User talk:Hfossa

German map

Hi, I fixed the map as you requested. Sorry for my tardiness. Renata (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mountbatten-Windsor

Hi Hfossa! With this edit, you said that HRH Prince Henry (aka, “Harry”) is not in direct line to the throne. I have to admit that I am a little in the dark in this regard. Would you mind explaining to me what constitutes “in direct line to the throne”? Thanks! — Spike Toronto 21:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reasonable question - from somebody I guess is a subject of Her Majesty!

Like you, I do think the term "in direct line" is not very well-defined, so I chose to rephrase the paragraph without using this phrase. My interpretation is that somebody is "in direct line" if they are they are the Heir Apparent or, recursively, their heir. In other words, this is somebody whose succession only depends on one or more ancestors dying before them. In the British monarchy, this means the line of the oldest son, allowing for the oldest daughter when a man in the direct line has no sons. In contrast, somebody is not "directly in line" if their route to succeeding as monarch requires the (arguably untimely) death of a sibling (or a sibling of their ancestor). For example, HRH The Prince Henry of Wales could only succeed if his brother dies before him.

An alternative interpretation is that "the direct line" are the individuals in the Line of Succession who are descendants of the incumbent (e.g. monarch). With this interpretation, the first person who could succeed Elizabeth II outside "the direct line" would be her nephew Viscount Linley (see her line of succession for more details). I find this interpretation unhelpful, since any living descendant then is in "the direct line", as long as they are legitimate (which is a rarely-applicable distinction, these days). Certainly, I did not intend to exclude Harry specifically or individually.

While my revised article does not depend on my interpretation (since I do not use it), I am guilty of assuming my own interpretation when I phrased my Edit Summary. Whatever interpretation is used, I think my edits clarify things, and I hope this goes some way to clarifying my thinking. Hfossa (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just done a quick bit of Google research, and I appear to be wrong in that the more common understanding of the phrase is the second, i.e. the "direct line" is any descendant (cf "heir of the body") (possibly restricted by other rules, e.g. men only). Either way, I think my article edits remain correct. Hfossa (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response Hfossa! Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. I would have thought that the only “direct” heirs to the throne would be the Waleses: HRH The Prince Charles, HRH Prince William, and HRH Prince Henry. I would then have thought that, failing one of the Walses ascending the throne at the end of Her Majesty’s reign, should one have to go back up the tree to another branch beginning with the boys’ uncles, HRH The Prince Andrew and HRH The Prince Edward, such heirs, from other branches of the tree, would not have been considered to have been in “direct” line. But, your comments subsequent to your Google search seem to suggest that we are both wrong!

It is interesting to note that the royal website does not make any distinction vis-à-vis “direct” (see here). Thanks again! — Spike Toronto 17:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mixing something up: I cannot think of a general definition of "direct heir" (of Elizabeth II) that leads to Harry being included, but Andrew excluded: both have elder brothers who would expect to inherit ahead of them (Andrew was in exactly the same position as Harry before Charles and Andrew had married/children). However, to wrap up this thread within the original subject, I conclude that their surname is Mountbatten-Windsor, but neither is expected to use a surname - ever. Hfossa (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]