Talk:Line of succession to the British throne

Albert and Leopold Windsor

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

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

The list should normally reflect the official list but doesn't have to. I doubt the Queen herself edits the list at the official website so it is not arrogant to assume that Wikipedians who cite sources know better than editors of the official website. After all, the "all-knowing" official website claims that the United Kingdom came to exist in 1603![1] Assuming that they should be included (and I am not saying they shouldn't be), how can we explain why they are listed below their aunts and first cousins? That's simply illogical; children of a son have always ranked above children of a daughter. If a person's conversion/marriage does not remove his/her children from the list, does it not leave them where they would've been had the conversion/marriage not taken place? If it doesn't, where does it put them? Does it always put them behind their grandparent's other children and grandchildren? Surtsicna (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not a genealogical site

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WAYYYY too freakin big.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seriously though, I did some experiments, replacing

Emperor Fred

Prince Fred son of Emperor Fred

Princess Frederika daughter of Emperor Fred

with

Emperor Fred

• Prince Fred son
• Princess Frederika daughter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karoline Matilde Vlangali-Handjeri

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion

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

Example would be:

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

Bernhard

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

Edit request from Seanmraymond, 20 November 2010

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

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

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

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

Here's a source. [2] Died at Marbella 1 March 2004. Opera hat (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

DNA Test

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

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

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

Edit request from Llg89, 24 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

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

Another Suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request from 134.225.193.183, 30 November 2010

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

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

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

Edit request from 81.109.25.248, 20 December 2010

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

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

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

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

Succession boxes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To the anon: The deletions weren't unilateral; they were the result of a discussion here in which no one gave an opposing view. I don't think there's any objection to saying that people are in the line of succession. The problem is with assigning a specific number using a big box in dozens or hundreds of biographies. While the position in the succession is relatively stable and well known for the first couple of dozen people, it becomes less stable and more speculative the farther down the line one goes. Short of a fact-acting plague or the bombing of a royal event, it's highly unlikely that anyone who is far down the line would succeed to the throne, so the numbers do nothing more than indicate a vague degree of relation to the current monarch. The official royal website lists 38 people in the succession.[3] We could use that instead of cutting it off at 25. But we shouldn't go past 38.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

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

The problem here is that the "official" list (by which people mean this page [4]) is wrong. The sons of Nicholas Windsor (assuming that they are not excluded as papists) by law come before Helen Taylor and her children - but the people at the royal.gov.uk website have not corrected this in spite of numerous requests. Any book or website can include inaccuracies. This particular webpage has been inaccurate for several months. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

edit request

Can someone write an article on NN Phillips? Is hhe the first Royal without a vowel in her name?

thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.217.92 (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just replaced "NN Phillips (b 2010) daughter of Peter Phillips" by "Daughter of Peter Phillips (b 30 December 2010)" as it is not widely understood that in this context NN is an abbreviation for Non Nominatus/Nominata, Latin for 'Not Named'. Once the name is known it can be added and "30 December" removed. --Qwfp (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed formatting change

What would you all think if we changed the formatting to look like this sample in my sandbox? It would probably decrease the page size decreases the page size to 75% by removing up to half of each line describing the relations. I think it is more visually appealing rather than just a flat list. It would also remove the need for the long "Descendants in the line of Sophia of Hanover → George I → George II → Frederick, Prince of Wales → George III → Prince Edward → Victoria → ", etc. headings beginning each section. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC) edited 04:11, 2 January 2001 (UTC)

Looks good. Opera hat (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Significantly better. After 7 days have passed since you posted this, I think you should paste your version in. That gives users enough time to voice any displeasures! —Half Price 19:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that the sandbox format is useful and addresses several concerns of some editors. I think that it should only be used if it can include all the people listed in the current version (when I looked today it was only up to 467. As someone who has done significant work on this page in the past, I know what a huge amount of work that is!! Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of effort was put into it, but we shouldn't let that cloud our judgement, this page is way too long and an excessive listing of stats. —Half Price 09:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Original research

Let me start by saying that I know a lot of work has gone into this article, and that this issue of original research has been brought up many times before. But I think there is a good reason it keeps being brought up - to a casual Wikipedia editor, pretty much this entire article appears to be original research. For example, can anyone cite a reliable, published source which states that the King of Sweden is, as of today (or any date, for that matter), the 203rd person in the line of succession? (Remember, we need a source that specifically states he is the 203rd.. not 202nd, and not 204th) If they can, then there should be an inline citation next to his name. I'm a little tempted to add a {{citation needed}} tag there. Mlm42 (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That the King of Sweden is in line after Alexis Broschek (and a bunch of papists) and before Prince Carl Philip is well established; Reitwiesner lists them. The only difference here is the addition of current numbers. It would be possible to remove the current numbers before each person's name, but this "solution" has been rejected in the past. In fact, however, there is no problem to solve. Wikipedia:No original research#Routine calculations specifically addresses this type of situation: "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources." That is exactly what is being done here: numbers are being added, and editors agree that the arithmetic reflects the sources. It is not necessary that the actual numbers be in the sources. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

But wait, you haven't provided a reference - you only said it "is well established".. By whom? (I'll point out I randomly chose the Kind of Sweden, but I'll continue for the sake of argument) According to Reitwiesner, The King of Sweden isn't even next after Alexis Broschek. Okay, let's list things we need to check to ensure the King of Sweden is in fact next in line after Alexis Broschek (hopefully I haven't made a mistake):

1. Every descendant of Alvaro D Galliera is ineligible to be included.
2. Ingeborg v Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg hasn't had any more children.
3. Alexis Broschek hasn't had any children.
4. Alexis Broschek is still alive.

Do we have references for these claims? (Is the first one even true?) Even if we don't insist on it being up to date every day, do we have any references that are more current that Reitwiesner? And this is only for the tiny fact that he's next after Broschek. To verify he's actually 203 would include verifying things like Baroness Irina von Plotho (b 1978) hasn't had any children.. maybe she has. This Wikipedia article claims she hasn't. Or what about her brother, Baron Christoph von Plotho (b 1976).. has he had children in the past ten years? maybe he has.. but this article claims he hasn't.

I'm just not satisfied with you claiming it's "well-established" that the King of Sweden is next after Alexis Broschek; and the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability isn't satisfied either. We need reliable sources for this claim. Mlm42 (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to the numbers concern raised by Mlm42. Now he wishes to raise other matters.

To be reliable, a source does not have to be from yesterday. When we say in an article that the President of Xland is Pat Soandso based on a particular source, we assume that something hasn't happened to change that fact (death, coup, election). When we say that an actor has two children, we assume that neither have died, and no more have been born. So it is not necessary to show that Ingeborg has no more children, that Alexis has no children, and that Alexis is still alive. We rely on the best sources we have which provide the most up-to-date information. We don't engage in original research about these matters.

Wikieditors who come to this page without a specific background in this topic should know that there are a number of editors who have a very deep knowledge of this topic. We participate in online groups which track these changes all the time. An example is Nobiliana (formerly Royaute) [5]; whenever there is a birth, marriage, or death, a notice is sent with the published source (and you wouldn't believe how picky the editors are about citing sources).

The descendants of Victoria are very well established. Marlene Eilers' book was published in 1998 with a supplement in 2004; I wouldn't be surprised if another supplement were published in the next year or two. Marlene sometimes says publicly that there are now x number of living descendants - at which point other people scramble to figure out what has changed.

The descendants of George I are slightly less well established - largely because of their greater number. Dan Willis' 2002 volume (with online updates) is the major source, but his other more recent works (e.g. on Romanov descendants in 2009) provide additions. The death of William Addams Reitwiesner in November is a HUGE loss to the field.

Neither I nor anybody else would claim that this article is perfectly accurate. But as regards reliability it holds its own with the best Wikipedia articles. Noel S McFerran (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

As has been pointed out before, none of these 'authorities' take the slightest account of the Royal Marriages Act and the deletions that should flow from it, and nor does this worthless table in Wikipedia! As for the catholics the Wikipedia editors seem to believe that the Crown can go into a sort of limbo whilst some child baptised a catholic makes up his/her mind whether he wants to be head of the Church of England or not! For goodness sake let common sense prevail and delete the major part of it.AnthonyCamp (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

Please provide a reliable source for your contention that the Royal Marriages Act would affect the content of this list and "the deletions that should flow from it". You may have a personal theory about how things should be, but unless it has been published in a reliable source, it has no place in a Wikipedia article. This article relies on reliable sources such as Eilers, Reitwiesner, Willis (to name a few). Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Noel, remember that the editors who wish to include content have the WP:BURDEN of providing sources, not those challenging the content. And you have not sufficiently responded to my initial concern about whether the King of Sweden is number 203. You claim that this follows from the fact that the King of Sweden is next after Alexis Broschek. But you still have to provide a reliable source he is, in fact, next after Alexis Broschek, and you haven't done that. Not even Reitwiesner backs up this claim; even if it did, that claim is only current as of 2001. I await your source. Mlm42 (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy on verifiability exists in order to improve articles. It's not there to encourage editors who merely wish to menace other editors with false claims. If any editor truly believes that the Duke of Galliera and his relatives have not (and have never been) papists and are therefore in line, then I suppose that that editor has a responsibility to edit the article accordingly. I think that Eilers gives baptismal information for some of these individuals, but probably not for all of them. Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of "menacing". I just want to uphold the policies of Wikipedia; they are there for a reason. You should want the same. You still haven't provided a source.. Mlm42 (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I do want this article improved; that's why I'm spending time here. I think it would be an improvement if the original research that is apparently in the article were removed. Mlm42 (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The outline tables (without sources) in the authorities cited by Noel McFerran are by no means infallible. The 2nd Duke of Cambridge died without legitimate issue in 1904 when the Dukedom and other English titles became extinct ["Complete Peerage" vol. ii (1912) page 499] and yet Reitwiesner incorrectly includes his illegitimate son Sir Augustus FitzGeorge (1847-1933) in his tables of those in line to the throne in 1861 and 1881. Daniel Willis (page 75, note 40) says clearly that the marriages of the Duke of Sussex and the 2nd Duke of Cambridge "did not meet the requirements of the Royal Marriages Act and were therefore not considered legal and the children were considered illegitimate". Willis doe not address the legality of later marriages that also contravened the Act even though its provisions were expressly confirmed by the House of Lords in 1844 when the judges ruled that the descendants of George II could not contract a legal marriage (in the British dominions or elsewhere) without the consent of the Crown. The effects of the Act (which can be consulted on the UK Statute Law Database and is discussed in Wikipedia in the article "Royal Marriages Act 1772") are not mentioned by Eilers. The 1844 ruling has not been challenged and consequently successive Monarchs, Law Lords, Privy Councillors and about a hundred members of the Royal Family have dealt with applications for consent. Their only purpose in so doing is to ensure the legality of the marriages and the legitimacy of subsequent offspring. Noel McFerran would seem to be suggesting that all these people are mistaken in their view of the law; that is his opinion but it does not reflect the reality of practice over two hundred years. Until the law is changed the offspring of marriages solemnized in contravention of the Act (whether through ignorance or otherwise) are unfortunately as illegitimate now as they were in 1844 and they should be removed from this table as should all the children who are known to have been baptised Roman Catholic. Rather than draw attention to these problems, however, relating as they do to living persons, the table should in my view end with the descendants of the present Monarch. The listing of subsequent names has no value whatever. AnthonyCamp (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC).

Mr Camp is welcome to his own theories about the application of the Royal Marriages Act 1772 but unless someone publishes those theories in a reliable source then they have no place in a Wikipedia article. There are reliable sources which list those in line of succession (and more than merely "the descendants of the present Monarch"). There are no such reliable sources which make the allegations which Mr Camp makes.

Since the passage of the RMA over two centuries ago, there has only ever been one single legal judgment whereby a union has been declared invalid under the act (the 1794 judgment against Augustus and Augusta). There are three or four unions which are commonly held to have been invalid under the act (by "commonly held" I mean that that is the position generally taken in published scholarship on the matter). There is not one single union in the last 150 years which has been seriously questioned in any scholarly reliable source (although in online royalty discussion groups someone might muse occasionally about a possible situation).

The Line of succession article should be based on the various reliable published sources. None of these make the contentions made by Mr Camp. Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not sure I entirely understand the disagreement here; AnthonyCamp, can you point to the first entry (in the line) which you dispute? Then maybe we can discuss it further.

It seems that much of this list is using WP:SYNTH; for example "Source A says somebody was born on some date", "Source B says that child's parents were married on some date, and it was approved by the Privy Council", and then we conclude the new baby is in the line of succession, even though nobody actually says this. Why doesn't WP:SYNTH apply here, then? Because it also says ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." Okay, in this case, AnthonyCamp is pointing to a reliable source (Willis) which has published an argument (from above, ".. and were therefore not considered legal and the children were considered illegitimate"), that we should be able to use.. so I don't understand what Noel is disagreeing with. Are there other sources that disagree with this argument?

Noel, I entirely agree that this article should be based on reliable published sources. The problem appears to be the amount of original research involved in keeping the list up to date. The fact that 2010 births are included, implies the list is up to date as of 2010.. yet there seem to be no sources ensuring it is, in fact, up to date, other than the first 40 or so listed on the Monarchy's official website. AnthonyCamp, if you'd like to reduce the list to only a small size, the best way I see of doing this is proving that after a certain point the list becomes original research. I'm trying to determine exactly what point that is. Mlm42 (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry that I put my comments in this section as I am mainly concerned that the list is itself basically unreliable. Mr McFerran seems to think that the 1772 Act is obsolete but we have a situation in which every monarch since Queen Victoria and successive Law Officers of the Crown for two hundred years have followed the procedures required by the Act, the purpose of which is to approve marriages and thus legitimise their offspring. The present Queen has been through them about fifty times. As I have said the reality of the situation speaks for itself and the children of marriages that have not been so approved should be deleted. The Act is not obsolete and but for its terms the late Colonel Sir Augustus FitzGeorge who died in 1933 would have been the third Duke of Cambridge. That he, a serious student of family matters, took no steps to put forward a claim to the title clearly demonstrates the Act's effects. No more recent example is available because those most closely involved are perfectly aware of the Act's serious consequences. AnthonyCamp (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

Mlm42, in your 2nd post in this topic you gave a list of "things we need to check to ensure the King of Sweden is in fact next in line after Alexis Broschek":

"1.Every descendant of Alvaro D Galliera is ineligible to be included.

2.Ingeborg v Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg hasn't had any more children.

3.Alexis Broschek hasn't had any children.

4.Alexis Broschek is still alive."

Specifically addressing points 2, 3, and 4, how would you propose we document that? How would you prove that a person didn't die and didn't have another child? Is there a source somewhere that gives a list of all the people who didn't die or have children born this month? Absent any information that something has happened, we should (usually) assume that it has not happened. All we can do is use the best available resources to update this or any other article when any new information comes to light. Again, this is a response specifically to those points you raised. LarryJeff (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. And what about point 1? Mlm42 (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I had nothing to say about point 1. That's why I pointed out that I was specificially addressing points 2, 3, and 4.LarryJeff (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Noel and LarryJeff as to the irrelevancy of Mlm42's points 2-4 - if we have reliable sources that have Alexis Broschek as alive and childless, we should assume they are correct unless a more recent reliable source can be found which says otherwise. That is just standard procedure. The issues of Papists and the RMA are more complicated.

As far as Papists go, the Palace itself has made things more confusing by, for example, including in the line of succession on its website Lord Nicholas Windsor's young sons, who one can only assume have been baptized in the Catholic Church. Moreover, while there are plenty of reliable sources for births and deaths, checking out whether some of the very obscure individuals in some parts of this list are Papists or married to Papists can be very difficult to verify. While it is unfair, I think, to demand that editors prove someone did not die, or did not have children, I don't think the same thing applies to demanding proof that someone is Catholic (or married to a Catholic) - that is something that can actually be verified, and in the absence of evidence I'm not sure we should be excluding people on the supposition, for example, that all Spanish people are Catholics. Probably all of the Galliera relations are Catholic. But unless we have reliable sources about specific individuals, I don't see how it's not OR to exclude them. Of course, if reliable sources can be found, that is a different matter. An alternative to this, which would require us to include a large number of individuals whom we have strong reason to believe are Catholic, would be to assume that any descendants of a marriage by someone in the line of succession to a Catholic are themselves Catholic unless we have information to the contrary. This is more likely to give us an accurate list, but seems more liable to charges of OR.

On the issue of the RMA, I agree with Noel that Anthony Camp's ruminations on the subject are much closer to OR than anything anybody else is doing. Anthony is right that Reitwiesner has an idiosyncratic interpretation of the RMA. However, it seems pretty clearly OR to suggest that particular marriages were invalid under the RMA unless we have reliable sources which say as much.

Finally, I think the concern about exact numbers is misplaced. Are the exact numbers exactly accurate? Perhaps not, but I don't see why anybody would expect them to be. So long as they're as accurate as we can make them on the basis of reliable sources, and that's all that matters. So, basically, I think the only real issue here is the popery one. john k (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, I agree with pretty much everything you said, john k. I would also like to ensure the numbers are "as accurate as possible". But the crucial problem is that reliable sources appear to use different methods of producing a list - in particular, there seem to be different rules regarding which Catholics to include in the list (this has been discussed a little in this section below). Of course a Catholic couldn't take the throne, but who's to say they won't convert? This seems to be the problem causing differences in the reliable sources, and hence it becomes our problem. The NPOV policy means we have to present all significant points of view without bias on this matter, and to choose a numbering would be to endorse one method over another - violating NPOV. Mlm42 (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Unlike members of any other non-Anglican religion, anyone who is ever Catholic, or who marries a Catholic, is forever excluded from the succession, even if they return to protestantism or divorce or outlive their Catholic spouse. john k (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I see; then I guess to problem is caused by determining the precise moment when a person first becomes Catholic. The Official website implies it is after baptism. Other sources exclude Catholic children from birth. Mlm42 (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd think baptism would be necessary by any reasonable standard. The official website seems to not count baptism as a Catholic as sufficient, as, per wikipedia's article on Lord Nicholas Windsor, at least, both of his sons have been baptized in the Catholic Church. Apparently the view is that one must take communion in the Catholic Church to be a Papist? But this is not, I think, how the standard has normally been applied in the past, or how it is applied to Catholics more distant from the present royal family (I don't think any reliable source has ever said that the Prince of Asturias's daughters are in the line of succession, for instance.) john k (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

While it may be true that most reliable sources in the past have removed anyone from the list who has been baptized Catholic, we cannot ignore what the Monarchy's website does - to claim (or prove) they are wrong in this matter would probably be original research. Since we are adding new content to the list in accordance with WP:SYNTH, we are relying heavily on the rules which reliable sources have used to construct the lists, and not only on the content of the reliable sources' lists themselves. For this reason it is vital that the reliable sources are consistent in how they apply the rules - unfortunately it appears this is not the case, as the official website demonstrates. Mlm42 (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Emily Shard

Can someone provide me a reference for why Emily Shard is not in the line of succession? Thanks, Mlm42 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Do you dispute the fact that illegitimate children are not in line of succession?

2. Do you dispute the fact that Emily and her brother Benjamin were born illegitimate?

3. If you don't dispute facts 1 and 2, how would it improve the article to list Emily and Benjamin as if they were in line (when they clearly are not).

It is perfectly reasonable to ask for a citation when something is in dispute. But to do so when the facts are not is dispute is a waste of the time of other editors. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Debrett's 1980 (five years after Emily was born) lists Emily's father as no. 20 in line, followed at no. 21 by her uncle James. Neither Emily nor Benjamin are listed as in line of succession. Can you cite a reliable source which does list them as in line?

A comparable example is Emily's uncle Mark, who was also born illegitimate (in 1964). Burke's 1970 shows that he is not in line of succession to the title of Earl of Harewood (Burke's lists his brothers with a diamond meaning "living members in remainder to the title", while Mark is listed with a circle meaning "living members NOT in remainder to the title"). Debrett's 1980 lists Mark's brothers as nos. 20, 21, and 24 in the line of succession to the UKGBNI throne, followed by his uncle at no. 25.

If illegitimate children were in line of succession then Victoria would not have succeeded in 1837. Her uncle William had ten illegitimate children (all genealogically senior to Victoria except for their illegitimacy). Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't claim to understand the subtlties here, but I think we should be a bit careful with WP:SYNTH - especially since WP:BLP also applies. All I'm asking is, do we have a source that explicitly says Emily is excluded from the line of succession? I see that Reitwiesner also mentions an "illegitamacy issue" regarding the children of David Lascelles, but doesn't mention the name "Emily". According to the Emily Shard article, the Queen gave Royal Consent to her wedding in 2008; which was apparently unnecessary if Emily were, in fact, illegitimate. So why did it happen? It puts, at least, a small amount of doubt on the fact she is illegitimate. So I think it's fair to ask for sources, preferably "official" sources, that explicitly say she's not in the line of succession. If it's true, why isn't it mentioned on this page, for example? I'm disputing a fact; once appropriate sources are found, we can add inline references into the article. This will improve the article, which is why I'm asking. Mlm42 (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Debretts 1980 is a reliable source which (five years after Emily's birth) provides a line of succession which does not include Emily or her brother. That is clear evidence that she is not in line (if any were needed beyond the fact that she was born illegitimate). Mlm42 asked for a reference and I provided it. If he were really interested in this specific matter, then surely that would be an end of it.

To cite the fact that "the Queen gave Royal Consent to her wedding in 2008" as evidence that Emily was not illegitimate is original research; it has never been suggested by any writer before. In fact Mlm42 does not understand the difference between the Act of Settlement (which determines the line of succession) and the Royal Marriages Act. The Act of Settlement leaves the crown to "Sophia and the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants". But the Royal Marriages Act applies to any "descendant of the body" of Georg II. The words heirs and descendant are very different. Emily is certainly a descendant of the body of Georg II and is therefore subject to the RMA, but she can never be his heir under the Act of Settlement (even if some fifty-odd other people should die).

There are much better sources for royal genealogical information than www.thepeerage.com. Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

So, to answer my question, you appear to be implying that there no references was explicitly say "Emily is not in the line of succession"? Also, I think you should have another look at Wikipedia:No original research.. it doesn't count as "original research", in Wikipedia jargon, to ask questions on a talk page! On the contrary, challenging statements is encouraged on talk pages.

Would it be appropriate, then, to cite this "Debretts 1980" (by the way, I have no idea what you mean by that.. I'm not fluent in the literature here, so could you expand this reference please?), in Emily Shards article, justifying the claim she is not in the line of succession? If so, then that answers my initial question. When this source is added to these articles, it will be an improvement, and we can pat ourselves on the back, because we've improved the articles. That's how Wikipedia works. :) Mlm42 (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a 1980 published list of the first thirty people in line of succession. It includes Emily's father and uncle but does not list Emily and her brother Benjamin. If Emily and Benjamin were in line, then they would be listed there (unless somebody wishes to suggest that Debrett's is in error, which does happen on occasion, but then some evidence would be necessary).

It is not an improvement to add unnecessary references. There are ongoing complaints that this article is too long already. JamesyWamesy has initiated a format change (with no loss of information) which will reduce the size of the article somewhat. Emily is not in line of succession; the only reason she is listed here is to stop well-intentioned but less-knowledgeable editors from adding her. Adding unnecessary references just makes the article longer so that people will make more complaints about it. Or was that the reason for this all along? Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me quote from Wikipedia:Verifiability: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Notice the use of the word must here. Your argument against using inline citations is that it makes the article too long? Sorry, I'm not buying it. Mlm42 (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not against the use of citations. Citations are appropriate where material is "challenged or likely to be challenged". Does anybody claim that Benjamin and Emily are not illegitimate? Does anybody claim that even if Benjamin and Emily are illegitimate, they are still in line of succession? I asked these questions at the beginning of this discussion, and received no reply to them. Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, yes, I'm challenging it. I'm not claiming they are not illegitimate, I am simply challenging the statement that they are. So inline citation are required. Mlm42 (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Your answer is your answer, but it does not seem to me to be an answer to the question Noel has repeatedly posed. While it has been apparent all along that you challenge the article's content on this point, Noel's question goes to a subtler issue. I, for one, believe it deserves a sincere and specific response. FactStraight (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

To his questions, "Does anybody claim..", my response was that I don't claim it; and I'll also say I don't know of anyone who does, but I can't speak for the rest of the world? The point is that regarding inline citations, this is a moot point; I'm challenging the statement, and the burden of evidence is on the editor who wants to include information (Noel), not on the editor who wants to remove it (me). Mlm42 (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The length of the article is a very minor issue, by the way, in comparison to the original research concerns. Maybe this could be fixed by making some sections collapsible, for example. Mlm42 (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Collapsing the article does not make it any shorter at all - it merely makes it look shorter. Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you're right; but collapsing may make it easier to navigate, which is another concern. If it is actually too long, then the solution should be to split - the solution should not be to reduce its quality by prohibiting inline citations. Mlm42 (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Mlm42, the history of this article includes two fundamental objections, verifiability and length. Although distinct, some of those whose primary objection is verifiability have added or mixed in the argument about length, and vice versa (and much has been made of the fact that the two arguments are not mutually exclusive). Nonetheless, to some of us it has appeared that sincere adherents of one or the other argument, frustrated by not obtaining the changes they prefer, resort to the alternative argument, producing yet a third argument: "This article has multiple unsatisfactorily resolved problems, and so deserves to be truncated even if you are not persuaded by any one of the arguments." Noel argues in that context, carefully sorts out the arguments and addresses them separately, and has been very consistent in contending that the two arguments must each stand and be persuasive on their respective merits to justify truncation rather than being conflated to the third argument which, even if true, is not the principled basis for objection so much as a debate tactic. So it is not true on this talk page that length has been regarded as a "minor issue" (although you have been clear that it is not the fundamental issue for you) -- in fact I'd say the contrary is more historically accurate: length has been the most frequent and ardent objection. In that context the "in-line" citations it is argued would best resolve the verifiability objection would immediately expose the article to a strengthened objection on the grounds of excessive length -- that's not my conjecture, check the history of this content dispute. I support Noel's effort to distinguish the two fundamental concerns and to seek solutions that do not attempt to leave the article incomplete (i.e. deliberately omit persons generally acknwowledged as meeting the legal criteria of eligibility to inherit the UK crown under the Act of Settlement, and whom therefore a WP reader might reasonably expect to be enumerated here as in the "Line of succession to the British throne"). That said, Emily Shard's inclusion might deserve explanation, but WP's standards are affirmative and thus don't call for footnoting matter omitted (although an explanatory note might be usefully clarifying for those in her position). FactStraight (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree the two issues should be kept separate. It's understandable the issue of length is often discussed, because it is the most obvious thing about this article - it's massive, and you don't need to know anything about anything to see it's massive. But I'm comparing the relative importance of the guideline WP:SIZE and the policies WP:V / WP:OR. And relative to WP:V, and WP:OR, I still think WP:SIZE is a "minor issue".. even though it is often talked about here. But enough about length..

Regarding Emily Shard; indeed if the reliable sources omit her name, and we omit her name, then an explanitory note may be helpful, but not necessary. Nevertheless, we should still either remove the statements in her biography, or properly source them. Mlm42 (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Leo Lascelles

Do we have sources that claim Leo Lascelles (b. 2008) is illegitimate? I don't want to sound like a broken record here, but I'm still concerned about the synthesis of reliable sources which is occurring in this article. Since he was born in the last few years, it would seem the usual reliable sources don't cover the case of Leo Lascelles. Surely this Wikipedia article (together with his father's unreferenced biography) isn't the only source which states he is illegitimate? Mlm42 (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

His grandfather mentions him in a comment here and here that is father was unmarried in 2008, as well as a post from well-known royal historian Marlene Eilers. Both of Alexander's elder siblings were granted permission from the Queen via Privy Counsel, and naturally Alexander would've been expected to do the same, so the fact that he has not is a big clue to the fact that he's unmarried. Additionally, posts on Nobiliana (you must register to see, but it is a must for any royal buff) mentions that Alexander and Leo's mother, Laleh Yeganegy, were not married. Morhange (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links; blog posts aren't great, but are much better than nothing. Mlm42 (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Albert and Leopold Windsor (2)

It appears these children were born to "deeply catholic parents", and yet they are listed on the Monarchy's official website are being in the line of succession. Have they been baptized now? According to this list, they have already been excluded from the line of succession. Is britroyals.com not considered a reliable source? Because if it is a RS, then this difference should be reflected in the article.

And to clarify, does this mean that when a baby is born to Catholic parents (for example Carol Ferdinand Hohenzollern (b 2010)), they are (briefly) in the line of succession until they become baptized? Mlm42 (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I hadn't noticed the discussion above about this. Clearly something should be mentioned in the article to reflect the confusion. Mlm42 (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I hadn't realised we were "correcting" the Monarchy's website.. what reliable source are we using to refute their website? (other than pure logic?) Mlm42 (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The children's cousin Amelia is also still listed on the Monarchy's website even though her older brother and sister were removed from the succession for being confirmed as Roman Catholics. Amelia is also presumably being raised Catholic. Catholic children are apparently left in the succession until they make the choice to be confirmed as Catholics when they are teenagers. Albert and Leopold Windsor were baptized Catholic but are still toddlers and probably wouldn't be removed until they decided to be confirmed. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and it is one of the chief reasons that I think that the greater part of this silly list should be deleted. Do we really believe that if one of these children inherited the Crown that it would go into a sort of limbo whilst the child made up its mind whether it wanted to be Head of the Church of England? The whole idea is quite absurd.AnthonyCamp (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

This appears to be a grave problem indeed.. the biggest problem, if I have interpreted the situation correctly, is that the official website appears to use different rules to other reliable sources.. is that correct? Indeed, if the methods of two different reliable sources produce two different succession lists, then to choose a single one violates WP:NPOV. In particular, the lack of ability to choose a single sequence (based on reliable sources) means that we would not be allowed to number the entries after the first such ambiguity - because such a numbering would endorse a single choice, violating NPOV. This would mean we would have to remove the numbering, and point out every instance where there is ambiguity. Mlm42 (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not mean that every source and every point of view should be treated equally. In this case the royal.gov.uk website is presently just plain wrong. We all know that Savannah Phillips is in line even though she isn't listed after her father. We also know that sons and their descendants come before daughters and their descendants (which would place Albert and Leopold - as sons of Nicholas - before Nicholas' sister Helen and her children). Presumably someone will correct this at some point. Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

But the particular problem I am talking about is: "When do catholic children get removed from the line"? At birth? At baptism? At confirmation? The sources appear inconsistent. If so, then this is much more than a simple omission, or mistake. This is a true inconsistency. Mlm42 (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have used the Monarchy's official web site, which I think is probably the best gauge of how the monarchy/government interprets the subject. And Catholic should be capitalized. With a small "c" the word means something entirely different and is not referring to the Roman Catholic Church. I think the list could be easily pared down. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Lady Amelia seems a different case from Albert and Leopold. Amelia's father is not Catholic, and, so far as I know, none of Lord St Andrews's children were baptized in the Catholic faith. I don't know that we can say that they are "apparently being raised Catholic" - at least, I've not seen any reliable source saying that, you are just extrapolating that from the fact that both of the elder children have been confirmed in the Catholic Church. There are other possible explanations for this than that all three are being raised Catholic, and in the absence of any evidence that Amelia is Catholic, or that she was baptized in the Catholic Church, I don't see how she can be excluded. Albert and Leopold, on the other hand, have been baptized in the Catholic Church. That seems like a different question entirely, and I'm not sure there's any reason to think that they are in the line of succession other than the royal website's inclusion of them, which may, for all we know, be out of date. john k (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Both Senna Lewis (b. 2010) and Lyla Gilman (b. 2010) appear on the list above Albert and Leopold, so it's been updated since July 2010. And this reference shows Leopold (the younger of the two) was baptized (a month or two) before Senna and Lyla were born. Of course it's not 100% up to date, because Savannah Phillips, born about two weeks ago, isn't there. Mlm42 (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It is then perhaps time to recur to the important to understand point that "the royal website is not especially reliable, and is frequently mistaken." In the matter of Albert and Leopold Windsor, we know that it is mistaken, because it puzzlingly puts them behind Lady Helen Taylor and her children, even though, as sons of Lady Helen's brother, they would obviously be ahead of her (as seen in the reliable sources like Debrett's that put Lord Nicholas ahead of his sister before his conversion to Catholicism, or that the royal website itself puts Prince Michael's children ahead of Princess Alexandra, in an almost 100% analogous situation). john k (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Even a reliable source can have errors; this is particularly the case with online sources where information is often put up quickly. Wikipedia must be careful not to be swayed by an obvious error merely because it occurs in a reliable or even "official" source. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear to me this is an obvious error, actually; it seems like a fairly intentional inclusion (even if they are in the wrong place). The question remains: "When do catholic children get removed from the line"? Do all reliable sources, other than the official website, agree on an answer? Or can inconsistencies be found among other sources as well? Mlm42 (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I should point out that Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor was confirmed a Roman Catholic 2008 when she was about 16, and as reported in the Observer lost her place (25th at the time) in the line of succession. It's possible the Observer reported this based on the official website.. but if we aren't believing anything the official website says anymore, then how can we trust this? Maybe she wasn't in the line to begin with? Mlm42 (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I was not referring to the papistry issue, but rather to the fact that Albert and Leopold are listed after their aunt Helen and their children; this is an "obvious error". I don't believe that anybody has suggested that "we aren't believing anything the official website says". But we shouldn't treat "official" websites as if they were infallible. Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

To bring this back to the issue at hand, do we agree on the following statements:

• 1) Reliable sources are inconsistent with how they answer the question: "When do Catholic children get removed from the line of succession?"
• 2) It would violate WP:NPOV to choose a specific answer to this question for the purpose of numbering this list.

Clearly these statements have pretty important implications for the list. Mlm42 (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

In the past 300 years there has been a standard interpretation of the word "papist" as used in the Act of Settlement, 1701 - anyone baptised as a Catholic. The Act of Settlement itself defines who is "the next in Succession in the Protestant Line" after Anne - the Electress Sophia of Hanover, in spite of the fact that there were ahead of her in succession at the time at least a dozen children who had been born to papist parents, baptised as Catholics, but who had not yet received the sacrament of confirmation.

I know of no source which argues otherwise (e.g. that people only become papists at some point later than baptism). All we have is a single website which includes two names which would not normally be included. That same website fails to include Savannah Phillips and gets the order wrong with other people.

There is no reason to suggest that the "official" website is arguing in favour of a different definition for papist than has generally been used (it certainly does not make any assertions on the matter). It is just as likely that this is merely another error. It would be unwarranted to act upon that error. There is no reason not to maintain the standard interpretation. An erroneous inclusion on a single website is not indicative of any scholarly disagreement on this point. Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm.. But I think there is reason to suggest the official website is arguing in favour of a different definition - The fact that Albert and Leopold are on the list, even though they have been baptized is a pretty good reason. You appear to be suggesting, then, that we remove Albert and Leopold from the list entirely? It seems to me that to claim the Official website is wrong in this matter is original research. Of course they may be wrong, but we would probably need a reliable source to back this up - i.e. a source which says the official website is wrong for including Albert and Leopold.

The omission of Savannah Phillips is understandable, and the incorrect order of Albert and Leopold is also a pretty obvious mistake. But I think we have to draw the line on correcting their mistakes somewhere - and the existence of the names Albert and Leopold on the list is too important to discount as a mistake; if we are going to remove them from our list, we need a good source which addresses this specific problem. Does anyone have one? Mlm42 (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Duchess Marie of Württemberg and Ralph von Stedman

Two questions:
First, wondering why Duchess Marie of Württemberg (currently below #582) and her family are listed as skipped from the line. She married the Hereditary Duke of Württemberg, and according to the House of Württemberg page, the Württemberg royal family has been Protestant since 1797.
Second, I have added Ralph Barton genannt von Stedman (currently #537) to the list as I cannot find a death date for him anywhere. He not been listed before his daughter since she was added in March 2007 by Mcferran, until I added him (assuming the editor that skipped him knew he was dead) in May 2010 as an intermediate relation between his daughter and grandmother. Is there a reference saying he is dead?-JamesyWamesy (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

All of Wurttemberg's line of kings were Protestant. Yet in 1993 Princess Marie zu Wied married Friedrich, Hereditary Duke of Wurttemberg, heir de jure of the kings, who were deposed in 1918. Although the House of Wurttemberg re-converted to Protestantism by the beginning of the 19th century (when they were also elevated from dukes to kings) and remains prolific in the male line, the dynastic branches of the family ran out of Protestant males as they approached the 20th century. This was so long foreseen that Queen Victoria herself lamented in correspondence that Wurttemberg's royal crown seemed destined to fall to a Catholic branch despite the fact that a more senior Protestant branch, the Dukes of Teck, were thriving in England under her auspices. But the Tecks were ineligible to inherit Wurttemberg's throne because of a morganatic stain on their escutcheon: Had the throne not been abolished at the end of WWI it would have been mounted by the distantly related Catholic branch in 1921 when the last Protestant king, Wilhelm II, died. As it happens, Marie of Wied is his great-granddaughter and, ironically, Wurttemberg's future royal pretenders can only claim descent from any of its past kings through her. Nonetheless upon marrying Wurttemberg's rightful heir, Marie forfeited her British succession rights. Their children have also been raised as Catholics. FactStraight (talk) 08:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Another NPOV problem

The issue of Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern was raised several times in the article's history, but was not resolved. The problem is mentioned in a footnote, and stems from the controversy (and legal battle) around whether or not his father Carol Lambrino was legitimate. It appears that courts ruled that his is, in fact, legitimate. (I don't fully understand the situation surrounding King Michael of Romania, and the issues surrounding the Line of succession to the Romanian throne, but the subtlties seem irrelevant for this article.) At the moment Paul-Philippe is not included in the list. The solution to this problem should not be to (arbitrarily?) choose on way or the other, and continue numbering as if there is no problem. This is a problem, and should be acknowledged as such - and not simply with a footnote. The problem also includes Carol Lambrino's two other descendants, who are also not included.

If it is disputed whether or not Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern is in the line of succession (which is seems to be), then it would violate WP:NPOV to claim one way or another. Mlm42 (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Royal Marriages Act

I think I'm starting to understand AnthonyCamp's issue regarding the Royal Marriages Act. According to this House of Commons debate, which discusses a possible reform of the Royal Marriages Act, their interpretation (based on quotes from Vernon Bogdanor's book "The Monarchy and the Constitution", which I haven't read, but can see snippits via google books) appears to be similar to AnthonyCamp's interpretation - that there are many descendants of George II who have not notified, let alone got approval from, the Privy Council, and therefore have invalid marriages, and therefore have illegitimate children. This problem doesn't come up in practice because those closest to the throne, obviously, get permission from the Privy Council. Indeed, it would seem most descendants of George II don't even ask the Privy Council when they get married... yet we include them in our list. This certainly seems contrary to the Royal Marriages Act. Mlm42 (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Deaths & Catholicism

1. We can all agree that Catholics and dead people are not in the line of succession. 2. We need to pare this list down (as per a million comments on here).

Why don't we just cut the dead and Catholic people out of it? We would shorten it significantly. 87.194.214.89 (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)