Talk:Line of succession to the British throne/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 10 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

Use of HRH

It seems timely to mention briefly sources for current use of HRH, as now inserted in the explanatory paragraphs above the List, and at the same time adding articles British prince and British princess to See also. Qexigator (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Why? It suggests that the style has something to do with being in the line, but it doesn't. It could very well happen that the first-in-line is not entitled to that style. Discussing it in the article titled "Line of succession to the British throne" doesn't seem very appropriate, especially not when there are already articles created specifically for that purpose. Surtsicna (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Surtsicna: This has crossed in the post with my comment on your Talk page. There has been a proposal to eliminate HRH, which, as you say is not relevant as such to the line of succession. I am one of those who support its omission from the list, which would make redundant some of the explanatory text which you have already removed. Cheers. Qexigator (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Why here?

Do possible changes resulting from a bill not yet passed have a place in this article, given that another article has been created for just that: Succession to the Crown Bill (2012)? --Qexigator (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

We should wait until these succession acts are passed by the required Commonwealth parliaments. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Good question. Why does this list article contain information that is already in the main article? Now that the list is manageable, we should consider merging it back into the main article. TFD (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
TFD: Two points (now that the "Proposed changes" section has been removed, as both inapposite to this article and redundant because the topic of another): 1_Let them remain unmerged until all the proposed changes have become fact. We only have a month or two to wait. In the meantime, there will be a tendency for editors to make piecemeal revisions, some more apposite than others. 2_ It could then be considered whether to let the "Line of succession to the British throne" be retained unmerged, after revision consequent upon the changes, since the topic prospective succession is essentially different from the topic historical record, and remains subject to change resulting from marriage, birth and death, The explanatory information should be put where it is most convenient for the reader, and easily cross-linked between the two articles. Qexigator (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


This article is likely going to be wrong for some months as Australia hasn't submitted their bill to Parliament yet, so I don't see the succession law being implemented until just before or after the birth of Princess X of Cambridge. In the meantime, we could redirect the article to Succession to the British throne#Current line of succession and expand the list there to the first 25 (which are unaffected by the changes), or cut this down to the first 25. DrKiernan (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The latter is probably better, though I don't understand how the article is wrong at present. Did the line change today? Surtsicna (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
It is currently wrong since the people married to Catholics are now included in the numbering but the male children are still before female ones. That is neither one thing nor the other, neither in line with the act nor in line with the law before the act. DrKiernan (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
If the line did not change today, people married to Catholics should not be included. Isn't the solution as simple as that? Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
You need a source that provides a new listing of the succession. It may be that the changes may not have retroactive effect. Note that the legislation does not come into effect under it receives assent. Also, there was some discussion earlier about the need to obtain the consent of Canadian provinces and Australian states, but it not appears that is required. TFD (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Cut to 25?

Is the above proposal for the list to stop at 25 still warm enough to comment? If so, would that be pending the 2013 Act coming into effect, probably some months away, with the intention of bringing back, in the then post-Act order, those now numbered from 26? That would need some deft rewording for ... others in the nearest collateral lines, namely, the descendants of the sons of George V who are in the line or whose descendants are or can be in the line (numbered 15 to 48), and removing the paragraph beginning The line of succession continues with the eligible descendants of Mary..., while the section "Members of European dynasties in remoter lines of succession" would be unaffected. Such an interim revision would have my support. Qexigator (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Other royal families

I have added a section "Other royal families". Does it have a role to play in this article. At the present time it has no citations since everything has been taken from Wikipedia, but citations will not be difficult to find. Martinvl (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It's obviously wrong. For example, Juan Carlos and Albert are Catholic and hence excluded. DrKiernan (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
For now. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 09:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
As the Perth Agreement confirms the exclusion of Catholics, I don't see it changing in the foreseeable future. DrKiernan (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This is a first draft so there are bound to be a number of errors and other points that need to be cleared up. Before time is spent cleaning up, would a chart of this nature be appropriate for this article (assuming that the errors are corrected and that its exact scope be agreed)? Martinvl (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, I don't think it would be. Despite being Protestant, Carl XVI Gustaf also has no place on the list, as his mother did not seek consent to her marriage. Besides, this article once included c. 5000 people. There is a reason why it was cut down. I do agree that it should be mentioned that there are members of other royal families who are in the line, but not with this chart. It should simply be mentioned in the text that follows the original chart/list. Surtsicna (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Princesses who marry into foreign families are not required to seek permission to marry under the terms of the Royal Marriages Act. So no, the mother of Carl XVI Gustav did not need permission to marry under the act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No, descendants of princesses who married into foreign families are not required to seek permission. Princesses themselves are very much required to do so. That is why the King of Sweden's father (son of a British princess and a Swedish prince) did not have to seek consent, but the King's mother did (being a male-line descendant of George III). Since it takes two people to get married, the marriage is invalid in the United Kingdom and the King of Sweden is legally next to bastard there. Surtsicna (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

But she wasn't a male-line descendent of George III. She was male line descendent of Queen Victoria, being the daughter of the only (posthumous) son of Queen Victoria's youngest son.

In short:

Carl XVI Gustaf > Sibylla of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha > Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha > Victoria of the United Kingdom

Secondly, although Sibylla's father was a Prince of the United Kingdom (being as he was a male-line grandson of Queen Victoria, a status he never technically lost), he was also a foreign sovereign as well (as he was Sovereign Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.)JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

True, Sibylla was daughter of a non-British sovereign and also a male-line descendant of Queen Victoria rather than George III, but the effect is the same: Sibylla was required under British law to obtain Royal permission to marry yet did not do so. Therefore her offspring, including King Carl XVI Gustaf, are excluded from the British succession through Sibylla as bastards. But he is in the British line of succession through his grandmother Margaret of Connaught, who did obtain permission so her legitimate, non-Catholic descendants are British dynasts even though they need not obtain the British Sovereign's permission to marry. Since the Duke of Connaught was an elder son of Victoria's than the Duke of Albany/Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Carl XVI's place in the UK's line of succession would have been higher thru his father than thru his mother even if she had been granted British authorisation to marry.
Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden > Prince Gustaf Adolf, Duke of Västerbotten > Princess Margaret of Connaught > Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn > Victoria, Queen of Great Britain. FactStraight (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I stand corrected about her descent, but I am fairly certain that your understanding of the Royal Marriages Act 1772 is not correct. Sibylla's marriage was null and void under British law. Since it takes two people to have a marriage, her marriage was Gustaf Adolf's marriage. If Sibylla was not legally married to Gustaf Adolf, Gustaf Adolf was not legally married to her. Simply said, the marriage of Carl Gustaf's parents was null and void and Carl Gustaf himself is thus barred from succession as much as any bastard is. Surtsicna (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
You are correct and I was in error. Thanks for clarifying. FactStraight (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
But Sibylla was the descendant of a princess who married into a foreign family: Princess Sibylla of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha > Princess Victoria Adelaide of Schleswig-Holstein > Princess Karoline Mathilde of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg > Frederick VIII, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein > Christian August II, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg > Princess Louise Auguste of Denmark > Caroline Matilda of Great Britain. Therefore she and all her siblings and their descendants are not subject to the RMA. john k (talk) 02:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
At the very least, we have no business asserting on our own authority that the RMA applied to her without any reliable sources saying anything of the sort. john k (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
There is no person in the line of succession who is not descended from a princess who married into a foreign family. The entire British royal family is descended from such princesses (through Mary of Teck and Alexandra of Denmark, for example), yet they all seek permission. So did the Prince of Hanover, despite being descended from Queen Victoria's eldest daughter. It seems that the provision is not interpreted to mean that everyone descended from such princesses is exempt. Anyway, we have no business asserting that the RMA did not apply to her (i.e. that her descendants are entitled to succeed) without any RS confirming that. I believe it is best not to mention the Swedish royal family in this context at all. Surtsicna (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The RMA is not interpreted in any consistent fashion at all. Over at the talk page on the RMA page, it notes what basically seems to be the case - that British people are generally considered to be subject to it, and that foreign royals are generally not, despite whatever the text of the act says. Certainly there have been numerous reliable sources that say the King of Sweden is in line, and no reliable sources that say he is not because his mother did not seek permission to marry under the RMA. For instance, here is the Telegraph saying the King of Sweden is in line. Your own personal interpretation of the Royal Marriages Act carries no weight whatsoever. Unless you can show evidence that any actual reliable sources say that the King of Sweden is not in line for the reason you say, this is about as clear an example of OR as can possibly exist on Wikipedia. john k (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
User:John K, what you describe in your post before last is the Farran exemption, which is generally held to be an improper reading of the RMA because it would render the RMA completely moot in modern times, and no one thinks that it is.
Your Telegraph reference is interesting, and does carry some weight. On the other hand, newspapers can be mistaken, especially if they did not know about the Albany issue. By itself, this does not convince me that Carl Gustaf would be allowed to inherit the throne in the exceedingly unlikely case that it fell to him and the question were challenged in court. Do you have any more official source that confirms his place in the succession? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
There is no person in the line of succession who is not descended from a princess who married into a foreign family — I don't think that's true, actually. Princess Patricia of Connaught did not herself marry into a foreign family, and I don't think her mother Princess Louise Margaret of Prussia was descended from George II. So the children and grandchildren of Princess/Lady Patricia's only child Alexander Ramsay of Mar are not covered by the Farran exemption. I welcome any correction. Opera hat (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, unless you interpret Queen Victoria herself as a princess who married into a foreign family (and I'm not sure if Prince Albert was naturalized before or after the marriage, anyway), Princess Patricia and her descendants are definitely still subject to the RMA. john k (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
You appear to be correct; Louise Margaret was descended from George I but not from George II. Albert was naturalized shortly before his marriage to Victoria, so she did not marry into a foreign family. Is there anyone besides Patricia's descendants? Surtsicna (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope, because she was already Queen by the time she married. On another note, the Norweigan constitution does not allow the monarch of Norway to succeed to another throne without the consent of the Norweigan parliament. So if everyone between Elizabeth II and Harald V of Norway died tomorrow, it still wouldn't be a given that he'd succeed to the British throne.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Norwegian law cannot dictate who can or cannot succeed to the British throne. Should the monarch of Norway ever become Sophia's heir of the body, he or she would automatically succeed to the British throne whether the Norwegians liked it or not - unless the British prevented that by altering the law. The only thing the Norwegian parliament could do to prevent or break off the personal union would be to depose the monarch. Surtsicna (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Would not Sibylla not have been covered by the Royal Marriages Act anyway bearing in mind that; according to an 1917 Order-in-Council, only the children, male-line grandchildren, and the eldest son of the eldest son of the eldest son of the monarch counted as 'Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom', whereas previous to that anyone descended from a British monarch in the male line (male or female) was a Prince or Princess. After 1917, only Sibylla's father was a British Prince (being a male-line grandchild of a British monarch), not any of his children (who subsequently lost this status if born before 1917 or were denied it if born afterwards).JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that works. The RMA doesn't apply only to princes - it applies to all descendants of George II who are not descendants of princesses who married into foreign families. As I've pointed out, Sibylla was the descendant of a princess who married into a foreign family (she was certainly descended from George II's youngest daughter Louisa, who married Frederick V of Denmark, who was not a descendant of the Electress Sophia and thus not covered by the Sophia Naturalization act), but she can also trace a descent without going through such a princess, which has apparently been how the RMA has been defined in the past. I'll just reiterate my previous position that only four marriages have ever been generally understood to have violated the RMA (the marriages of royal family members to Maria Fitzhebert, Lady Augusta Murray, Lady Cecilia Gore, and Sarah Fairbrother), and that Wikipedia has absolutely no business claiming that any other marriages violated it. john k (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
We seem to have hit an impasse regarding the best way to catalogue (I have deliberately used the word "catalogue" not "list") foreign "royals" who are in the list of succession to the British throne.
  1. Who do we include - crowned heads of state only or do we include those who have been deposed (Constantine II) or also those whose ancestors have been deposed (descendant of the Kaiser).
  2. Do we include the reason hat they are included in the list - after all this is an encyclopeadia.
Unless we can answer these two questions, we are going to run round in circles deciding how to represent the list. Martinvl (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with Surtsicna. It adds more original research to an article that already contains original research, thus worsening rather than improving it. DrKiernan (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Unless of course citations can be supplied - as I have done with two of the people in the list. Martinvl (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Neither of which says they are in the line of succession. The statement "Many heads of Europe's royal dynasties are descendants of George I" is breathtaking in its triviality. Lots of royals are related to other royals and descended from the same German princelings from long ago. We don't need citations for the obvious. The point is that these people are not in line in any real sense, which is the reason they are hardly ever put in line, except by obsessive internet fanboys who should be putting their talents of hard work and dedication to more productive uses in society instead of wasting them in what is essentially an online game. DrKiernan (talk) 06:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd say calling fellow wikipedians "obsessive internet fanboys" is a pretty clear example of a personal attack. john k (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps not so much a personal attack on any editor, more a well-tailored cap to fit any internet user who could have mistaken the purpose of such an article as this. While there may be none here who need to be admonished, it is useful guidance from an experienced editor (who tends to be more often right in such things than wrong) about what would be less than useful here. Qexigator (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Plenty of major media sources refer to distant relations of the British Royal Family as being in line for the throne. I just linked an instance of the Telegraph referring to the King of Sweden in this way. Was the Telegraph article written by "obsessive internet fanboys"? Here is NPR reporting on a Wall Street Journal article about Karin Vogel, supposedly last in line. Are NPR and the Wall Street Journal "obsessive internet fanboys"? While it is true that there is probably not a definitive list of people in the line of succession that is supported by reliable sources, the very subject of the more distant reaches of the line of succession is something that media sources have written about. And, of course, the genealogical information is well-documented - it's just hard to know in a list of several thousand, mostly private, individuals, whether they are Catholic or married to Catholics. But of course we know that the King of Sweden is neither Catholic nor married to a Catholic, and, pace Surtsicna, there are no reliable sources that mention the RMA in connection with him, while there are several that say that he is in the line of succession. I see no particular problem with saying that the King of Sweden, the Queen of Denmark, and the King of Norway (and the former King of the Hellenes and Queen of the Netherlands) are in the British line of succession, facts which have been printed on numerous occasions in multiple reliable sources. john k (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
None of it is really of use in a Wikipedia article, however. The current list includes all of the people who have even a remote chance of ascending to the throne. I'm interested in genealogy as well, but the fact remains that the rest of the people on that list are mainly private citizens or members of other royal families who would be highly unlikely to assume the British throne. The list is vastly improved because it no longer includes hundreds of people no one has ever heard of. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── While it might be true that most of the people on the list do not have a chance of succeeding to the throne, listing them gives us a snapshot of what the line of succession was in bygone years. In a previous version, I had included Edward VIII, Prince John of the United Kingdom and Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood and her descendants but they and a few others were deleted because either the are now were too remote or because they have no living heirs. If they are re-instated, the interested reader will be able to reconstruct the line of succession at any time over the last 100 years starting with the first six in succession (George V's children). Martinvl (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur entirely with john k. Given how many (most?) readers in English consider any interest in royalty that is sufficient to prompt contributions to articles about them woolly-headed at best and offensively reactionary at worst, I'm always surprised that so much contempt and so little empathy are evoked for those whose interests don't precisely coincide with our own. Royalty-cruft should be trimmed because it throws an article out of balance relative to other content -- not, it seems to me, because the crufting editor's interest deserves public disdain for its abnormality. FactStraight (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I have reinstated Juan Carlos to the list. Since we have not come to any decision as to who should or should, please discuss it here. You will notice that in the introduction to the list I wrote “Heads of Europe's royal dynasties descended from George I include:”. This does not make any judgement as to whether or not they are in the line of succession to the throne. While the Act debars Roman Catholics from the throne, it is silent in respect of descendants of Roman Catholics. Given the degree of uncertainty, simply removing Juan Carlos from the list because he is a Catholic is therefore tantamount to WP:SYN.Martinvl (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
There are numerous reliable sources which specifically say the Kings of Norway and Sweden, and the Queen of Denmark, are in the line of succession. I suspect there are several which note that the King of Spain, et al, are not, because they are Catholic or married to Catholics. This is completely different from the case of Carl XVI Gustaf's supposed exclusion under the RMA, which was made up by Surtsicna and has never been suggested in any reliable source. Interpreting the RMA is confusing, inconsistent, and difficult. Interpreting the Act of Settlement really is not, so long as we have adequate information. Given that this is an article on the line of succession, and not an article on descendants of George I, it seems perfectly legitimate to only list royals who are reported by reliable sources in the line of succession and to change the heading. I have no particular objection to leaving it as it is for now. I will add that I really don't understand why the Lascelles family have been removed from the list. john k (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
John, please drop that hostile attitude. Regardless of whether I am right or wrong, I do not deserve to be treated as if I were trying to do damage. The King of Sweden's "supposed exclusion" was not "made up" by me; if anyone made it up, it was BlueMoonlet. Notwithstanding her or his despicable intention to impair Wikipedia (and I am being sarcastic here), she or he did make an effort to produce a source for her or his claim. This page, which for some reason I find more reliable than The Telegraph, also notes that Sibylla and her siblings were required to seek permission to marry but failed to do so and then states that because of that, no grandchild or further descendant of Sibylla's father is in the line of succession. Surtsicna (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't realize that the King of Sweden was caught up in this whole Albany/RMA thing. To clarify, I did not "make up" the invalidity of Albany marriages under the RMA; in fact, I have strongly resisted the notion. On the other hand, the evidence from RSs in favor of the notion is formidable, to say the least. Please see the discussion at Talk:Duke of Albany. I have been strongly wondering whether the new amendment to the RMA will resolve the Albany situation, but the answer is not clear as they were not necessarily ignorant that the RMA applied to them. Anyway, I have seen no RS that addresses the 2013 act's effect on the Albanys. User:John K, if you know of RSs that specifically say that the King of Sweden is in the line of succession despite his connection to the Albanys, that would be very interesting because it may help to clear up the Albany/RMA question.
I am sorry to say that, while fascinating, the rest of this conversation is TLDR for me. I am commenting here only because I was mentioned by name. I am glad to respond to any futher communication directed specifically to me, but will not be checking this page. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Surtsicna - I wasn't meaning to be hostile; tone is hard to convey in text, of course. My apologies for belaboring the point. In terms of the documents reprinted at Heraldica, I don't think they qualify as a reliable source saying that the King of Sweden is excluded. Grant, the Home Office (?) official, very clearly refused to say that anyone was excluded from the throne by virtue of the RMA, despite Thomas saying several times that he thought various people were if they didn't get permission. I'm not sure the whole correspondence really qualifies as a reliable source of any kind - in general, we don't find our reliable sources in document files at the Public Records Office. I don't have any information on actual reliable sources that discuss the possible exclusion of Albany's descendant one way or the other. My basic position is that, in the absence of specific reliable sources referring to a specific marriage, nobody should be considered illegitimate under the RMA unless they have been legally found to be so, given that interpretation of the RMA is so contested. As far as I am aware, there are four marriages which have been definitively considered to be invalid under the RMA - the first marriage of the future George IV, the two marriages of the Duke of Sussex, and the marriage of the 2nd Duke of Cambridge. I do not think that there is any general acceptance that any other marriage violated the RMA, and I do not believe we should treaty anybody besides the issue of these four marriages (only two of which had issue) as being excluded from the line of succession as a result of any other such supposedly technically invalid marriages. john k (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
It's fine, a part of me never really believed that you would be hostile on purpose. I see your point, but according to the same principle, nobody should be considered eligible under the Act of Settlement unless they have been legally found to be so, right? (Or at least officially listed as such.) We should not dare to interpret one law if we must not interpret another one that is directly related to it. Surtsicna (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hold on a tick. This article is specifically about the line of succession to the British throne. Now, both under the old Act and the new 2013 one, anyone who is a Roman Catholic or converts to Roman Catholicism (but no other Christian denomination, or any other religion for that matter) cannot succeed to the British throne. That is certainly not WP:SYN, it is in black and white in the text of both acts. Thus, including Juan Carlos of Spain and Albert II of Belgium, both baptised Catholics in infancy, is wholly and utterly unnecessary and irrelevant to this article.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And yet in spite of similar infant bpatisms into the Catholic Church, Albert and Leopold Windsor are still listed in the line of succession in the main list. I really think they ought to be removed, royal website be damned. Debrett's doesn't include them. john k (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Note though, Surtsicna that it also says on the same website:

Consent is not required for the descendants of Princess Mary of Cambridge and the Duke of Teck; or of Princess Beatrice and Prince Henry of Battenburg; because their husbands were not naturalised until after marriage; and naturally not for the descendants of - Princess Victoria, who married the German Emperor; Princess Alice, who married the Grand Duke of Hesse; Princess Maud, who married the King of Norway; as their husbands were att the time of their marriage or later became ruling Sovereigns of a foreign State.

Although this brings up other issues: The members of the House of Hanover, though agnatically descended from a British sovereign (George III) are also descended from three foreign ones (Kings Ernest Augustus and George V of Hanover and Ernest Augustus, sovereign Duke of Brunswick), and yet they all took the trouble to obtain consent from the British monarch under the said act, which makes one wonder why the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas did not do likewise.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, their children are not barred until they themselves accept the Catholic faith. for example, Lady Amelia Windsor (b 1995).
It is not for us to debate whether or not anybody is barred, but to lay down what facts we know and to flag potential issues so that the reader can check them out for themselves. We should not hide any issues, but neither should we pass judgement. Martinvl (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with 'passing judgement'. Read the Act of Settlement: it's freely available enough online. In short, there are only two criteria one needs to be in succession to the British throne:

1.That they not be a catholic. 2.That they not be married to a catholic.

2. No longer applies once all Commonwealth realms have passed their respective 2013 Acts of Sucession In addition, both Acts specify that the person succeeding to the British throne must enter into communion with the Church of England. So that's that: you can be any religion you like, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, Lutheran, Calvinist/Presbyterian, Muslim, Sikh, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Shintoist, anything other than Roman Catholic.

On the other hand, their children are not barred until they themselves accept the Catholic faith. for example, Lady Amelia Windsor (b 1995).

-whilst this is true (a person not being baptised having technically no religion officially and thus wouldn't be barred from the throne due to them not being er, a catholic), this has no relevance as regards either Juan Carlos or Albert II. In both instances, all children, and indeed all living legitimate descendants of both men have been baptised as Roman Catholics: Philippe, Duke of Brabant has, so has Felipe, Prince of Asturias, as well as Princess Elisabeth of Belgium and Infanta Leonor of Spain, as have all the siblings of all the people I've just mentioned.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

In fact; as no one seems to have bothered actually reading or citing the actual text of the Act of Settlement, why don't I just do it for you.

Here's the part that bars anyone who is Roman Catholic from succeeding to the throne:

Provided always and it is hereby enacted That all and every Person and Persons who shall or may take or inherit the said Crown by vertue of the Limitation of this present Act and is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall profess the Popish Religion or shall marry a Papist shall be subject to such Incapacities as in such Case or Cases are by the said recited Act provided enacted and established And that every King and Queen of this Realm who shall come to and succeed in the Imperiall Crown of this Kingdom by vertue of this Act shall have the Coronation Oath administred to him her or them at their respective Coronations according to the Act of Parliament made in the First Year of the Reign of His Majesty and the said late Queen Mary intituled An Act for establishing the Coronation Oath and shall make subscribe and repeat the Declaration in the Act first above recited mentioned or referred to in the Manner and Form thereby prescribed

Here's the part where it says that the person succeeding to the British throne must enter into Communion with the Church of England (but note: does not have to become an Anglican, for example George I remained Lutheran after his accession to the throne.):

And whereas it is requisite and necessary that some further Provision be made for securing our Religion Laws and Liberties from and after the Death of His Majesty and the Princess Ann of Denmark and in default of Issue of the Body of the said Princess and of His Majesty respectively Be it enacted by the Kings most Excellent Majesty by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons in Parliament assembled and by the Authority of the same That whosoever shall hereafter come to the Possession of this Crown shall joyn in Communion with the Church of England as by Law established

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, enough of the statements regarding whether we need to 'discuss' whether Roman Catholics are barred from succeeding to the British throne; they are. If Prince William decides to convert to Catholicism tomorrow, that's it, he is irreversably (barring any Act subsequent to the 2013 Act) ineligible to succeed to the British throne. There is absolutely no reason to have any information as regards Juan Carlos I and Albert II of Belgium. It is confusing and misleading for the reader, and any talk as regards the issue and descendants of people in the line of succession to the British throne is irrelevant as the section in question does not mention their children or any other descendents, just Juan Carlos I and Albert II, who are ineligible to succeed to the throne under both the Act of Settlement and the 2013 Act. As such, I am removing any reference to them.

Here is the text of the Act of Settlement, please read it:

The section detailing exclusion of Roman Catholics:

-and the section requiring the person succeeding to the throne to enter into communion with the Church of England:

-Do you need me to make this any more clear for you?!? Rightly or wrongly, no Roman Catholics can succeed to the throne!

Secondly; this website: used as a source for this article and it purpotes to show the 'full' line of succession as of 2011. However, it states that:

Many other "Order of Succession" lists will omit certain persons who are, or are believed by the list compiler to be, Roman Catholic. The reason for these omissions is that the two parliamentary Acts state, in similar language, that anyone who performs certain actions (such as "professe the Popish religion", "marry a Papist", "be reconciled to or ... hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome") "should be excluded and ... made forever incapable to inherit possess or enjoy the Crown". To date these clauses have never been invoked to prevent someone from succeeding to the Crown, so their precise meaning (as far as the Succession is concerned) has never been determined. Because of this, the list below does not attempt to assert which, if any, of the descendants of Electress Sophia have been rendered "incapable to inherit ... the Crown" under these clauses.

This is complete and utter nonsense. The 'Old Pretender', James Edward Stuart- as well as by extension his sons Charles Edward Stuart (the 'Young Pretender' or 'Bonnie Prince Charlie') and Henry Benedict Stuart, was specifically excluded from the succession which would have rightfully been his in favour of his older half sister, Anne (later Queen Anne) as a result of the Act of Settlement, in fact the whole point of the Act of Settlement existing in the first place was to exclude him from succeeding to the throne.

In addition this website includes references to descendents 'legitimated by their parents' subsequent marriage'. Whilst British law, via the Legitimacy Act 1926 and the Legitimacy Act 1959 allows for children born outside a marriage to become legitimised by the subsequent marriage of their parents, the 1959 Act; found here: specifically excludes children thus legitimised. It states: 'It is hereby declared that nothing in this Act affects the Succession to the Throne'. Thus any child thus legitimised-regardless of their parent's proximity to the throne would be ineligible to succeed to the thrones of Britain and the commonwealth realms.

As such, this website is not a reliable source as regards the succession to the British throne and should thus be removed.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaking two different provisions of the Act of Settlement. The Old Pretender and the various other Catholics genealogically senior in descent from James I than the Electress Sophia were not in any way excluded from the throne by the anti-Catholic clauses of the Act of Settlement. They were excluded by being ignored - by parliament passing a law which said that after the King, his sister-in-law, her heirs of the body, and the king's heirs of the body, the throne was vested in the Electress of Hanover and her heirs of the body. The anti-Catholicism clause Reitwiesner is talking about applies only to heirs of the body of the Electress, and has, indeed, never gone into operation, as no heir of the body of the Electress has ever professed the Papist religion. It is not at all fair to Reitwiesner to assert that his contention is "utter nonsense" - you simply did not understand what he was saying. john k (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I never said the anti-Catholic part of the Act excluded the Old Pretender. But the Act did exclude both him and his issue from the succession, and the Act was passed for basically that reason (to ensure non-Catholic succession). Regardless of that anyway, the fact that he includes Catholics (specifically excluded by both the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Succession to the throne Act 2013), as well as those legitimised by the subsequent marriage of their parents for all other purposes other than the inheritance of an honour, up to and including the Crown itself (specifically excluded via the Legitimacy Act 1959), when both are clearly and specifically barred from inheriting the throne says something, doesn't it?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It says that he's not making a list of the succession itself, but a list of descendants of the Electress Sophia. My view has always been that taking the basic list of descendants of Sophia, and then removing anyone who can be documented to a) be Catholic; b) have married a Catholic; c) to be the descendant of a marriage clearly regarded as being contrary to the Royal Marriages Act (which, as I've said before, really only applies to four marriages, none of which have any living descendants); or d) legitimized by the subsequent marriage of their parents; does not really constitute "original synthesis" any more than basic arithmetic does. Obviously I am in the minority on that, though. john k (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
This Talk section opened with a question about whether the new section in the article has a role to play? The above discussion confirms that it sits awkwardly there: such informative value as it may have is not an expansion of the article's main content,which is a list limited to the descendants of the sons of George V who are in the line or whose descendants are or can be in the line, with the names of persons who are not in line to the throne shown in italics. Information about "Other royal families", if retained, should be moved to another article such as Succession to the British throne, and discussed there. It would be more relevant to mention that the line of succession is conjectural not historic, and, since what may be obvious to some better informed editors and readers is not so to others, to explain the list by reinstating in the LoS article:
  • "In the event of eligible members in the current line of the Queen's direct descendants failing, the next in line would be from the descendants of the Queen's now deceased sister Margaret as the only other child of their father King George VI. In the event of that line failing, the next in line would be from the descendants of their (deceased) grandfather George V. At present Richard, Duke of Gloucester heads this next line of descent. Thus, each successive line is contingent upon the failure of the one before, and as the first expands or contracts, the places of members of the second will become further or nearer in the line, and so on changing with the course of events in the passage of time. The person who will actually succeed at the next or any future demise of the Crown can be no more than conjectural, even in the case of an heir apparent or heir presumptive. While it can be said that the line of succession to the throne in the list below includes members of the House of Windsor as descendants of George V (List of members of the House of Windsor), not all members of the House of Windsor are or will certainly remain in the line, and some in the line are not or may cease to be members of the House of Windsor.
The line of succession to a reigning monarch such as the present Queen Elizabeth is a projection. It is unlike the British monarchs' family tree and unlike the line of succession such as the List of British monarchs by which the present Queen has come to the throne, which is a matter of historic record, and in fact includes a departure from the line of succession due to the abdication of the Queen's father's elder brother, her uncle, who had succeeded as Edward VIII.[9] In the three centuries from 1700 to 2000 there have been twelve monarchs of Great Britain and the United Kingdom. This article lists more than forty descendants of the Queen's grandfather George V as being in the current line of succession.[1]
  • "A person's place in the line of succession does not determine the place in any of the orders of precedence in the United Kingdom,2 nor the rank, title or style (manner of address) such as Prince, His or Her Royal Highness or Honourable or Right Honourable. For example, the personal title "Princess Royal" was granted to the sister, Anne, Princess Royal, of the present heir apparent in 1987, but she is now no more than tenth in the line of succession as determined by the law of succession, while her place in the order of precedence is determined by the Queen3. Her predecessor as Princess Royal had been Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood4, who, at the death of George V, had been eighth in line of succession, but the present head of that line, David Lascelles, 8th Earl of Harewood, is next in line after the descendants of George, Duke of Kent (1902-1942), the youngest of the brothers of George VI." Qexigator (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Non sequitur

"...and who or whose descendants are therefore potentially eligible to succeed to the throne...": non sequitar. Preferably, omit entire section "Other royal dynasties" as too remote to be pertinent as addendum to the descendants of G V listed, and in many cases no more than doubtfully in line. If it goes anywhere, would be better as new section in Succession to the British throne. --Qexigator (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Transfer content of new section?

The content of "Members of European dynasties in remoter lines of succession" has been added to Succession to the British throne, with a proposal to remove from LoS. [2]Qexigator (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal now done.[3] -- Qexigator (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Section on numbers

This addition is misplaced, and if retained anywhere should be in Line of succession to the British throne --Qexigator (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Concur with deletion now done by another editor. Qexigator (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"The...": in or out?

Two questions about the edit summary: Put back the 'The's again ...It is the correct form for those who are the child of a sovereign.[4] If that is so: 1_Where is that found? 2_Is that good and sufficient reason for inserting here, given that the list's purpose is simply to identify unambiguously the persons in the line, according to the name etc by which they are usually and correctly known not their fully formal style or title - and preferably by their article heading, but subject to some inconsistency, such as Charles, Prince of Wales, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Prince Harry of Wales, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Anne, Princess Royal, and the deceased Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon and Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester. The tree lines show, in a manner better suited to this topic, those who are, or when living were, a child of a sovereign. --Qexigator (talk)

They should be left out. They only serve to confuse. DrKiernan (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
There is no inconsistency, all have the rank "Prince" or "Princess". If it does not appear in the title (eg "Duke of Cambridge" as opposed to "Prince of Wales"), then it is prefixed to the name. Martinvl (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
...the "inconsistency" is in using the article name in the text for the link, or not. Qexigator (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

British Overseas Territories

I have reinstated the link to British Overseas Territories (BOT) in the "See Also" section. The BOTs are all under the sovereignty of the British Crown and control the British Government. I see no reason to remove the entry from the list - the inclusion of the link e the list unnecessarily long nor, as explained above, is the link too remote. Martinvl (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Commonwealth Realm would also be a "See also" if not linked in the text (first sentence). Qexigator (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I removed it because I didn't see the immediate connection and because there are numerous countries with the British monarch as head of state. But I see your point - no further objections from my side. --Hansbaer (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Positions affected by marriage

The last sentence of this article says something along the lines of a persons position can be altered by various births deaths and marriages.. Whilst I agree that births may move them down and deaths may move them up I don't think marriages have any effect whatsoever. A persons position is determined by their ancestry not who they marry. If two people in line to the throne marry they each retain their own position and any legitimate children follow the highest placed parent. Lewisdl (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Except if someone married a Catholic, or married without the monarch's consent, they'd be removed from the line. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Marrying without consent does not remove the newlywed from the line - not according to Royal Marriages Act 1772. The couple's descendants are excluded, but the dynast's position remains unaffected. Surtsicna (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
If someone marries a Roman Catholic, he or she loses his or her rights to the throne, and everyone who came after the person married to the "papist" becomes closer to the throne. That is how one marriage can alter positions of many. Once the new law is implemented, that will still be the case, except that unapproved marriage will replace the marriage to a "papist" as the disqualifying type of marriage. Surtsicna (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC

Yes of course, should have thought about the effect of people marrying catholics and the RMA before raising the queryLewisdl (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent lead change

... though governed by domesitc laws in some. If this is to be correct, it may need some rewording. It does not seem to make sense as it stands, perhaps it is too compressed? Qexigator (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The writer may have been making the point that in dependent countries, such as Bermuda, the succession law automatically applies without the consent of their legislature. However these are not Commonwealth Realms, and furthermore the law is "domestic", since the protecting country is able to write domestic laws for its dependencies. TFD (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Those words have been removed with the reason being given as "failed verification: bills are not law". That is curious, since whether or not the source is a bill and not a law is irrelevant. The content of the bill affirms the sentence that was deleted; the relevant material was already quoted in the reference: "The Bill of Rights 1688 (1 Will and Mar Sess 2, c 2) continues to be part of the laws of New Zealand... The Act of Settlement 1700 (12 and 13 Will 3, c 2) continues to be part of the laws of New Zealand... On the changeover, the Royal Marriages Act 1772 ceases to be part of the laws of New Zealand" [emphasis mine], all of which (especially the words "continues" and "ceases") makes clear that the laws governing succession in New Zealand have been and are presently still domestic law in New Zealand.

A second reference I had lined up was for Australia, and it states "Part 1 of Schedule 1 makes amendments to the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights (so far as they are part of the law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory)... Part 2 of Schedule 1 repeals the Royal Marriages Act 1772 of Great Britain (so far as that Act is a part of the law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory)..." [emphasis mine], again demonstrating that these laws are presently domestic law in Australia. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Still at a loss, I'm afraid, to see what is meant by "domestic" here. As opposed or in contrast or contradistinction to what? Qexigator (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't quite understand your confusion. Domestic law is the internal law of a sovereign state, in contradiction to the law of another state. As we can see from the Perth Agreement, some countries (in the Caribbean and South Pacific) leave the succession to their thrones to the UK's laws (Act of Settlement, Bill of Rights, and so forth). Succession in Australia and New Zealand (at least; Canada's situation now being somewhat debated), on the other hand, is governed by laws that are identical (even in name) to the UK's succession laws, but still separate from those British laws, being within the jurisdiction of Australia and New Zealand (and amendable by their parliaments) only. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that explains that the term domestic is here used to mean laws within the competence of the country to change for itself without a by-your-leave or if-you-say-so from another, such as the one-time Imperial Parliament of the mother country. But I would still be wary of using it in the article, if it can possibly be avoided. (There is a notice on screen about a delay in transmission!)Qexigator (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I would use different wording, because the term domestic law is normally used in contrast to international law. TFD (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think "domestic law" is fairly self-explanatory and works as it was used. If consensus is against those words, though, I don't know how else to describe it. What's a synonym for the term? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
See "domestic law" for the ordinary meaning of the term. Would you say that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the federal statute of limitations are not domestic law in Canada, because they are acts of Westminster? What about imperial laws that have been amended in Canada? Does that make them partly domestic? BTW, we should explain why no law is required. Is it because Westminster retains the right to legislate for these realms on some matters or is it because these realms recognize the person who is head of state of the UK, whether monarch or president, as automatically their monarch. Or is your point that the monarchy of these realms is a matter of international law? TFD (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Mies: I must concur with TFD's last. Perhaps you could rethink what you thought you were trying to say. It may be you really want to say something else, or perhaps on second thoughts leave it out. I don't really know what your point here is, sorry. Qexigator (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I haven't a clue what TFD is saying.
There's no need for me to rething what I'm saying; the point is simple: the line of succession in some Commonwealth realms is governed by UK law, amendable only by the UK parliament. In the remaining Commonwealth realms, their lines of succession are governed by their own laws, amendable only by their parliaments. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Can you sort them all into one list for one kind and another for the other kind, sourcing each one in each list? (Could be awkward if no clue about what TFD is saying.) Qexigator (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Is that necessary? I've already provided sources for two countries; I have others for Canada. That's enough to say "domestic law governs the line of succession in some realms". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Mies: The mischief to which attention is being called is the inappropriate use of "domestic" in this context. It would tend to baffle both the more and the less expert reader. Please reconsider more exactly the purport of the factual information you consider notable here, and avoid putting what looks like too much of a personal gloss on it in a way which spoils the article as a whole. Perhaps the point, whatever it is, adds too little to the information already presented in the article for useful time to be spent on it. If it is valid, there should be an acceptable source for it. If not, what place is there for it here? It is liable to be seen as questionable argument on insecure facts - in other words tendentious. The topic is Line of (future) succession to the British throne, and that line is currently identical in all the realms. If there are side-issues, let them be put somewhere else. Nor is this article a suitable place for editors to engage in speculative inferential reasoning on difficult points of constitutional law which may hereafter arise as a result of Perth Agreement leigislation for altering or retaining the Line. Qexigator (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

TFD; what do you mean exactly by 'these realms recognize the person who is head of state of the UK, whether monarch or president, as automatically their monarch'?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I randomly picked the Constitution of Australia. That document states "The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom." I have not checked any other countries. Somebody else might like to do that. Martinvl (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
See the sources above that state the laws relating to succession in Australia are part of Australian (note: not British) law. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Martinvl, I was about to post that. Malcolm Turnbull argued the effect of that clause was that had the UK become a republic, the president of the UK would be king of Australia. Miesianiacal may be right that subsequent imperial legislation may have altered that by making the succession laws for Australia part of Australian law. My question is whether the Caribbean constitutions are similar, since Miesianiacal says their succession laws remain British. TFD (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I checked the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize and Grenada. Their constitutions make makny references to "Her Majesty", but are silent as to who "Her Majesty" is.
Tuvalu on the other hand states quite clearly that the "Queen of Tuvalu" is the "Sovereign of the United Kingdom".
Six checked - four duck the issue and two state categorically that the sovereign is the sovereign of the UK.
Could someone else check the rest?
Martinvl (talk)
Yes, that's all correct. Much of this has already been researched for Perth Agreement. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Press misreporting

Editors may need to be wary of current press misreporting. For example, the front page of today's Times newspaper (of London) no. 70944, print copy, wrongly remarks: Under the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, girls have now equal succession rights as boys...But as the couple's firstborn child was a boy, the law is irrelevant. The facts about the lack of progress in the change of the law of succession could have been checked per [5] and Perth Agreement[6], and the info box at Succession to the Crown Act 2013 shows "Commencement Section 5: 25 April 2013, Rest of Act not in force". Qexigator (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Monarchies in Europe

Editors may wish to note that an update mentioning Line of succession to the British throne has been made to "Succession laws" section of Monarchies in Europe.[7] --Qexigator (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

With regard to that article, I'd be grateful for assistance in defending the map at Monarchies in Europe#Succession laws (File:European Union monarchies by succession.png on commons) against edits that mark the UK as having equal primogeniture ahead of the legislation. I keep reverting changes to the file and pointing out that the Act has not yet come into force, but I keep being reverted. Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 06:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
As at now[8] that appears to be an inadvertent error in the legend and colours. Would make the correction if I knew how. Qexigator (talk) 07:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Effects of the Perth Agreement

I'm wondering if it's be best to leave out speculative claims about what the effects will be should all the legislation relating to the Perth Agreement be brought into force. It's crystal balling in the first place; but, outcomes have been made even more uncertain by the legal challenge mounted against Canada's Succession to the Throne Act, 2013. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Please identify what you refer to as "speculative claims about what the effects will be..." Qexigator (talk)
[9] --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Inclined to agree that the implementation process is now dragging on too long for that stop-gap note (On implementation of the changes agreed in the Perth Agreement, the pairs of siblings... will switch places) to stand as is. May need omitting or re-wording, subject to views of DrK and others. Qexigator (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm having doubts the whole Perth Agreement won't just get dropped, now that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's child has turned out to be a boy. But, though that in itself is just speculation, it shows there's more than one possible outcome in the future. The Canadian law being declared unconstitutional is yet another. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
And now the note has been revised. [10] In my view this is acceptable until it is known that the relevant commencement has been indefinitely postponed. Private or published doubts hardly come into it. This is not a betting shop offering odds. The one thing that is certain is that the Line of succession has not been changed and remains as was plus new boy at no. 3. Qexigator (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It is speculative to ignore legislation because you are hoping for a frivolous court challenge to succeed. TFD (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the court proceedings may get nowhere, and it can be surmised that a betting shop would offer odds against a result which ultimately prevented the changes per the UK Act, if the provisions as now enacted ever become law. Qexigator (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Who are you addressing? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The above and all and sundry who are concerned with questions pertinent to improving the article and avoiding input which is unlikely to be conducive to that end. Qexigator (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, my question was put to TFD, specifically (I thought the indenting make that clear). I can't tell who here has suggested that any legislation be ignored or expressed a hope for a "frivilous court challenge" to succeed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry - I'm not clear about the indent convention and it seems that it varies from place to place and person to person. So please carry on with TFD without intervention from me! Qexigator (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Miesianiacal, I was responding to you. I do not see why should ignore the changes to the succession laws, just because is a remote possibility the Canadian courts will consider the Canadian law ultra vires. In any case, the laws have been passed. TFD (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
You can't have been responding to me because I never suggested the things you accused someone of suggesting. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Then what is this discussion thread about? TFD (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not "crystal balling" because the UK (plus at least one other realm, NOT counting Canada, and two Australian states) has passed legislation to implement the Perth Agreement, though implementation has been deferred until all the realms are ready. Though the Perth Agreement may now seem less urgent (since the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge's first child is a boy), it remains relevant with respect to other persons in the line of succession as listed here (i.e., two girls with brothers born *after* 28 October 2011, plus two others excluded solely for marrying Catholics)--not to mention if George is followed by a girl, then another boy--and is NOT going away. IMO, the most likely outcome is the process will be slowed down until the Canadian lawsuit is resolved. Even if the Canadian legislation is found unconstitutional, there are still multiple possibilities (depending on what process the courts say is needed) by which Canada could still implement the Perth Agreement; the lawsuit contains multiple grounds other than the s. 41 "unanimity procedure", and it is by NO means certain that s. 41 will have to be followed. (The courts could also find the current law constitutional, declare NO legislation is needed under the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867, or tell Parliament to enact it as either ordinary legislation or a "Parliament only" amendment under s. 44.) Though the UK legislation could still theoretically be "abandoned" thru non-implementation (much like the Easter Act 1928), that is only likely if the process breaks down completely in Canada (or some other realm); predicting THAT would be "crystal balling". --RBBrittain (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
My understanding is that at present the law would have no effect on the line of succession. However, we are not supposed to figure out what effect it would have, just report what people reliable sources say are in line. TFD (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources now out of date.

Aren't some of the sources listed in this article now out of date. Whilst I'm sure the official monarchy site has been updated I doubt that other sources such as Whittikers haven't yet. Unless anyone can find a reliable source that shows Zanouska Mowett at 49 shouldn't she be removed. I know we all know that she is 49 but that is Synthesis unless we have a source. (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that's allowed by WP:CALC. As the monarchy website has now added the new baby, and every reliable source describes him as heir to the throne, can we take it that we have now clarified one issue: that an infant does not have to wait to be baptized a Protestant before he or she comes into the line of succession? This does leave the issue of when Catholic children become excluded. PatGallacher (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we knew baptism as a Protestant isn't a requirement: the Orthodox royals remain eligible. DrKiernan (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the law does state clearly that you have to be a Protestant to inherit the throne, so the Orthodox are ineligible. What is clarified here is that baptism is not a requirement, children are being treated as Protestants presumably on their parents intentions of how to bring them up. We still have the issue of when Catholic children become excluded. PatGallacher (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I meant people who are baptised Orthodox, like Prince Philip. DrKiernan (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

^In actual fact the Act in question just states whoever succeeds to the throne must enter into communion with the Church of England. Only Roman Catholics are excluded from succession-but other denominations of Christianity such as Eastern Orthodoxy-Marie of Romania for example did not lose her place in the succession due to her convertion to Orthodoxy or her subsequent convertion to Bahaism either-and her Orthodox descendents in the Romanian and Serbian Royal families are still in the British line of succession-, Lutheranism (George I and George II were both Lutherans), or other religions for that matter, someone in the line of descent who converted to Islam, for example, would not be excluded from the succession)

"We still have the issue of when Catholic children become excluded." -Quite simple. The second they are baptized Catholic.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Ths is apparently not true, otherwise Albert and Leopold Windsor wouldn't be on the list. They've both been baptised into the Roman Catholic Church. Leopold was baptised at the Vatican [11] Morhange (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Being baptized at a Roman Catholic Church doesn't make one Catholic, because one isn't baptized into a Christian denomination, one is merely baptized Christian: when Protestants convert to Catholicism or vice versa they are not normally re-baptized. What one may not do and inherit or possess the crown of England according to the Act of Settlement is: 1. be reconciled to or hold communion with the Roman Catholic Church 2. profess the Roman Catholic faith, or 3. marry a Roman Catholic. These appear to be deliberate acts which require comprehension and therefore cannot legally be undertaken by dynasts too young to understand their meaning. FactStraight (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok let's get back on subject shall we. I don't think this is acceptable under WP:CALC in the same way as the Position of the Lascelles isn't. We all KNOW where they sit in the succession but unless we have a verifiable source we can't include them. That's now I think an accepted position. We now (at least for the time being) don't have a verifiable source which shows Zanouska Mowett at 49. In fact the only source we do have is the British Monarchy website, so perhaps references to Whittakers and Debretts et all should be removed Lewisdl (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Stating that we need a new source to shuffle everybody following the birth of Prince George of Cambridge is pedantry gone silly. We can expect a birth or a death to affect the list at least once if not twice a year. Doesn't the proposer have anything better to do with his time? Martinvl (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes of course it's pedantry gone mad, but its the same excuse used not to extend the line further. I.e a lack of a verifiable source. We do have a verifiable source namely the Monarchy website that lists everyone own to 48 so I'm not suggesting anything major. It's just that Whittakers and Debretts listed as sources are now both out of date and therefore should be removed as references unil such time as they are updated. Lewisdl (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Apart from the heir apparent/presumptive (who by definition is the first in line of succession), the numbering attached to the person's position is irrelevant. What is important is the order. The numbering is merely a convenience. Martinvl (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
so if the numbering is " merely a convenience" then we should be able to add the Lascelles descendents and all those that follow? I think not. The reason for excluding them is that we don't have a reputable verifiable source which identifies their numerical position. That is sound reasoning which I don't have a problem with. However we also at present don't have a reputable verifiable source which shows Zanouska Mowett at 49. So she should be removed until such time as one exists. In the same vein the references to Whittakers and Debretts are incorrect now . They don't show the succession as it is now shown. They are wrong. Lewisdl (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The position that we need a source specifically stating that a person is placed at a number in the list makes no more sense now than it did when it was used during the discussions about trimming the list from the 1000s down to its current form. (BTW, I agree the list did need to be trimmed, I just never bought into that particular reason for doing it.) Yes, the sources used prior to the birth of Prince George to justify listing Zenouska Mowatt at #48 are now out-of-date. However, this has no effect on their reliability as to the fact that Zenouska Mowatt follows Christian Mowatt in the line. Having reliable sources now that Christian Mowatt has been moved to #48 following Prince George's birth, and at the same time no source disputing (or any reason to doubt) that Zenouska continues to immediatlely follows her brother, how can it not fall under the "routine calculations" of WP:CALC to then list her as #49? LarryJeff (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I think the problem with the Lascelles family came up because people found issue with the fact that there was no consent for some of the marriages of the current Earl's two brothers, so it couldn't be verified that the children from these marriages were in line, despite some of them appearing in some older versions of the line of succession. At the very least, however, the Earl of Harewood and his two sons should be included, but of course I'm sure people will demand some kind of specific source that Lord Harewood is 50th in line, despite the fact that said source will be outdated by the end of the month when Lord Frederick Windsor's first child is born. Morhange (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The 2003 edition of Whitakers states that the Ear of Harewood is 37th in line, behind Zenouska Mowatt. Is there any reason to suspect that there have been changes to that part of the line of succession. Martinvl (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Apart from his death? His successor, the 8th Earl, may be next, but there's an immediate problem after that. The current "Viscount Lascelles" has a legitimized older brother. William the Conqueror, Mary I and Elizabeth I were all illegitimate, but it didn't stop them becoming monarch. It seems to me that the line after the 8th Earl is an open question. DrKiernan (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Point taken. BTW, the legitimacy or otherwise of Mary I and Elizabeth I depends on who you listen to. William the Conqueror's illegitimacy is well documented (I don't have it hand) - his father told the Norman nobles that his illegitimate son William was a suitable heir should the nobles agree. Martinvl (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't accept this point as taken. William I, Mary I and Elizabeth I all pre-date the Act of Settlement; Mary and Elizabeth succeeded not by ordinary right of inheritance but under the express provisions of the Third Succession Act. It's very well established that illegitimate children have no claim under the Act of Settlement, and their issue have no claim through them – otherwise various descendants of William IV, for example, would have a better claim to the Throne than the current Queen. Subsequent legitimation does not alter the position. (Legitimacy Act 1976, Sched. 1, para. 5: "It is hereby declared that nothing in this Act affects the Succession to the Throne.") I see no reason to believe that the line is an "open question"; Lord Lascelles's legitimated brother very clearly does not have succession rights. Alkari (?), 6 August 2013, 21:40 UTC
Each jurisdiction has legislated independently. There are circumstances when the law of England and Wales applies in other jurisdictions, and there are circumstances when European law does not apply in England and Wales, but this is one area where the application of the law is completely untested and unlikely to be addressed by any legal scholar. DrKiernan (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

All the arguments for including or for that matter excluding Zanouska Mowett also apply to David Lascelles. I fail to see the difference. If we are going to exclude people because there is no reliable and verifiable source then Zanouska Mowett should be excluded. If we are going to allow ZanouskA Mowett to remain because of WP:CALC then surely we can do the same for David Lascelles. I really don't mind which but at the moment we are not being consistent Lewisdl (talk) 07:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that the same arguments for Zenouska Mowatt could be extended for David Lascelles. However, if I remember correctly from the discussion that resulted in cutting the list off following Ms Mowatt, one of the big sticking points regarding the Lascelles family beyond the Earl of Harewood (David) was excluding those born to unwed parents. Apparently it was/is considered a BLP issue to call someone "illegitimate." It was (again, if I am remembering correctly) for this reason the decision was made to end the list with the descendants of Prince George, Duke of Kent, the last of those being Zenouska Mowatt. While it's true there is no "policy" reason for not going 1 more spot and including the Earl of Harewood (a statement which assumes agreement to including Ms Mowatt), it does seem to be a "cleaner" presentation to break the list at a familiy grouping rather than adding 1 more person at the end. By then stating the line "continues with the eligible descendants of Mary, Princess Royal ..." we are accurate without having to worry about arguing who exactly those "eligible descendents" are. LarryJeff (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
This is no longer an issue, at least with the descendants of George V's sons. All of George V's eligible legitimate male-line descendants are now listed on the monarchy's official website. Still at a loss for why they won't fix the glaring error with Lady Helen and her children and Lord Nicholas Windsor's sons (or clarify at which point a person is official considered Catholic, since as things stand, infant baptism apparently does not count) Morhange (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we will ever get consensus to extend the list beyond Zanouska Mowett . The British monarchy website has now been updated to include maud Windsor which makes the sources listed ie Whitikers and Debretts even more out of date shouldn't they be removed because they are now factually incorrect.Lewisdl (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Children of Lord Nicholas Windsor

I would have thought that the children of Lord Nicholas Windsor are technically ineligible to be in the succession, being baptised Roman Catholics. How odd that they appear on the British Monarchy website list. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

  • They haven't been confirmed Catholics, which I think is the criteria being used. They are still minors who haven't made their own choices regarding religion.

--Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Uh, per the 1701 Act of Settlement, the only criteria would be baptism rather than confirmation.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

  • I've always been under the impression that any Catholic sacrament would exclude a person from the line of succession, but since the official site lists them, so do we--although it should be noted that the official website has a few glaringly obvious errors (and still has yet to update with Lord Frederick's daughter's name) Unfortunately, there isn't much historically cited precedent as far as I know, since most kept lists in the past focused on the immediate members of the royal family who were, until the Kents, Protestant. Whether earlier lists included the descendants of Princess Ileana of Romania or Princess Beatrice of Edinburgh until their infant baptism or their confirmation, I don't know. It seems that we've done a bit of Wikipedia:OR in assuming that confirmation is how it's determined, but there's nothing to really base this on aside from the official website's inclusion of Albert and Leopold. The Earl of St. Andrews' children were baptised as Anglicans and converted to Catholicism at their confirmations which excluded them, but Lord Nicholas' children were baptised as Catholics. Morhange (talk) 07:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This was discussed in the House of Commons briefly during the debate on the Succession Bill. IIRC, Jacob Rees-Mogg said that he believed baptism was sufficient to exclude a child because otherwise James II's baby son would not have been excluded. As he pointed out in the debate, the whole 1701 Act and Bill of Rights was developed to exclude a minor. I would presume that Buckingham Palace are including Albert and Leopold (and previously Marina and St Andrews) because they are reading the Act with as much leniency as possible (the same reason that the Duke of Kent is not excluded, even though he is married to a Catholic). Personally, I would think that as the law has never been tested, it is not in fact known how it would be interpreted. DrKiernan (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
At the time the Duke and Duchess of Kent married, she was a Protestant, which is why I'm assuming he is still in line, even though his wife converted later. Perhaps there's no law about post-wedding conversions in order to prevent a spouse converting out of spite...but either way, the baptism part doesn't apply to Lord St. Andrews' children because Lord Downpatrick and Lady Marina (and Lady Amelia) were all baptised into the Church of England. The two oldest children converted, which is why they are also excluded. Lady Amelia is, apparently, still Anglican, which is why she's still in line. But Albert and Leopold were baptised as Catholics, so their inclusion is confusing. Morhange (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • per the 1701 Act of Settlement, the only criteria would be baptism: so said JWULTRABLIZZARD above. But I don't see that. Is it so? Qexigator (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The wording in the act is "all and every person and persons that then were or afterwards should be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or should profess the Popish Religion or marry a Papist should be excluded". DrKiernan (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Then prima facie the criterion seems to be, unless otherwise judicially or legislatively determined, not (infant) baptism but confirmation in communion with Rome. Qexigator (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


I want to ask: do you have on en wiki special criteria for notability for people from this list, or you use generals for people? Einsbor (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC) (from pl wiki)

The Queen, the Prince of Wales and anyone who holds a British peerage is considered notable. Other persons on the list may be notable if they meet other criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). People who meet notability may not have articles about them if no one has bothered to write one. TFD (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Einsbor (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Citing the British Monarchy Website

I'll start by saying I have no objection whatsoever to including Mia Tindall on this list already, as she's obviously after Zara Phillips/Tindall in the line of succession. However, the "B" following her name that says that she's listed on the Monarchy website appears to technically be premature, as the British Monarchy website's succession list hasn't been updated since July 2013. She presumably will be listed there once the site's been updated, but the "B" is currently not technically correct as the Note is actually written. (That is: 'listed by the official website of the British Monarchy, "Succession"') Does it make sense to add this proactively when she's not actually on the list yet? I know that to not do so would require going back and fixing it later, but it is currently technically wrongly applied. I'm interested to know what the preferred approach is here. Metheglyn (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I might've been the one that added it, although it was a mistake on my behalf. Her birth and the fact that she is 16th in line is mentioned on the BRF website, via the announcement by the press secretary, but she's not listed on the succession page, so yes, the B should be rightly removed. Although the website has definitely been updated since July, since Maud Windsor was added and she was born in August. Who knows how long it'll be before Mia gets added though. Morhange (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
In order to avoid original research, we should provide the same listings as reliable sources and state when they were retrieved. So if for example the article says the list was based on reliable sources as reported in July 2013, then it meets rs, even if the list has since changed. We can note persons added or removed from the list without altering the list. For example we could say that the list was based on reliable sources as reported in July 2013, and since then so-and-so has been born and is now 16th in line to the throne, according to the Palace. TFD (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not "original research" because in the announcement article of her birth, it states that she is now 16th in the line of succession. It was the same when Maud Windsor was born, articles mentioning that she was, at the time, 42nd in line. The official list is already incorrect with how it places Lady Helen ahead of her brother's children (whether or not those two are actually in line is a different discussion) but it would be silly to omit Zara's daughter's placement based on that source when another, more recent source from the same website gives us Mia's correct place. Morhange (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
While it is not OR to say she is 16th in line, it is OR to correct the list, because the new source does not say whether the original 15 people are the same or whether there have been any changes to the persons following the 16th in line. TFD (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that's allowed under WP:CALC. PatGallacher (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Prince of Wales

Will Prince William take over the title of Prince of Wales when Prince Charles ascends to the throne (or if he dies before doing so)? Marbe166 (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not automatic. The monarch may choose to grant the title of "Prince of Wales", but doesn't have to. If Charles ascends, William will automatically become Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Prince of Scotland + a bunch of other titles. If he predeceases Elizabeth, William won't automatically gain any title, but she might create him Prince of Wales. Surtsicna (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
As a point of interest, if Charles predeceases Elizabeth, then does that alter the succession to either Anne (Perth) or Andrew (if Perth not implemented), who would therefore take on the 'Prince/Princess of Wales' title as heir apparent? William is third in line to the throne behind Charles but is that not because he would succeed his father as King as his eldest heir? If Charles is never King then doesn't that mean it would pass to the next of Elizabeth's children? I am probably showing a lack of knowledge here, but it's just something I was genuinely curious about and can't really find an answer to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
If Charles dies, everyone below him in line moves up one place, so William is heir apparent. He may or may not be created Prince of Wales, depending on whether the monarch grants him the title. Perth does not affect Anne's or Andrew's positions. Anne can only inherit if all three of her brothers and all of their children and grandchildren die. DrKiernan (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The last few times the scenario described by could have happened, it didn't. George II was succeeded in 1760 not by his first surviving son but by the son of his dead first son. In 1837 the crown passed from the childless third son of George III not to the living fifth son (out of seven!) but to the child of the fourth. ... Have I forgotten another modern example? The only other one that comes to mind at the moment is Richard II (son of the deceased first of Edward III's five sons), who at least shows that the precedent is of long standing. —Tamfang (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)