of_succession_to_the_British_throne&oldid=428696922 Piratesswoop (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)