Talk:Line of succession to the British throne

Honorifics

• Should we include honorifics such as HM, HRH, HSH, HG, etc.? Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I think it would be good to get rid of them. A) It would shorten the page. B) As DrKiernan notes, it fails to comply with MOS:HONORIFIC. C) Sometimes the proper honorific is hard to find as not many sources include them in their lists of successions/family trees. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I think they should all be removed, as unnecessary for the purposes of the page, but the ones I removed are not official anyway. They are titles of pretense. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• I have certainly thought about this in the past and am somewhat open to the suggestion myself. One concern I have however is that all the other orders of succession to current European thrones include honorifics (e.g. Spain, Belgium). Noel S McFerran (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Should the honorific "The Hon." or "The Honorable" be removed? Noel S McFerran (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Should the honorific "The" before "Lady Firstname Lastname" be removed? Noel S McFerran (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• I dont have a problem either way. The honorifics are of interest to some people but could be found from other wikipedia sourcesLewisdl (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• I tend to think that they should generally be included, as they are useful pieces of information - certainly this is the case for the ones in currently existing royal families, and I think also for the so-called "titles of pretense" when they are widely recognized by other royal families. I think removing the "The" in most cases is fine, but that "Hon." should be kept. john k (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment (2)

Should every entry in this article be supported by an inline citation to a reliable source, per V, NOR, and BLP? Mlm42 (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Responses

• Comment. WP:BLP is non-negotiable... if conforming to it makes the article too long, we can think about changes in the presentation that will shorten it... one suggestion would be to break the list up into several numerical sub-lists (1-500, 501-1000, etc.) Blueboar (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've been considering suggesting a split for the last couple of days because I noticed that the draft I did just for the descendants of Victoria is a rough 500 names, and the size of the page is about 75-80k, which is a reasonable size for an article. It has a strange and appealing sort of symmetry of starting with Elizabeth II and ending very nearly with Philip. There might also be a way of merging it with the content fork Graphical representation of succession to the British throne, which is otherwise a duplication of content here. The article could end with a sentence like "The line continues with the descendants of Queen Victoria's uncle Ernest Augustus I of Hanover (1771–1851) shown at Extended line of succession to the British throne" (or some other form of explanation/new article title); the remaining line from 500-or-so onwards could be moved to that article until we found a way to split it further. DrKiernan (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I don’t think it is a pressing matter for inline citations but maybe it would be an improvement. I don’t have the time right now to do the work myself however, but I see Noel McFerran has asked whether you are prepared to add ^W to the people listed by Willis, is this something you could do? - dwc lr (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, Willis is only a genealogical reference. It doesn't put them in the male-preference order, it includes Roman Catholics (and doesn't mention whether or not they are Roman Catholic), and it includes illegitimate children (and doesn't even mention whether or not they are illegitimate). The family tree itself it not contentious.. it's the claims of illegitimacy, in particular, (and the Roman Catholic issue) that are important with respect to the BLP policy; so Willis doesn't help here. Mlm42 (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Surely any citations to Willis should include page numbers? Opera hat (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, every entry should be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, secondary source (not a self-published one), per V, BLP, NOR, SPS, and BLPSPS. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• No, not immediately I think that our priorities should be:

1. finish adding the names (there are only a few hundred more)

2. complete the new parentage formatting (which will reduce size)

3. decide either way on DrKiernan's suggestions regarding honorifics, name and title, and ^XP vs. ^XC

4. look at better section headings

Inline citations for particular entries should continue to be added gradually with a more timely emphasis on individuals whose religion is not what might at first be thought; over time we'll get to a stage where there are inline citations for an increasing number of entries. Usually, however, nothing is being challenged (other than by people for whom this is a hobby). Some of the time spent by editors on talk page discussions could better be spent adding and correcting content in the actual article. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. And Reitwiesner is unsuitable, especially for claims of illegitimacy, per WP:BLPSPS. Mlm42 (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. Establishing that the people listed should be listed is more pressing than tweaking the format of how they are listed. Opera hat (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC's are not a vote; I recommend placing large notes so as not to burden the page with a zillion sources. Otherwise anything challenged should provide a source, but a face value I think its doubtful to cast the whole list as suspect somehow. 07:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• RFC Comment: Yes, all information should be sourced. It isn't such a huge burden to do so, since in order to put material here one has to first find it somewhere, the somewhere then being the source. Is it an urgent problem if #215 on the list lacks a source? No, s/he can be tagged with . --Dailycare (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. But let me qualify that. I am amazed at the complexity this page has developed since the last time I looked at it, maybe a year or two ago. The system devised for the first couple hundred people, with all the little Bs and Ds and Xs and Ws, distracting as it is, seems to me to be sufficient for source verification (and the editors who thought this complex system up are to be commended for mind-boggling attention to detail). If the same system can be expanded and extended to the other 2000 (!) folks on the list, that would be as good as line-by-line citations of the ordinary sort, IMO. But one way or the other, I think WP is duty-bound by established policies to show verifiable and reliable sources for every single person in this monumental list. Besides, it keeps honest people honest. There's actually a principality of Salm-Salm? Textorus (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this comment, there are many ways to skin a cat and as long as the information is verifiable, it doesn't strictly matter which format is used to represent it. For stylistic reasons it's preferable that a uniform way is used throughout the article, and optimally a way similar to other wiki articles. --Dailycare (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. To remain credible the sourcing has to be reliable. Jnast1 (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Comment Of particular interest are the entries which have been removed from the line, due to either being illegitimate, or being a Roman Catholic. Claims of illegitimacy of living people should be made with care, and currently the article's main source is this self-published website, which might be unsuitable, per WP:BLPSPS. Mlm42 (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The article's main source is not Reitwiesner - that is merely the article's main online source. Most people don't have ready access to the print sources which include all the names in Reitwiesner.

If Mlm42 wishes to add ^W to the thousands of people listed by Willis, then perhaps he should do the work. I have already added similar inline citations to hundreds of entries. Other editors, however, have expressed concern that this adds to the length of the article. Noel S McFerran (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says that "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." This page almost always provides the following information about living persons:

• name (and title) commonly used
• birth year
• parentage (i.e. listing the parent who is descended from Sophia)

None of those things are quotations, and only very occasionally could those three facts be controversial enough to be challenged. For at least 95% of the people listed, this information appears in one single print source, Willis; it is usually also available in other print sources. For over 90%, this information also appears in more accessible online sources.

One piece of information appears for a very small number on the list:

• being born to parents who were not married at the time of birth

In virtually every case where this fact is noted there is information in a reliable print source giving the date of birth and the date of marriage of the parents. It is not original research or synthesis to see that one date precedes the other (cf. WP:NOTOR).

There is another piece of information which appears for a large number on the list:

• being Catholic, or marrying a Catholic

In the case of the majority of names on the list, the religion of the family is noted in reliable print sources such as the GHdA; where an individual differs from his family this fact is noted (often even citing conversion dates).

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." It is hard to see that the information on this page could be cited as tabloid, sensationalist, titillating, or possibly harmful. Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding sources for religion of families as a whole - are there actually any citations to the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels in the article at the moment? Opera hat (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's recall this archived discussion about Emily Shard's claimed illegitimacy. There has been a "citation needed" tag next to her name for quite some time now.. do we have a reliable source which states she is illegitimate? Considering the BLP policy, I think illegitimacy is something worthy of an inline citation to a reliable source. Her biography also lacks a source for this information. Mlm42 (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

A Guardian article noting they are excluded.[1] - dwc lr (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That Guardian article is based off of this self-published website; I wonder if this is a valid way to avoid WP:BLPSPS.. in any case, I would prefer it if people were to respond to my RfC question. Mlm42 (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It's no longer self-published onced it's cited in the Guardian. The point isn't that self-published sources are always unreliable, just that we're not in a good position to judge whether they are reliable. The Guardian is a reliable source, full stop, and whether they gather their information from a self-published source is irrelevant. john k (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Mlm, holding an RfC about a contentious issue is a bit like herding cats. :) Everyone has an opinion, but at the end of the day some poor admin has to close it, so it's important to make sure the replies are clear. For example, you yourself haven't said whether you're yes or no, or support/oppose. And threaded replies are better moved to this section, so that the Responses section is clearer, with each person allowed one response. Just my two cents. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Is it fair to close this RfC, with the result of "Yes"? Mlm42 (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"male-preference cognatic primogeniture"

In the article, it states:

It is restricted to the legitimate Protestant heirs of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, and is order by male-preference cognatic primogeniture.

However, on the cognatic article page it seems to state that "male-preference primogeniture" and "cognatic primogeniture" are in fact one and the same thing:

"Male preference primogeniture" (also known as "mixed-female succession" and as "cognatic" primogeniture) allows a female to succeed if she has no living brothers and no deceased brothers who left surviving legitimate descendants.

This therefore makes the phrase "male-preference cognatic primogeniture" used in this article confusing as it is somewhat tautological. Should it not instead be "male-preference/cognatic primogeniture" or "male-preference (or cognatic) primogeniture"? Alexandrews (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This is incorrect, as I understand it. There is male-preference cognatic primogeniture, where males and females can succeed, but males precede females, as in the UK; but there is also absolute cognatic primogeniture, where males and females can succeed, but based strictly on birth order, as in Sweden today. john k (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The term I'm familiar with to describe the British and similar systems of inheritance is simply "male-preference primogeniture". What does the "cognatic" add? I noticed some years ago that as Continental monarchies began to abolish restrictions on female inheritance, their preferred term for this was "cognatic primogeniture", whereas the usual term in English was "absolute primogeniture", cognatic not having been commonly employed to describe succession rules. The use of "cognatic" then began to be included in any term which indicated a form of succession that allowed females to inherit. I think it's a clumsy mix and would prefer that "cognatic" not be used in English, since it's an over-literal translation for terms that have long-accepted English equivalents. FactStraight (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"Of" or "Von"

Most people in this list have their titles translated to English. I had changed the Barons of Holzhausen, but it has been changed back to von Holzhausen. I understand if it is a proper last name, but if it is a title refering to a location, shouldn't the preposition be translated to English as well? -JamesyWamesy (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

In the case of European titles below prince, there are very few contemporary English-language sources which translate von (or zu, or de). Google Books: "baron of holzhausen" (4) "baron von holzhausen" (56). Wikipedia should follow the general practice of other English-language works today. It may get murkier with mediatized counts especially with the ones who have a prince at the head of their house, e.g. the brother of the Prince of Quadt, is Count Bertram of Quadt (or Count Bertram von Quadt); but that's a pretty small number. Von/zu/de should be normative with titles below prince (with the occasional exception). Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Names like "Schaffgotsch gennant Semperfrei von und zu Kynast und Grieffenstein" should not be translated into English. Opera hat (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I, too, agree. Most continental noble titles were part of the name (Spain being a notable exception), and WP policy doesn't call for translating surnames unless an English version is obviously more common (e.g. "Orange" rather than "Oranien", "von Furstenberg" rather than "zu Furstenberg"). Most current English texts (aside from some genealogical and monarchist websites) don't translate the particule unless the family reigned at some point post-Napoleon (the exception being for families whose particule is indecipherable to the average English speaker, e.g. Chinese, Hindu -- even Hungarian and Bohemian nobility, by literary tradition, usually employ the French de rather than the English "of". The Scandinavian af and av are close enough to "of", I think, to be left untranslated. Burke's Guide to the Royal Family (1973), notes on page 185 "that for all reigning or formerly reigning families the word 'of' has been used (e.g. Prince of Schleswig-Holstein), but for other families the words 'von', 'zu', 'de', etc, have not been translated (e.g. Prince zu Hohenlohe-Langenburg). The only exceptions to this rule are the Princes of Battenberg and the Princes and Dukes of Teck, families which have become so closely allied to the British Royal Family that it would be wrong to give them a German style." That seems an appropriate authority to follow here. FactStraight (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Graphical representation

There is currently a delete discussion for Graphical representation of succession to the British throne. If that article were deleted, it is possible that the graphics from that article would be merged with this article (that's one of the suggestions). Editors of this article might therefore have an opinion. Noel S McFerran (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well now this article is gone. That means there is no graphical representation. In my view a distinct loss. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the consensus was to merge, so parts of previous versions of the article (which haven't been deleted) could be merged into this one, if someone wishes to add it. Mlm42 (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

But this article to too large to add anything that is not the actual list. For example, the surplus material towards the end of the article has been removed. This article should be a list, and an appropriate place for grpahics would have been ... an article stating here are the graphics. Alan Davidson (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If it is felt the graphical representation is needed, it could be included by creating a subpage, like Talk:Line of succession to the British throne/Graphical representation, and then using Wikipedia:Transcluding like this {{Talk:Line of succession to the British throne/Graphical representation}} which would mean the content at the subpage would appear in this article without increasing the latter's size. Opera hat (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the same thing couldn't be done with most (all?) of the list itself. Compare List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1832, where all the actual lists of MPs are in subpages. Opera hat (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added the graphical representation to this article. As long as Alan Davidson remains an active Wikipedia editor, presumably this graphic will be updated as appropriate. Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

My view was that nothing more should be added to this page. But the decision on the Graphics page was to merge, and if it is to be here I will maintain it. But, there were three other graphics take it up to position 217 (the descendants of Prince Alfred the second son of Queen Victoria). Should we add those? Alan Davidson (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that the graphical representation of the first ninety people in line has some usefulness and am grateful that Alan Davidson has created (and maintained) it. I don't think that the other graphics are necessary. But I do not feel strongly about this matter, if others have a contrary opinion. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 90.220.10.168, 3 April 2011

90.220.10.168 (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: no request. If you have a request please add it where indicated and re-activate the template. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 10:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from AWasielewski, 5 April 2011

could you link the name Wasielewski in the list to the wasielewski wikipedia page. It´s just about the brackets around wasielewski so that the link ist there. Thanks

AWasielewski (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I cannot find any page Wasielewski and there are three of 'em referenced in this article. You're going to have to give me more information. If you add the required info, change the "answered=yes" to "answered=no" in the template above to reactivate this request. Sorry! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 00:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Karoline Matilde Vlangali-Handjeri

Karoline Matilde Vlangali-Handjeri was born on 6 October 1900 at Noer, Germany and is currently 1119th on the list (and the oldest person). The Wikipedia site for Living Supercentenarians has insuffiecient evedence to list this person. I can find no evidence of a recent birthday (110 or otherwise). Does anyone know about this? Alan Davidson (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from WinsorHerald, 23 April 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} WinsorHerald (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

please add the following two codes between the succeeding codes below.

•  Lord David Alexander Earl Kitchener (b 1970)
•  Lord Mathius Alexander Earl Kitchener (b 1993)

Separating coding between these making the preceding the 576th 577th of the list for the British Line of Succession to be accurate.

•  Baroness Emily von Gemmingen-Hornberg (b 1998)
•  HSH Prince Metfried of Wied (b 1935)

the code should look like this after editing.

•  Baroness Emily von Gemmingen-Hornberg (b 1998)
•  Lord David Alexander Earl Kitchener (b 1970)
•  Lord Mathius Alexander Earl Kitchener (b 1993)
•  HSH Prince Metfried of Wied (b 1935)

These people are not in line. They should not be added. Noel S McFerran (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: You need a Reliable Source for what you want to add.

The illegitimate and their descendants

At present there are three types of names in italics:

1. those formerly in line, now excluded on account of marrying a Catholic
2. those formerly in line, now excluded because of being Catholic
3. those never in line because they only have an illegitimate descent from Sophia

The two first classes are included because their descendants - if not Catholic - are in line. But the third class is totally different. They have not been excluded - because they were never in line, and neither will their descendants. I suggest not displaying the names of the third class. This information is still important - because well-meaning editors may well add the names later. So I suggest that this information be retained using Hidden text. In the editing version this would show as <!-- Leo Lascelles (b 2008) not in line -->, but this text would not display in the regular page. Hidden text discusses the various appropriate uses of this, and it seems to me that this is one of those times. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• If this were done, it would be possible to list Catholics in italics (with no ^XP), leaving spouses of Catholics in italics with ^XM. This would really simplify things. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Some editors may ask, "How do we prove that X is illegitimate? What's the source?" We don't have to provide evidence of illegitimacy. We have to provide evidence of legitimacy (i.e. birth after the marriage of the parents). The onus probandi is on those who say X is in line. If there is no evidence that somebody is a legitimate descendant of Sophia, then they can't be listed as in line. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

An excellent idea - I agree. Alan Davidson (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Changes to intro

Today I have reverted a number of changes made to the intro by User:Happy-melon in order that other editors can discuss the appropriateness of these changes at the very beginning of the article. The changes included:

1. making the second sentence, "The first seven positions in the line of succession have remained unchanged since the birth of Princess Eugenie in March 1990." IMO, this is trivia which belongs further down, not at the very top.
2. rearranging the section on regulations (presently arranged as statement about Act of Settlement and RMA followed by four bulleted sub-statements), into three paragraphs.
3. adding the sentence, "The current monarch, Elizabeth II, is ten generations removed from Sophia, and in some branches the family tree extends up to four generations further; there are consequently thousands of distant descendants, of various nationalities, who take some position in the line of succession." IMO, this is unnecessary commentary in an article which is meant to be about the LIST. If we want commentary, it should appear after the list.
4. adding a graphical representation showing the children and grandchildren of Electress Sophia.
   

Please discuss. Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

For the best application of WP:BRD, which I support, it will be helpful if you present a discussion on all the elements you've reverted; for the things above where you haven't made any comment, I don't know whether you've reverted them because you disagree with them, in which case they need to be discussed, or merely because they were bundled up with edits which you did disagree with. Please clarify.

On the lead section of the article, my changes were to improve consistency with relevant guidelines. Bullet points should not be used for content which can easily be presented in prose. Single-sentence paragraphs should be avoided; correcting that was the sole reason for moving the sentence on the first seven positions to the first paragraph, I have no objection to it going somewhere else but it should not remain where it is now. There was also some rewriting for clarity, such as avoiding appending "and their lines" to every clause in the description of primogeniture: clarity and brevity is preferable here because the concept of primogeniture is explained in its own article, and only a summary is needed here. Conversely, an explanation is needed, and was added, as to why a parent converting to Catholicism sometimes excludes their children and sometimes doesn't, such as with George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews. I make no claim to the rewrite being perfect, but I do consider it to be an improvement on the previous version.

With my changes I was also mindful of WP:LIST and the Featured list criteria. FLs are distinguished by descriptors like "engaging", "visual appeal" and "professional". To move towards FL status requires a move away from an enormous block of names and towards more engaging display formats. Currently the structure is a very simple hierarchical set of nested sections, which rather outstrip the set of headers which are expected to be used. The article suffers badly from the way the level six <h6> tags are smaller than the text that they are supposed to describe, and it is unnecessary to begin the hierarchy at Sophia since, as I wrote a section to explain, everyone with a place in the line is related to George II or Sophia Dorothea. This is not just a list of people descended from Sophia of Hanover, and the fact that the lines came back together is interesting and "engaging". Wikipedia articles should never be just a big list of data, a list is still an article and needs to engage readers in the same way.

I see this list as one with real potential to reach FL status (similar in structure to FLs such as List of poker hands – compare then and now). To make the jump to becoming a really high-quality piece of content, it needs to move beyond just being an accurate list of names, and start engaging the reader with prose and graphical content. Happy‑melon 20:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that it is reasonable to discuss FL status at this time. Please read through the archives of this page to see the numerous issues which have been raised - some of which have been addressed or are in the ongoing process of being addressed. There's a great deal more work to be done. The lead paragraphs are not the problem. It does not make sense to compare a list of over 4000 names to a List of 9 poker hands.

I am not an advocate of the use of multiple levels of subheadings; I think that they are confusing to many readers. IMO the section dividers currently used from no. 2113 forward make things much clearer.

Wikipedia:Featured list criteria says "It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria." It is not appropriate to give trivia a priority over the list on the grounds that it is "interesting and engaging". Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I realize there are multiple issues under discussion here, but as an experienced editor who arrives here with little expertise in the topic, may I suggest a summary along these lines. A first paragraph of 3 sentences: (1) states who is listed, (2) tells us what controls inclusion, and (3) informs us that the list has a secondary use. I've also removed the parenthetical remark from the 3rd sentence as unnecessary. Then I've added a sentence to introduce the principal elements of the rules of succession. I've maintained the bullet points as excusable given the subject matter. The last 2 can be combined without any loss of clarity, so at least there is no one-sentence bullet point.

The line of succession to the British throne lists those eligible to succeed to the throne of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. The right of succession is regulated by the Act of Settlement 1701, the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and common law. The line of succession is also used to select the Counsellors of State as well as a regent under the provisions of the Regency Act 1937.

The principal rules governing succession are:

3 bullets.

For past versions of the line of succession, see History of the British line of succession.

Delete as trivia: "The first seven positions in the line of succession have remained unchanged since the birth of Princess Eugenie in March 1990."

The bullet point covering primogeniture reads like the work of a committee. I hesitate to touch it.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the suggestions made by Bmclaughlin9. The primogeniture bullet point "reads like the work of a committee", because it's a complicated thing for many people. On a royalty discussion group just this week, somebody asked "If Charles died, wouldn't Andrew be first in line?" (thinking that a younger son would come before the line of an elder son). Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the proposed first paragraph is very good. There is still no need to present the rules as bullet points: they do not form a list (it's not like we're quoting an original source which is divided into clauses) and each bullet point is a substantial phrase in its own right. When the meaning or flow of the section is not really altered by solely removing the bullets, you know there's no real need for them. I agree that the explanation of primogeniture is overcomplicated and difficult to read; what is important here is to provide a brief summary and encourage people to go to the full article for a more detailed discussion.

How about:

“ The line of succession to the British throne lists those eligible to succeed to the throne of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. The right of succession is regulated by the Act of Settlement 1701, the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and common law. The line of succession is also used to select the Counsellors of State as well as a regent under the provisions of the Regency Act 1937.

The succession is restricted to those descended in a legitimate line from the Electress Sophia of Hanover. A person born to parents who are not married to each other at the time of birth is not included in the line of succession and passes no rights to their descendants, regardless of whether their parents subsequently marry.

The succession is ordered by male-preference (cognatic) primogeniture: a person is immediately followed in the succession by his or her own legitimate descendants (his or her line), and a person's sons (and their lines) all have higher precedence to a person's daughters (and their lines). Elder sons are placed before younger sons; then separately elder daughters come before younger daughters. A person may be able to claim a place in the succession from several sources (such as when members of two – perhaps very distantly related – branches marry and produce children); only the claim with the highest precedence is recorded.

At the time of accession, the heir to the throne must be a Protestant and enter into communion with the Church of England. Anyone who is Roman Catholic, becomes Roman Catholic, or marries a Roman Catholic, is permanently excluded from the line of succession; any children already born at the time of conversion or marriage do not lose their place in the line, but any future children are excluded.

For past versions of the line of succession, see History of the British line of succession.

”

Here I've used bolding to draw attention to the primogeniture link; this is also not-inappropriate since the list is a textbook demonstration of primogeniture, and one of the most closely-studied.

Thoughts? Happy‑melon 22:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The bullet points were added some time ago by an editor (not me, I don't think, but maybe) because of complaints about clarity; there is still a "confusing and unclear" tag on the article. IMO the bullets present the information in a clearer fashion. The points about being Protestant at accession, and excluding Catholics from the succession are two separate points; they should not be joined together in a single paragraph.

The line, "A person may be able to claim a place in the succession from several sources ..." is misleading. A person is only in line a single time; he cannot "claim a place in the succession from several sources". There are a number of editors who have been adamant that every statement be able to be provided with a citation.

I am not an advocate of bolding some links. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Prince Harry should not be there on account that he has no royal blood because prince charles is not his father! James Hewitt is! Princess diana had an affair with him from 1982-1987 and Prince harry was born in 1984.