Talk:Alternative successions to the English and British Crown

New-ish book with good sources

Has anyone here read the book Last White Rose by Desmond Seward? It's a cracking good read, and contains information about the Yorkist line during the Tudor Era. Clearly this line is noteworthy. Perhaps some stuff from it could be included in this article? Arthur Figgis (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

clarify the lists

In the Tudor list, I can't tell whether the numbers mean generations, or position in the order of succession, or a mix of the two, or something else again. Is Elizabeth Brownlow a daughter of Margaret Brydges? If her number means anything, shouldn't Henry VIII and his issue be listed before Mary, and every elder sibling in their appropriate place even if they never would have inherited? Tree format would make this clearer.

Also, the phrase "nth line" could stand to be explained somewhere. —Tamfang (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The numbers 1. 2. etc show the direct bloodline/descent from the last "proper", "legitimate" de facto monarch through to the current claimant. From parent-child-child etc. This does NOT necessarily contain all the de jure monarchs, as the claim often passed through a sibling(if the de jure monarch had no children), or passed directly to a grandchild(if the child of the de jure monarch predeceased their parent). The information in the boxes shows the people who were the de jure monarchs in order with what should have been their titles.

The numbering does however pass to siblings, when a particular line reaches its end. Also, in the Jacobite claim, listing the de jure Henry IX, which some people may take to mean he was the de jure Charles III's son, unless of course they actually read the article, and the notes, which are of course, precisely why they are there. That was also the reason for the inclusion of the phrase "as such", which someone has deemed inappropriate, although it did clarify things somewhat. 137.158.152.209 (talk) 09:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

So if I understand you right, the numbered persons are anyone who would have inherited according to the theory under consideration plus their intervening ancestors if any. Okay. The text could say so explicitly, rather than mislabeling the entire list as "the succession" and relying on the reader to have found the note elsewhere that says what the italics mean. Removing the numbers, or numbering only the hypothetical successors (and perhaps indenting the non-inheriting parent), would improve clarity far more than the mysterious phrase "as such". —Tamfang (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Any claims of succession, etc need reliable sources making those claims. We can't point to any theories, laws, etc as references as that is WP:Original researchDougweller (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Are you saying that as such means 'according to a reliable source', or that changing or removing the numbers would be OR, or what? —Tamfang (talk) 07:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No he isn't from what I can gather. a) The boxes on the right are the lists of would-have-been or "de jure" Monarchs had that particular succession resulted at the time. b) The lists which follow (as such) are the direct bloodline from the last "Legitimate" Monarch to the present "de jure" Monarch. This does not necessarily include all the Monarchs, as many (such as the Jacobite Francis I) left no issue. Likewise not all the people in these lists would have been "de jure" Monarchs, as they may have predeceased their parent or elder sibling, who was the "De jure" Monarch at the time.

Using actual "de facto" Monarchs as an example, and starting with the "de facto" George I as an example .The box on the right would include George I, George II, George III, George IV, William IV, Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI, and Elizabeth II. These were the Monarchs.

However, the succession following (as such) would go... George I, George II, Frederick Prince of Wales, George III, Edward Duke of Kent, Victoria, Edward VII, George V, George VI, Elizabeth II. This is the direct bloodline from George I to Elizabeth II. Neither Prince Frederick nor Edward Duke of Kent were ever King, but it is their direct bloodline that leads from George I to Elizabeth II. Likewise, George IV, William IV, and Edward VIII WERE all Monarchs but are not in the direct bloodline from George I to Elizabeth II. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Article seems to be almost entirely original research

Most of the article is original research -- anything that starts "Her succession, under this theory, " is WP:OR. All of Descendants of Mary Tudor, Queen of France is OR (and has one source which I think can't be considered a reliable source, see WP:RS, None of the genealogies has a reliable source, all seem to have been constructed by editors of this article. Dougweller (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "under this theory" recognizes the existence of competing theories; how is that OR? Does the word theory bug you? Is there another wording that would smell better to you? —Tamfang (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean that it appears that a 'theory' has been used to compile that section, not a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Each basic premise is sourced (at least for the first two alternatives), but the presentation of how each premise would play out is entirely WP:OR. I'm also confused as to how the line in the second alternative jumps from Henry VII to (his daughter) Mary Tudor, missing out his son (Henry VIII), grandson (Edward IV) & grandaughter Mary Tudor. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

See, I'm not the only one unhappy with the list format. —Tamfang (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm saying that each of the lists is entirely WP:OR -- 'formatting' is the least of their worries. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven is completely unsourced. The first list can be sourced, [1] but it may be copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, 1) the Jacobite line is not OR, having been traced repeatedly by numerous reliable sources. That Franz Herzog von Bayern is the Jacobite heir can easily be sourced to reliable sources, as can the succession of all his predecessors. 2) the Clarence line is arguably not OR, having been the subject of a TV special - they interviewed Loudoun, so it's not entirely OR how that premise plays out. I don't think a family tree can be a copyright violation, and, at any rate, there are plenty of genealogical sources that can be used to trace the descent here. 3) The Tudor thing is probably OR, but I don't think it's because the genealogy itself is OR, so much as because it is full of questionable premises (that Catherine Grey's children should be considered illegitimate; that children from the union of a divorced person should not be considered legitimate) that cannot be substantiated. What is wrong with all of this is not, so much, OR, as notability - these lines can be substantiated through use of reliable genealogies and application of simple rules of primogeniture (which is not a novel synthesis), but they aren't really notable, especially the particular formulations found here. john k (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If these sources exist for these lists (and are reliable), then CITE THE LISTS TO THEM (easiest done by putting the citation after the colon that introduces the list). I would however question whether a "TV special", especially one that isn't fronted by a prominent historian, is reliable. Please read WP:BURDEN. This material has been challenged. It is now up to the supporters of this material to provide inline citations for them. Simply stating that references exist somewhere for them isn't sufficient. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, Addington's Royal House of Stuart ought to work for the Jacobite line. For other sources, if you go through thePeerage.com, starting with Clarence, you can trace the descent, and sources are provided for each generation - for example Burke's Peerage and Cokayne's Complete Peerage - down through the 10th Countess of Loudoun. After that, the most recent peerage editions of the peerage guides ought to work. The genealogies themselves can be figured out pretty easily. The real issue is why we are giving these particular genealogies. Worrying about sourcing the genealogies is a red herring, and sourcing them won't actually deal with any of the very real problems of this article. john k (talk) 08:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"trac[ing] the descent" through thePeerage.com would be WP:OR (for instance you would have to work out why the descent goes through Clarence's younger daughter Margeret, not his elder son Edward). The article should have a single source for each entire list (anything less is WP:SYNTH). "Worrying about sourcing the genealogies is a red herring..." READ WP:V! "Worrying about sourcing" is at the very core of Wikipedia. If you don't want to worry about it, then you're welcome to find some other encyclopedia to edit. Either find & include citations, or expect the material to be removed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Original synthesis only applies when you are using the synthesis to advance a novel position. Given that the position in question (that the present Earl of Loudoun is the heir-general of the Duke of Clarence) is not a novel one, but was, in fact, the subject of a Channel 4 TV special, among other things, combining multiple sources to put together the line of descent is not an original synthesis. I suppose that is a somewhat narrow construction of what is original synthesis, but I think a somewhat narrow construction is necessary or else the work of creating an encyclopedia becomes virtually impossible - a broad construction would pretty much forbid any synthesis whatever. As to why the descent goes through Clarence's elder daughter, Margaret, and not his younger son, Edward, Edward died unmarried at 25, and left no issue. One can certainly find plenty of sources that trace the Clarence descent from Clarence himself to the 3rd Earl of Huntingdon and explicitly link that to the succession in order to explain Huntingdon's status as a possible successor to Elizabeth I when she nearly died of smallpox. At any rate, the Channel 4 site Doug linked to above explicitly gives the lineage as an alternate royal succession; using reliable genealogical sources to fill it out is pretty clearly not original synthesis. Beyond that, it is a WP:POINT violation to remove material which could be sourced, but is not. And my point about sourcing wasn't that I don't want the lists removed. I think that, with the exception of the Jacobite one (are you still claiming that's OR?), they don't really belong here. Demanding sources is a red herring because the article needs a massive overhaul even if sources can be found. Pinning demands for change to this article on questions of OR just creates an opportunity to save what is a terrible article regardless of sourcing. If you read through the whole history of this talk page, you can see my criticisms of the article in some detail. john k (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Given that the position in question (that the present Earl of Loudoun is the heir-general of the Duke of Clarence) is not a novel one..." Then cite a WP:RS that takes "the position in question"! "As to why the descent goes through Clarence's elder daughter, Margaret, and not his younger son, Edward, Edward died unmarried at 25, and left no issue." Wrong! Margaret was the younger daughter by three years, Edward the elder by two. He may have died without issue, but survived his father by 11 years (so would presumably have inherited). In any case, such analysis is WP:OR. "Beyond that, it is a WP:POINT violation to remove material which could be sourced, but is not." You still haven't read WP:V yet have you? It clearly states that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." (Emphasis in the original.) "Demanding sources is a red herring because the article needs a massive overhaul even if sources can be found." Then stop defending the existing, unsourced material and write new, better, sourced material. Defending poorly written, unsourced material is the very epitome of WP:POINT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

1) It was the subject of a television documentary. That seems close enough to a reliable source. There are numerous reliable sources discussing the earlier portion of the line (up through the 3rd Earl of Huntingdon, at least), although I don't have any at hand (The ODNB article about Huntingdon talks about his claim to the throne, though). 2) Edward was born in 1475, and Margaret was born in 1473; at any rate, Edward would indeed have succeeded, but I think the list is the line of descent from Clarence to Loudoun, not the list of monarchs. That could perhaps be changed. 3) Disrupting wikipedia to make a point is disrupting wikipedia to make a point. If there's a statement you believe to be true, but that is not sourced, it is a POINT violation to remove it just because it's not sourced, unless it's a BLP issue. I think removing the Jacobite material as being unsourced would clearly be a POINT violation; a quick google search easily reveals numerous sources - Here's an article from a few years ago in the Daily Record, which mentions the Duke of Bavaria's claim; Here and Here is the 1911 Britannica article on the Jacobites, which traces their succession down to Queen Marie Thérèse of Bavaria, showing also her eldest son Ruprecht and his sons, the second of whom, Albert, was the father of the current claimant (it does skip over Charles Emmanuel IV and Francis V of Modena, but other sources could be found on them, too). Simply going into wikipedia with the attitude that you're going to remove any unsourced material is not helpful. 4) I am not defending the current material, so much as defending against an interpretation of OR and Verifiability that I find distasteful. 5) I have laid out what I think is wrong with the article; I am under no obligation to write new, better, sourced material. We're all working on wikipedia for no money, and I'm not in any position to be writing full, well-researched articles at the moment. It is unfair to demand such a thing of other volunteers you know nothing about. 6) As it stands, the article is terrible. john k (talk)

"If there's a statement you believe to be true, but that is not sourced, it is a POINT violation to remove it just because it's not sourced, unless it's a BLP issue." "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." Nothing about an exception if "you believe [it] to be true" -- and I have no particular reason to believe this steaming pile of apparent WP:OR to be true in any case. The alternatives are citations for existing material, deletion of existing material, or new, cited, material. That you find the explicit text of WP:V "distasteful" is your problem. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the Anne Stanley line, which I agree is indefensible. The Jacobite line is easily documentable - there are tons of press clippings talking about the present Duke of Bavaria being the Jacobite heir; there were tons of press clippings before 1996 saying the same thing about his father Albrecht; there's the Britannica article from 1911 that traces the line down to Albrecht's father Rupprecht. I've seen records of parliamentary debates in the nineteenth century in which the fact that the Duke of Modena was the Jacobite heir was mentioned. I've already pointed you to the Channel 4 material that makes the case for Loudoun's claim to the British throne, and to the fact that this is supported by reliable genealogical sources. I don't think there's any reasonable case that either of these lines is "OR," and I think synthesizing material that makes explicit, but general, claims about Jacobite (or "Yorkist") claimants with material that explicitly details the genealogy is appropriate, because no novel claim is being made. As for verifiability, there is tons and tons of material on wikipedia that is not cited yet. The proper thing to do, unless one has reason to believe the material is incorrect, is to add citation needed tags where appropriate, or to add a notice about the lack of sourcing at the top of the article, not to just remove information wholesale. john k (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

John K: you keep waffling on vaguely about "tons of press clippings", and the like, ad infinitum. I really don't care. Unless somebody (you, another editor, the Easter Bunny) is willing to either cite the existing material, or replace it with cited material, then this material will, eventually, be deleted. Before you demand that I do so myself: (i) I have no background in geneology (I only came here in response to a post on WP:FTN) & (ii) I've already got my hands full trying to plan out a major rewrite of History of Creationism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Waffling vaguely? I have given specific sources on the Jacobite line above. Here is an article from the Telegraph yesterday which refers to Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria as the former Jacobite claimant. Here are some people writing letters to a British periodical in 1854 to correct an error it had made, apparently in its obituary of Charles III of Parma, and note that the then present Duke of Modena was the Jacobite claimant. Here is the Illustrated American, tracing the Jacobite line, and mentioning a bit in Disraeli's Endymion where some of the characters discuss the Duke of Modena being the rightful king. john k (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, here's WP:V: How quickly [removal of uncited material] should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them. john k (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Odd, I don't remember ever making a deadline for citing/deleting/replacing the material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

From George Duke Of Clarence to Michael Abney-Hastings

The article apparently uses the "Britain's Real Monarch" programme/website and the "Regnal Chronologies" website as sources for this succession. However, both of those have a different actual succession, recognising everyone(excluding the bogus "Edward V") up to Richard III as Rightful Monarchs. The succession then begins with The Earl of Warwick as "Edward V" and follows, including female succession, up to the present de jure King Michael I. However, the wikipedia article begins with Henry IV usurping Richard II's crown, acknowledging the Legitimist "Edmund I" instead. While under a strictly Legitimist and Monarchist position, not recognising the Lancastrians would be correct, neither of the sources use this method, and only begin 86 years later with the assassination of Richard III, and his proper Legitimist successor Edward Earl of Warwick. Likewise, people such as Blessed Margaret Pole and Catherine Hastings ARE recognised as de jure Monarchs, unlike in the article. In addition, referring to people such as Edmund Mortimer and Richard Duke of York as "descendants" of The Duke of Clarence is not entirely accurate.

The problem is that the article follows a strict Legitimist position, but neither of the sources do. I realise that there are numerous factual errors on the "Regnal Chronologies" site. However still using the "Britain's real Monarch" show/website, as well as records of the time, it would appear that people DID recognise Margaret Pole as being a Rightful Queen Regnant. However, people also DID recognise Edmund Mortimer and Richard Duke of York as Rightful Kings too. Perhaps the problem is that this is conflating two separate "alternate successions", although this single (conflated) succession IS the strictly Legitimist one... 41.133.47.252 (talk) 10:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I would concur, largely. It should perhaps be noted that Edmund Mortimer and Richard, Duke of York, were descendants of a different Duke of Clarence, Lionel. john k (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You are aware that the "Regnal Chronologies" website is simply the self-published website of some random SCA guy? It is nowhere close to being a WP:RS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Regnal Chronologies is definitely not a reliable source. john k (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Anne Stanley or Edward Seymour

Having read the actual sources, it appears that when Elizabeth I lay on her deathbed, the only possible heir to the Last Will og Henry VIII considered was Edward Seymour. While, apparent logic dictates that Anne Stanley was the heir of the Will, let's not forget that Elizabeth herself was regarded as illegitimate, yet succeeded, thanks to the Third Succession Act and Will of Henry VIII. Besides any OR and something similar, is there a Reliable Source which states that indeed Lady Anne Stanley, rather than Edward Seymour would have been the heir of the Last Will of Henry VIII? 41.133.47.252 (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, had Elizabeth named Anne her successor, Seymour being descended from the eldest daughter of Mary Tudor would have contested it and emerged the victor. Catherine Grey's sons were both born to her after she had married William Seymour.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing for 'Continuation of the House of Stuart' section

The sole citation for this section, is to The Jacobite Heritage a WP:SELFPUBlished site, maintained by:

Noel S. McFerran received the degree Bachelor of Arts (in Classical Studies) from the University of British Columbia, Canada, in 1985 and the degree Master of Library Science from the same institution in 1988. He received the degree Master of Arts (in Theology) from Saint Charles Borromeo Seminary, Pennsylvania, in 1997.

For fifteen years he has worked as a professional librarian in public and academic libraries in Canada and the United States. Since 1998 he has been Head of Public Services in the John M. Kelly Library of the University of Saint Michael's College, one of the federated universities of the University of Toronto.

Apart from his interest in the present (Jacobite) Royal Family, he is most interested in the life of Queen Mary of Modena, the reign of King Henry IX and I, and the religious aspects of the Jacobite movement. He is a life member of the Royal Stuart Society. He is also Assistant to the Editor of English Reformation Sources, an online collection of primary documents about the history of the Reformation in England.

...in other words an amateur with no particular expertise in genealogy, history or historical laws of inheritance. I would suggest that this is not a WP:RS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There is an official Society which has http://www.royalstuartsociety.com/succession.html

or this(from a reliable source)... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1584184/Act-repeal-could-make-Franz-Herzog-von-Bayern-new-King-of-England-and-Scotland.html

That's just for starters. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

In addition, while the Jacobite Heritage, could in itself possibly be viewed as "amateur", it is full of sources that ARE reliable, and some pages such as http://www.jacobite.ca/essays/ruvigny.htm and http://www.jacobite.ca/documents/18610307a.htm (just two out of numerous) are taken verbatim from reliable sources. These clearly state the order of succession, not as McFerren's POV or OR, but merely as information from reliable Sources that he has gathered together in one place. I do not consider the Jacobite Heritage unreliable, as it is basically more a collection of documents and sources than anything else. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(i) The self-appointed 'official' society would hardly count as a scholarly source. (ii) The Telegraph article only verifies the 12th element on the list, not the 10 members on it before him (assuming Chuck I doesn't need a citation). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Melville Henry Massue probably counts as a reliable (if potentially outdated) source on genealogy. I would question however if Constantine Phipps, 1st Marquess of Normanby does. If you can rewrite & resource the section to the former, then you're welcome to do so. But on a quick reading it would not appear to "state the [full] order of succession". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are more than sufficient sources detailing the Jacobite claim up until 1807. Clearly a line runs from "Mary IV and III" to "Francis II". And http://www.jacobite.ca/documents/1701savoy.htm (with listed reliable source) begins the chain. I will like to leave things for Mr Mcferren himself to step in, citing published books etc, before any further decision is taken, but clearly there ARE reliable sources. I must also state that I get the feeling that you may hold some personal prejudice against either Jacobitism or Mr McFerren personally. I apologise if this is untrue, but one does get that feeling. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If these sources exist, and are reliable -- then cite the relevant portions of the section to them. I am sick and tired of people harping on here on talk that 'sources exist' over and over, but never introducing them into the article. What I am "prejudiced" against is (i) badly cited Wikipedia articles & (ii) pointless blather. "Jacobitism" died two centuries ago at Culloden, and McFerren is no more a reliable source than you or I. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(Oh, and I own 3 kilts, and can hear a pipe band practicing from my home some evenings -- is that Scots enough for ye, laddie? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC) )

And please read WP:AGF, just because someone is dubious about the sources is no reason to suggest they have a bias about the subject matter. If you (the IP, not Hrafn) think this is a reliable source, I believe that you know (I'm assuming from your other edits you've got more experience than your IP edit history suggests)Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there you go. Talk of "pointless blather". And the quote '"Jacobitism" died two centuries ago at Culloden'. Certainly the Society listed by me, was derided as "Self-appointed". And the fact that Mr McFerren's website exists at all, would seem to contradict your statement. While it is true that there has been no UPRISING since 1746(though not no sentiment), that is not proof of an end. Does Jeremy Potter's "Pretenders To The English Throne" (ISBN-0-389-20703-9) (p. 1986) meet with your approval?some quotes from the Final Chapter...."When King Victor of Savoy, the then heir to Stuart claims died in 1824 Lord Liverpool, the then prime minister, ordered public mourning on the grounds that many people in Britain regarded him as their rightful king."...."In 1886 the Order of the White Rose was revived." "White Rose Day was celebrated on the anniversary of James III's birth". "...they recognised Mary IV and III." "Today(ie 1986) the Stuart claim to the crowns of England and Scotland rests with Duke Albrecht of Bavaria (b. 1905) and his son Prince Franz (b. 1933)" "...wear kilts and white roses and lay wreaths at the foot of a statue of James VI and I in Munich on appropriate anniversaries." The book also mentions, as other have here REPEATEDLY, that if Jacobitism had indeed died at Culloden, or in 1807, whither then the "Sobieski Stuarts" or "Michael Lafosse"? 41.133.47.252 (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:SOAPBOX, have a WP:TROUT and get a clue. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks such as "get a clue". For what it is worth I am not a Jacobite. However to dismiss it as having died in 1746 and writing it in scare quotes, does not make it go away. Is it as prevalent as it was in the 1740's? Absolutely not. Does that mean it can be dismissed out of hand as "pointless blather"? No. Like I said, Mr McFerren(and others) who are more knowledgeable, and can provide far more sources from published books and articles should be allowed to cite THEIR reliable references before any definite conclusion is made. I have never got on a soapbox, and I am merely stating that there ARE reliable sources for this sentiment existing to this day, as well as reliable sources listing the various "Jacobite Monarchs". There is no need for talk such as "get a clue". 41.133.47.252 (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Line of descent of current heir versus line of succession

Currently, the article contains two lists for each theory of succession:

1. A line of descent of the current heir -- which generally appears would be citable to some family tree (not always reliable) cited in the article. Unfortunately the lists heavily truncate the trees (as well as introducing "Xth line of" terminology that is likely to confuse the reader), so that it gives very limited understanding of the succession.
2. A list of succession, that appears to be largely OR.

It generally takes quite a bit of thought to work out how these two lists relate to each other.

My thought is that:

1. We need a reliable source that explicitly details the succession (so that we aren't geting it as WP:Synthesis of the family trees).
2. We should integrate the two lists together, bolding the reigning monarchs, e.g.:

• Henry VII
  • Henry VIII, second son of Henry VII
    • Edward VI, son of Henry VIII
    • Mary, first daughter of Henry VIII
    • Elizabeth I, second daughter of Henry VIII
• Mary Tudor, second daughter of Henry VII
• Lady Eleanor Brandon, second daughter of Mary
• Lady Margaret Clifford, only daughter of Eleanor
• Ferdinando Stanley, 5th Earl of Derby, first son of Margaret
  • Anne, Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven, first daughter of Ferdinando

...

• Lady Frances Stanley, second daughter of Ferdinando

...

(Essentially indenting the lines that died out.)

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, only you and one other person have had difficulty understanding the way the article is presented. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Really? And what survey of the articles readers (as opposed to editors) do you base this profound determination upon? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

In the years-plus this article has existed, only two people have mentioned this problem. One had it explained to him/her and then seemed to disappear. Having checked your edits, it does now appear that you are indeed being critical for the sake of being critical. Your previous comments would seem to imply that your issue is not so much with the article itself, but rather with the fact that '"Jacobitism" died at Culloden', and the fact that it still exists(though admittedly not to the same degree" at all, and has supporters in the Royal Stuart Society or Noel McFerren alone is what irks you. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

1. And how many readers simply scratched their heads and went on to an article that was comprehensible? That two editors bothered to comment on it in talk probably means that it isn't particularly clear.
2. It was you who raised the subject of "Jacobitism". And if you think the movement had any genuine political life in it post-Culloden (as opposed to being merely a armchair geneologist's 'what if'), then you are welcome to cite WP:RSs to support your contention. I have no more reason to take Jacobitism seriously than I do the Flat Earth society -- but that doesn't mean I am personally prejudiced against either.
3. My problem is with this being a badly cited, badly written article.

How did I raise the subject of Jacobitism (without scare quotes)? I raised the subject of the Third Succession Act and Last Will of Henry VIII, which is something completely unrelated. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"...you may hold some personal prejudice against either Jacobitism...". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That was an observation(which i was warned for a personal attack), made after your talk about "pointless blather", and using Jacobitism in scare quotes. And after you seem to have tagged seemingly every second word in the article. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No. My comment about "pointless blather" was made in response to your questioning me what I am prejudiced against. Get a clue. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what order things were stated, please do not make comments such as "get a clue". In any case, since you appear to disagree with the article, what suggestions would you make ? 41.133.47.252 (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)