From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Is this article a hoax?

This article claims to be a list of the "Line of succession to the British throne" but yet the vast majority of people listed on it are "excluded from the line of succession for various reasons"; this has led to this site being officially designated as the longest in Wikipedia. I understand that British humor is often beyond the grasp of us Yanks, and it seems like a lot of work to create the longest page in Wikipedia as purely a hoax, but is this article some sort of ironic performance art- perhaps a commentary on the superfluous nature of royalty or the obsessive nature of people who watch royalty? Bill Whittaker ( talk) 13:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a hoax. Please see the last 6.5 years of discussion and the article's history for details.
To summarize: This article is an attempt to list all people in the line of succession to the British throne. As a convenience to keep people who are in the hereditary line but are excluded for religion or other reasons from being added by well-intentioned editors, they or their excluded ancestors are listed with a notation that they are excluded. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 13:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
No this is sadly not a joke. Certain people who have engaged in original research over the past few years continue to block any attempts to sort this article out by removing the majority of people listed. BritishWatcher ( talk) 13:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you proposing we start over with this, with an in-line reference or footnote for each name, then require citations for each subsequent change? If enforced, it would eliminate the OR problem. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 13:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Some project along these lines might be useful. john k ( talk) 03:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Some possible Lascelles exclusions

Anthony Camp points out above a possible issue which should lead to five individuals we currently have in line being excluded. Apparently, James Lascelles did not seek RMA permission for his second marriage, and Jeremy Lascelles did not seek RMA permission for either of his marriages. Arguably, then, Tewa Lascelles, Thomas Lascelles, Ellen Lascelles, Amy Lascelles, and Tallulah Lascelles are technically illegitimate, and should not be considered in the line of succession.

The history of the Sussex peerage claim case in 1844 would seem to support such a contention. That case stated that any descendant of George II who was both a British subject and otherwise subject to the terms of the act could not marry anywhere without royal consent, and that as such, the Duke of Sussex's first marriage, without permission, in Rome did not confer succession rights on the dukedom to his son. This would appear to affect both the Lascelles brothers. James's second marriage was in the United States, but he was born in Britain and so is presumably a British subject. Jeremy Lascelles's two marriages were both contracted in Britain.

Are there broader affects of the RMA in this same respect? I'm not sure. The lines which are still subject to the RMA would appear to be as follows:

  1. All descendants of George V. Other than James and Jeremy Lascelles, so far as I am aware all other marriages in this group have been given RMA permission.
  2. Descendants of George V's sister Louise, Duchess of Fife. Again, so far as I am aware, all marriages in this group have been given RMA permission
  3. Descendants of Lady Patricia Ramsay. Again, so far as I am aware, all marriages in this group have been given RMA permission
  4. Agnatic descendants of Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Charles Edward himself got permission, so his children were certainly in the line of succession, but none of his children received permission. However, it seems to me that none of the duke's children were British subjects at the time of their marriage, being citizens of Germany, and that as such, the Sussex precedent would not apply to them. So they are probably still included.
  5. Descendants of Charles Edward's sister Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone. Several of these are not listed as having sought royal permission in the Royal Marriages Act article. Specifically, Ian Liddell-Grainger, Simon Liddell-Grainger, Alice Liddell-Grainger, and Malcolm Liddell-Grainger (of that family, only their brother Charles's two marriages are listed). If these indeed did not seek royal permission, their children would all, like those of James and Jeremy Lascelles, be excluded.
  6. Agnatic descendants of King Ernest Augustus I of Hanover - the majority of these seem to have sought permission, but several seem not to have. Here the same situation might apply as with the Duke of Saxe-Coburg's children - as non-British subjects, the Sussex precedent does not seem to apply, so they may be included regardless.
  7. Maybe also the descendants of the first Marquess of Cambridge. He himself requested permission, but none of his descendants have. I'm not sure whether he was subject to the act. His mother had married the Duke of Teck, who was German born, but lived his later years in England - the children grew up in England. This might count as a marriage to a foreigner, however. Certainly the fact that his daughter, Lady Mary Cambridge, did not seek royal permission for her marriage to Lord Worcester would suggest that, by 1923, they were not considered subject to the act - surely the heir to a dukedom would not have entered into an illegal marriage for no reason.

I believe that everybody else is pretty clearly exempted due to the "princesses who marry a foreigner" exemption.

What would really be useful here, though, would be what reliable sources say on the subject. Are there any reliable lists that include Tewa Lascelles and his cousins in the order of succession? Any that discuss the issue? The Farran Exception might also be worth pointing to here, as it would suggest that virtually nobody, except the descendants of Lady Patricia Ramsay, are actually subject any longer to the RMA. john k ( talk) 22:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Reitwiesner's " Persons Eligible to Succeed to the British Throne as of 1 Jan 2001," one of our main sources, says "yes" to Tewa Lascelles. Note that this source cites one of our other sources, The Descendants of King George I of Great Britain, for updates after 1976, and may assume everyone in the latter list is eligible for the throne unless Reitwiesner happens to know a reason to exclude them. In other words, it's cited, but Reitwiesner could be in error on any particular person post-1976. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 05:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
As I understand it, Reitwiesner interprets the RMA as being vitiated by the Farran exception. Which is to say, he believes that all descendants of Edward VII are not covered by it because Queen Alexandra, and thus, all of her descendants, was descended from two daughters of George II who married foreigners. Similarly, all descendants of Charles Edward of Saxe-Coburg are excluded because his wife, too, was a descendant of a princess who married a foreigner. Same deal for all descendants of the first duke of Cambridge - his wife was a descendant of a daughter of George II. And the same is also true for descendants of the third duke of Cumberland - his wife, too, was a descendant of a princess who married a foreigner. You can see that this is the case from the fact that the youngest son of the 2nd Duke of Cambridge and Mrs. Fitzgeorge is included, even though that marriage was universally considered invalid (i.e., Mrs. Fitzgeorge never got to be HRH The Duchess of Cambridge]], and Augustus Fitzgeorge himself was not HH Prince Augustus of Cambridge, and so forth. Because the Farran exception is generally not considered to be valid, as shown by the fact that most of the people supposed to be subject to it still apply for permission, and the monarch still grants permission, I don't think that Reitwiesner can be considered a reliable source on the matter - just as I don't think he's a reliable source on which marriage of Carol II of Romania should be considered valid. He is a reliable source on the pure genealogical issues. I'm not sure there's any good way to resolve this, though. If Lords Harewood and Lascelles, and Lord Lascelles's two legitimate sons, and James Lascelles and Rowan Lascelles were all to die, and leave Tewa Lascelles as potentially next in line for the earldom, I guess the question would be resolved, in that if his father's marriage is legal in the UK, he could inherit the earldom, but if it is not, he could not. But short of that, it may be irresolvable. john k ( talk) 15:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't regard Reitweisner as a reliable source for anything other than genealogy either. He includes some individuals in the succession who are about as Catholic as you can be (though I don't have a source beyond saying "I knew them at University so I know"). Opera hat ( talk) 00:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I think he specifically says he's not bothering to exclude Catholics, because he doesn't have good sources for who is Catholic and who is not. He includes some individuals in the succession for whom there are numerous sources that they are Catholic - the King of Spain, Dr. Otto Habsburg, the King of the Belgians; or for whom we have numerous sources that they married Catholics - Prince Michael, Lord St Andrews, the Crown Prince of Yugoslavia. john k ( talk) 03:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
What about the argument that many of the "foreign" princes whose issue by British princesses were supposedly exempted were in fact technically British themselves (as Protestant descendants of the Electress Sophia) and therefore not foreign at all? Opera hat ( talk) 00:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes - basically, I think that both the Farran Exemption and this loophole are basically fringe theories that virtually nobody believes are legally valid, and that certainly are not treated as valid by the monarch or the government of the UK. They ought, I think, probably to be ignored in interpreting who is in line for the throne. john k ( talk) 03:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll add a general position on this issue. I think our basic position should be to presume a marriage which has been legally recorded is valid, and that its descendants are legitimate, and thus in line for the throne under the Act of Settlement. If the British courts have ruled that a particular marriage was invalid under the RMA (as they did with the Sussex marriage), in that event we can judge it to be invalid and its descendants excluded from the succession - but only if we have a real source that says as much. This more or less allows us to get around the question, and is, I think, justified by WP:NOR - it's not our job to decide who is covered by the RMA, and whether or not they are thus legitimate or not. If there was a marriage which was legally solemnized in the country where it took place, we count it as valid unless we have some reliable source which says otherwise. We can't simply infer from the language of the RMA and the Sussex peerage decision, that any particular marriage was invalid. john k ( talk) 03:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
This imposes a uniquely high standard for inclusion in this article. The Sussex marriage is the only one among George II's descendants which has been ruled invalid under the RMA. The marriages to British princes of Maria Fitzherbert and Sarah Fairbrother were never declared void by any court, yet we treat the marriages as invalid because nearly all reliable sources do so. That's the normal & proper standard. The Farran Exemption and applicability of the Sophia Naturalization Act to those born between 1705 and 1948 are not "fringe theories", at least not to me: on the contrary, they are perfectly coherent on their faces (as is British law and historical governmental interpretation that members of the British royal family are forbidden by extant statute from contracting civil marriages in England, the "Duchess of Cornwall" notwithstanding). We don't ignore these points of law because they're daft or legally inapplicable, but because British sovereigns and their governments have treated them as inapplicable, and will probably continue to do so until someone with legal standing successfully challenges such treatment in a court of law. Lethiere ( talk) 07:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay. That the Mrs. Fitzherbert marriage was treated as invalid is demonstrated by the fact that the Prince of Wales married again, that his (second?) wife was called Princess of Wales, that his daughter by that marriage was given the style of royal highness and that he himself succeeded to the throne upon his father's death. That the Fairbrother marriage was treated as invalid can be demonstrated by the fact that Augustus Fitzgeorge was never given any style and did not succeed to his father's title. There are no living descendants of either of those unions, so it's really irrelevant to this article what we think about them, but I agree that there's enough grounds for considering both of those marriages to be invalid under the RMA. I was perhaps too restrictive in saying a court procedure is necessary. What should be necessary is a reliable source saying somebody is excluded, just as we should need a reliable source for Catholicism or marriage to a Catholic. I agree that the Farran Exemption and Sophia Naturalization Act issues are not "fringe" in the sense that they are incoherent. They are "fringe theories" in the sense that, as you say, they have been treated as inapplicable, and are unlikely to ever not be treated as inapplicable. Certainly the Sophia Naturalization Act issue causes some serious exclusions. At any rate, how do you suggest we deal with this Lascelles issue (and similar issues, like with the Liddell-Graingers)? I don't think we have any good sources that rule on this one way or the other. The RMA would certainly normally be seen to apply to James and Jeremy Lascelles, as seen by James's application for permission on his first marriage, and by all the other Lascelles who have requested permission. But I don't think we have any specific sources which exclude them. The Sophia Naturalization issue, btw, starts to make things really complicated. For example, all of Victoria's two oldest daughters' children's marriages were illegal, since none of them received permission. Speaking of which - how can the second marriage of Victoria Melita of Saxe-Coburg be considered legitimate under the RMA? She was not a descendant of George II via any princesses who married foreigners, and had requested permission for her first marriage, as did her older and younger sister. Her youngest sister, Beatrice, did not, but her descendants are all Catholic anyway, so it's irrelevant. But Victoria Melita's second marriage would appear to be clearly illegitimate under the RMA. It still seems to me that, in the absence of evidence that the British Sovereign and his or her government consider or considered a particular marriage to be made in violation of the RMA, we should assume the marriage is valid. Obviously, a court case is not the only way to show that a marriage is invalid. But some sort of direct evidence ought to be required. john k ( talk) 13:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC).
Is it not time to admit, in view of all these legal conumdrums, to which (as I have repeatedly said) no one knows the answers, that the only sensible outcome is to limit the list to the first 40 names, and to scrap the rest of it as hypothetical and quite out of place in anything calling itself an encyclopedia, but providing a summary of the above points (so usefully set out by John Kenney above) as the reason for doing so. AnthonyCamp ( talk) 14:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC).
There are sources which go further than the first 40 names. Debrett's apparently lists the line of succession through the descendants of the Duke of Fife - and in 2002 included Tewa, Thomas, Ellen, and Amy Lascelles. Assuming this is correct (and I see no reason to think it isn't), isn't Debrett's a reliable source? john k ( talk) 15:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Robert Hardman's companion book to the 2007 TV series Monarchy, the Royal Family at Work has the line of succession (pre-Severn) as one of its appendices. He lists 50: 40–50 are Lord Harewood, Lord Lascelles, Alexander, Edward, James, Rowan, Tewa, Sophie, Jeremy, Thomas and Ellen Lascelles. Now, the series and book are authorised, and the Palace were fairly involved. However, Hardman doesn't cite his source(s) for the line of succession, so, as far as we know, he could have used us... However, it is very likely that the Palace bods have looked over it and gone 'yeah, that's about right' D B D 17:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Between that and Debrett's that seems like a reasonably strong case that the Lascelles' in question are considered to be in the line of succession. We certainly won't get any better without an actual legal case, I don't think. john k ( talk) 18:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Romanian royal family

Currently, we cite Reitwiesner as our source for the King of Romania and his children and grandchildren. The linked source, however, does not list them at all - Reitwiesner apparently considers King Michael to be illegitimate, and that thus his descendants are not in the line of succession - or rather, he includes them far, far down in the line of succession, through their mother's descent from Princess Margarethe of Denmark, a sister of Queen Alexandra. If we are following Reitwiesner, then, we ought to include Paul and Alexander Hohenzollern, not list King Michael at all (or list him as excluded because illegitimate) and list Michael's children and grandchildren much later (I notice that Princess Margaretha's descendants do not appear to be listed at all on the page currently). If we want to keep them where they are, we ought to provide a source which does so. We also ought to be able to find a source which excludes Paul and Alexander Hohenzollern, if such sources exist. john k ( talk) 18:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Princess Margaretha does not have any children. Morhange ( talk) 22:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I mean, Princess Margaretha of Denmark, sister niece of Queen Alexandra who married Prince René of Bourbon-Parma, not Princess Margarita of Romania, daughter of King Michael. john k ( talk) 00:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not the longest article

Note that this article is no longer the longest. Alan Davidson ( talk) 08:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Its still a disgrace. BritishWatcher ( talk) 09:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Not according to the consensus. But let's not argue. The statements have been made. But on a related point. The now longest article has a appearence of being quite short. a great deal of data is hidden, available to be expanded as needed by the reader. Perhaps we could do a similar thing here. For example in many places there are long lists of skipped desecendenats. A link with say "27 skipped [Show]" may be preferable. Or even have "Descendants of Ernest Augustus I of Hanover (1771–1851) [Show]" etc. Alan Davidson ( talk) 13:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree about hiding the skipped people. Broader hiding might also be appropriate. john k ( talk) 15:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, BritishWatcher ( talk) 16:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I definitely think those people who are indisputably not in the line of succession should be behind a show/hide tag. After all, they're outside the scope of the article and only there really as a genealogical reference point. Opera hat ( talk) 23:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I also think the term "skipped" sounds rather inappropriate. "Excluded" would be better given the actual wording of the Act of Settlement. Opera hat ( talk) 23:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Simeon Munoz

according to this source, Simeon Hassan Munoz has been baptized as Orthodox: baptismal news

Neither of these churches, the Roman Catholic church, nor Orthodox, would ever have countenanced, if the boy were already baptized as catholic. Nor to a later catholic baptism. It's clear this baptismal was his first and only one. No proff of anything else. And thusly there is nothing whatsoever which would make the two-and-half-year-old boy as professing papist. ObRoy ( talk) 21:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Extra information

Couldn't the Line of succession to the British throne#Other monarchs in the line of succession and Line of succession to the British throne#Consorts in the line of succession be moved to a separate page like List of other royal and princely houses in the line of succession to the British throne? This would shrink the page by at least a little bit. Perhaps everything (except footnotes) below the last line of the succession be put on its own page with one link to it. This page could include the statistical tables, and links to the List of other royal and princely houses in the line of succession to the British throne which would include the monarchs and consorts as well, links to History of the British line of succession, and all the See also links. - JamesyWamesy ( talk) 20:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have in the past tried to split this article into A) The descendants of Victoria or alternatively George III (not much difference between those choices) and B) The more remote lines. The entire list will change every 2 days on average. There is simply no way to keep it accurate. It is however, possible to keep up with the limited task. Pacomartin ( talk) 16:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

It seems time for a new initiative here, since this article has been stuck in a deadlock. A straw poll isn't always the best option, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but with some luck we can forge a solution. I've placed several options in the poll, but feel free to add new ones if you feel they will attract significant support. This poll will last indefinitely until concensus can be gauged. Feel free also to support and oppose as many options as you wish. Please note I have consolidated the options of limiting the list and splitting the list, to help build concensus. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)




No change (article remains at status quo, no limit on inclusivity)
  • Oppose YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Will not oppose, support over extremely short lists davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 20:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - This article is too long, poorly presented and the tags will never be removed with so many names in the list. I understand people have put alot of work into this, but it really is a joke and i honestly feel there needs to be a reasonable article on the basic line of succession to the British throne. People want to know whos 5th in line not 1050th. BritishWatcher ( talk) 23:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support -- The article's length is properly dictated by the succession's legal scope. Those who want to know who appears to be in the line of succession are also likely to want to know approximately where in that line the person is, a reasonable inquiry for an encyclopedia (not limited by space considerations) to address. Lethiere ( talk) 23:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment That argument goes against a large number of Wikipedia's conventions; specifically that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information which should hold details about minor nobility just because it can, and that Wikipedia is not a directory to store family records. Being 1,234th in line to inherit the British throne does not meet notability guidelines. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 00:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstood what this straw poll was about? I thought it was a neutral, initial attempt to gauge where people who track the article currently stand on options for changes to its length, rather than an attempt to convince those who don't already prefer reduction to "come around" to the position of those who do. I would have refrained from participation at this point had I realized this, since I think people are pretty clear and exhausted over the differing positions and rationales for them. IMHO it is, at the least, premature to expect one side to have vanished or capitulated from the discussion absent presentation of fresh alternatives and willingness to compromise. I also thought that with respect to options not listed we were invited to "feel free to add new ones if you feel they will attract significant support," yet I see my attempt to add BritishWatcher's suggestion as a compromise option in the straw poll was promptly reverted. Lethiere ( talk) 01:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a vote; yes, it is about gauging people's positions, but within the context of Wikipedia's policies and conventions. As for your proposal - I'm sorry, I might have deleted it before by accident when I was organising the spacing, please feel free to propose any alternatives. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 01:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support -- See previous discussion, this is not new. Alan Davidson ( talk) 02:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - The length is appropriate for the topic. This is not an indiscriminate collection of information - it is very discriminate, based on who is in line for succession. Long is not the same as indiscriminate. Nor is it a directory, it is a valid list. Rlendog ( talk) 13:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support -- I love it the way it is. It's very interesting to keep up with the facts. Happy138 ( talk) 19:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. An article entitled "line of succession to the British throne" should do exactly what it says on the tin and give a list of the people in the line of succession; the fact that there are several thousand people in line is precisely that, a fact. What I am more concerned about is the inclusion in the list of an awful lot of people in italics who aren't in the line of succession - I think the suggestion to put them behind a show/hide box is quite a good one. Opera hat ( talk) 22:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. This is not simply an indiscriminate genealogical reference, in the sense that it is not simply a list of descendants of Electress Sophia - it is a list of people in line to inherit one of the world's few remaining monarchies. The list should be better sourced, but that can and should be done without removing the massive amount of work which has been put into it heretofore. john k ( talk) 03:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. The present list is partial and hypothetical and cannot ever be 'correct'. You have admitted that those listed have to get the permission of the monarch in Privy Council in order to marry and yet you have not attempted to note which, if any have followed that procedure. Without that permission their marriages are as legally invalid for the purpose of succession to the throne as those of George, Prince of Wales to Mrs Fitzherbert or of Prince George of Cambridge to Sarah Fairbrother. The official list does not go beyond No 40 (the Earl of Harewood) because the second marriage of James Lascelles in 1984 (affecting No 46) and the first and second marriages of Jeremy Lascelles (affecting Nos 50-53)did not have the approval of the Monarch and, as a result of the Royal Marriages Act 1772, their children cannot succeed. AnthonyCamp ( talk) 19:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
This is inaccurate. The vast majority of those who are in the British line of succession do not need permission of the sovereign to marry. The Royal Marriages Act only requires that permission be obtained by those who descend in the complete male and domestic female line of the Electress Sophia (plus any subsequent monarch, e.g. Victoria, Elizabeth II), i.e. no permission is needed of descendants of "princesses who marry into foreign families". But the latter far outnumbers the former, do retain succession rights, and are included in this article's listing. Lethiere ( talk) 22:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC).
Not so. The Act applies only to the descendants of George II (exempting "princesses who marry into foreign families") and it certainly applies to all the descendants of the Earl of Harewood. AnthonyCamp ( talk) 11:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC).
I stand corrected on the point that the Act applies only to the descendants of George II, and not to all descendants of the Electress Sophia. Further, I did not intend to say anything about the Lascelles per se, but to address the allegation, "You have admitted that those listed have to get the permission of the monarch in Privy Council in order to marry and yet you have not attempted to note which, if any have followed that procedure." Most of those currently listed in this article do not need the monarch's permission to marry, so whether or not info is available on that point is irrelevant to their inclusion. Moreover, some of those who do still require such permission are much further down on the list than #40, e.g. Princess Alexandra of Hanover (b. 1999) (and yes, her parents', paternal grandparents' and great-grandparents' receipts of royal authorization were gazetted). Lethiere ( talk) 02:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Limit list to descendents of Queen Elizabeth II/ Split further individuals into one or more other article(s). Currently about a dozen people are in this group.
  • Oppose YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - too small to be interesting. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 20:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- arbitrary cut-off, deliberately inaccurate as to who is in Britain's line of succession, & per davidwr Lethiere ( talk) 23:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Please clarify how limiting the list in this respect would make it "deliberately" innacurate. Also, remember that this option includes the possibility of splitting the rest of the list into seperate pages. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 00:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - current length is appropriate for this topic. Rlendog ( talk) 13:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - even if you wanted to limit the list, this is a terrible place to do it. john k ( talk) 03:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)



Limit list to descendents of Queen Victoria/ Split further individuals into one or more other article(s). Currently about 500 people plus an unknown number of missing people are in this group.
  • Oppose. For above reasons. AnthonyCamp ( talk) 19:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
  • Support YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - this seems like a reasonable place to draw the line. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 20:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- arbitrary cut-off, deliberately inaccurate as to who is in Britain's line of succession, & per davidwr Lethiere ( talk) 23:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The user davidwr supports this proposal, so you can hardly oppose and cite his support as a reason. Please clarify how limiting the list in this respect would make it "deliberately" innacurate. Also, remember that this option includes the possibility of splitting the rest of the list into seperate pages. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 00:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - current length is appropriate for this topic. Rlendog ( talk) 13:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - What would be the basis of this arbitrary limit? john k ( talk) 03:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I think that you need to look at the realistic rate of change of the list. From 1981 to 2001 the list length changed by one person every 4.4 days on average. That means probably someone was born every 3 days and someone died every 5.8 days . In the year 2009 someone is born about every 2-3 days and someone dies every 4-5 days. There is no way to maintain this list reliably on a day to day basis. Having a numbering system that extends to the end implies some kind of accuracy. It is reasonably possible to keep a list through the descendants of Victoria which is less than a thousand people with several hundred excluded for Catholicism. The extended list should be reduced to guidelines about which family lines are involved and how they are related to major monarchies like Prussia. The people who simply say arbitrary cut-off are not addressing the impossibility of maintaining a list that changes every few days. Even people that are on the list don't know their exact number when they get that far down the list. If preferred the cut-off could be George III. Even Victoria's descendants will change every two or three weeks. IMHO a limited accurate list with a general discussion of the extended list, is better than a long list which is almost always inaccurate. Pacomartin ( talk) 07:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


Limit list to descendents of George III/ Split further individuals into one or more other article(s). Currently about 530 people plus an unknown number of missing people are in this group. (option added by davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) at 20:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC))
  • Oppose for above reasons. AnthonyCamp ( talk) 19:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
  • Support this is also a reasonable place provided the final number isn't much in excess of 1000. If the actual number of additional people over a Victoria-based list is small, Victoria is probably a cleaner break-point. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 20:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Also a good cut-off point. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- arbitrary cut-off, deliberately inaccurate as to who is in Britain's line of succession, & per davidwr Lethiere ( talk) 23:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The user davidwr supports this proposal, so you can hardly oppose and cite his support as a reason. Please clarify how limiting the list in this respect would make it "deliberately" innacurate. Also, remember that this option includes the possibility of splitting the rest of the list into seperate pages. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 00:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - current length is appropriate for this topic. Rlendog ( talk) 13:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - again, arbitrary. john k ( talk) 03:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)



Limit list to 1,000 individuals/ Split further individuals into one or more other article(s)
  • Oppose' for above reasons. AnthonyCamp ( talk) 19:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
  • Oppose YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose numerical cut-offs as the "line" should be either "descendants of ..." or possibly "descendants of ... and his oldest X brothers" or "descendants of ... and his brothers and oldest X sisters" However, a few hundred to a few thousand is a good place to search for where the cut-off should be. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 20:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- per davidwr, also fractures kinships, arbitrary cut-off, and deliberately inaccurate as to who is in Britain's line of succession. Lethiere ( talk) 23:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Please clarify how limiting the list in this respect would make it "deliberately" innacurate. Also, remember that this option includes the possibility of splitting the rest of the list into seperate pages. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 00:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - current length is appropriate for this topic. Rlendog ( talk) 13:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is worse than an arbitrary genealogical cut-off. john k ( talk) 03:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)




Limit list to to 500 individuals/ Split further individuals into one or more other article(s)
  • Oppose for above reasons. AnthonyCamp ( talk) 19:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
  • Weak support YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose numerical cut-offs as the "line" should be either "descendants of ..." or possibly "descendants of ... and his oldest X brothers" or "descendants of ... and his brothers and oldest X sisters" However, a few hundred to a few thousand is a good place to search for where the cut-off should be. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 20:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- per davidwr, also fractures kinships, arbitrary cut-off, and deliberately inaccurate as to who is in Britain's line of succession. Lethiere ( talk) 23:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Please clarify how limiting the list in this respect would make it "deliberately" innacurate. Also, remember that this option includes the possibility of splitting the rest of the list into seperate pages. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 00:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - current length is appropriate for this topic. Rlendog ( talk) 13:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as above. john k ( talk) 03:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)



Limit list to 150 individuals/ Split further individuals into one or more other article(s)
  • Oppose for above reasons. AnthonyCamp ( talk) 19:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
  • Support YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose numerical cut-offs in principle and 150 is too small to be interesting.
  • Oppose -- per davidwr, also fractures kinships, arbitrary cut-off, and deliberately inaccurate as to who is in Britain's line of succession. Lethiere ( talk) 23:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Please clarify how limiting the list in this respect would make it "deliberately" innacurate. Also, remember that this option includes the possibility of splitting the rest of the list into seperate pages. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 00:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - current length is appropriate for this topic. Rlendog ( talk) 13:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - still worse. john k ( talk) 03:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)




Limit list to 100 individuals/ Split further individuals into one or more other article(s)
  • Oppose for above reasons. AnthonyCamp ( talk) 19:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
  • Support YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose numerical cut-offs in principle and 100 is way too small to be interesting. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 20:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- per davidwr, also fractures kinships, arbitrary cut-off, and deliberately inaccurate as to who is in Britain's line of succession. Lethiere ( talk) 23:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Please clarify how limiting the list in this respect would make it "deliberately" innacurate. Also, remember that this option includes the possibility of splitting the rest of the list into seperate pages. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 00:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - current length is appropriate for this topic. Rlendog ( talk) 13:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - even worse



Limit list to 50 individuals/ Split further individuals into one or more other article(s)
  • Support YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose numerical cut-offs in principle and 50 is too small to be interesting. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 20:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- per davidwr, also fractures kinships, arbitrary cut-off, and deliberately inaccurate as to who is in Britain's line of succession. Lethiere ( talk) 23:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Please clarify how limiting the list in this respect would make it "deliberately" innacurate. Also, remember that this option includes the possibility of splitting the rest of the list into seperate pages. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 00:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - current length is appropriate for this topic. Rlendog ( talk) 13:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - these numerical ones are terrible. john k ( talk) 03:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)



Limit list to 40 individuals/ Split further individuals into one or more other article(s). 40 is the number used on some official Royalty web sites and is therefore a notable sub-group in its own right. (top 40 option added by davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) at 20:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC))
  • Strongly Support. For the above stated reasons this is the only valid list. AnthonyCamp ( talk) 19:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
  • Oppose numerical cut-offs in principle and 150 40 is too small to be interesting. However, a different Wikipedia page containing 1-paragraph bios of these 40 individuals would make for an interesting page in its own right, as the "top 40" list is in and of itself notable by virtue of being used on Royal web sites. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 20:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC) corrected davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 13:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - An article with the list of 40 with each person having a paragraph bio would be great. I do not understand why we cant have that at this article title and just have the long list at "extended".. or the method used to break down the group into several other articles. BritishWatcher ( talk) 23:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Support this "extended article" alternative (but with links to bios instead of paragraph summaries), because it allows readers to choose to see part or all of the accumulated list. Lethiere ( talk) 23:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - current length is appropriate for this topic. Rlendog ( talk) 13:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


  • Support Advantage of smaller groupings is we can feature more in-depth information. Also agree in principle with davidwr's suggestion. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - We should limit this page to the list published on the Royal website. A second list can be created for the extended line. This page could then be a nice reasonable and well presented article, all the tags could instantly be removed. BritishWatcher ( talk) 23:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- per davidwr, also fractures kinships, arbitrary cut-off, and deliberately inaccurate as to who is in Britain's line of succession. Lethiere ( talk) 23:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Please clarify how limiting the list in this respect would make it "deliberately" innacurate. Also, remember that this option includes the possibility of splitting the rest of the list into seperate pages. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 00:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - current length is appropriate for this topic. Rlendog ( talk) 13:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - what would be the basis for this? Limiting to descendants of George V or Edward VII might be sensible, but these arbitrary numbers are bizarre. john k ( talk) 03:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)



Limit list to 20 individuals/ Split further individuals into one or more other article(s)
  • Support YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose numerical cut-offs in principle and 20 is way too small to be interesting. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 20:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- per davidwr, also fractures kinships, arbitrary cut-off, and deliberately inaccurate as to who is in Britain's line of succession. Lethiere ( talk) 23:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Please clarify how limiting the list in this respect would make it "deliberately" innacurate. Also, remember that this option includes the possibility of splitting the rest of the list into seperate pages. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 00:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - current length is appropriate for this topic. Rlendog ( talk) 13:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as above. john k ( talk) 03:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll to rename if necessary

Straw poll
IF the list is changed so its goal is anything other than a complete list of all people in the Line of Succession to the British Throne, it should be renamed to match its new goal.
  • Support. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 13:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Line of succession to the British throne should be a tidy well presented article detailing a reasonable number of people in line to the british throne (as presented on the Royal website itself)> The article should clearly link to an article with the full list with a title something like Extended line of succession to the British throne. BritishWatcher ( talk) 13:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. The line of succession to the British throne is very long. If the article doesn't even attempt to list everyone in line, that shouldn't be the title of the article. Opera hat ( talk) 22:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - this article ought not given an impression that, say, the descendants of George VI and his brothers are the only people in the line of succession, even if they are the only ones listed on the royal website. john k ( talk) 03:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

For me, the ideal would be to list the entire line. However, this is clearly very difficult, so it all boils down to how long a line we can keep reliable and verifiable. How far can we go with accurate numbers without OR and assumptions? (Beyond that point, we might move people to a sortable list of people in the line of succession to the British throne.) If this point happens to coincide with a common ancestor, then so much the better, but I won't chip into the strawpoll because I frankly don't know. At any rate, our inability to maintain the entire line is a shortcoming, and must be clearly noted as such in the article, so readers are not led to believe that the shorter list is actually all there is. — JAO • T • C 05:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly a lot shorter than you think, at least for a time. It's very possible that a death, birth, religious change, or marraige to a Roman Catholic anywhere past Elizabeth's descendants or perhaps the descendants of her father will go unnoticed by Wikipedia editors for days, weeks, or longer. Perhaps a better question is how long the list can be in principle assuming Wikipedia editors read all major big-city newspapers worldwide and monitored all royalty- and celebrity blogs. Even better, how big could a list be and be accurate but for a few people - I don't want some publicity-shy hermit at position 80 who quietly becomes Catholic being a reason to say "OMG we must stop at 79 or the list will be inaccurate."
It should be said that in principle one of us could scour historical records, birth records, death records, etc. the world over, publish the results as an E-book, and then cite it for this article. The results would be about as accurate as the major book- and web lists currently in the references section. Like those works, they would be hard to maintain. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 13:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Really? We can actually test this. Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor, who is not a descendant of George VI, converted to Catholicism last year. This was reported in the Observer on 25 May 2008 and made its way to Wikipedia on 27 May. By early June it was reflected in this page. Lord Culloden was born 12 March 2007. He was added to this page on 5 April. So there appears to be at most a couple week lag for descendants of George V. I think it is pretty easy to keep up with descendants of George V or Edward VII - there's only 84 of the latter, and most will be neither dying, having children, or converting to Catholicism at any given time. BTW, I think we ought to have a source for every inclusion, and a source for every exclusion due to Catholicism or marriage to a Catholic. I don't think we need sources which specifically say the person is in the line of succession, or that they have been excluded - but we should have a source for the contention that, say, Haakon Lorentzen or the King of Romania married a Catholic. I know that Martha Carvalho de Freitas and Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma both sound to be rather Catholic, but it would be good to have a specific source which said so. john k ( talk) 03:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I honestly can not understand how anyone can think the current list is an appropriate size. If no change is able to be formed we should move to meditation to see if that helps resolve the matter. BritishWatcher ( talk) 13:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. I don't mind keeping this article in it's current form per se, but I'd like to hear better rationales than just I like it. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 20:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Surely the reason is that the article purports to give the line of succession to the throne, and that artificially restricting it gives a false impression of the subject. One of the notable things of the line of succession is that there are thousands of people on it. Another notable thing is that virtually all of them can be named in order without much doubt, except over the Catholicism issue. john k ( talk) 03:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC).
You overlook the effect of the Royal Marriages Act and what you say here and above is quite incorrect. AnthonyCamp ( talk) 08:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC).
This is indeed a question. However, what you say is also incorrect. The RMA says that no one can contract a marriage outside of its terms. However, it says nothing specific about the succession. Either the marriage is valid, in which case the children are legitimate, or it is not valid, in which case the two people were never married at all. For Jeremy Lascelles's children by his first marriage to be incapable of inheriting the throne, that marriage would have to have been considered null and void. He got a divorce, though, which would suggest this was not considered the case. The status of his children would seem to be in question. But that's a specific issue for the article, rather than an objection as such. john k ( talk) 22:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
You are splitting hairs; the Act was brought in, as the Preamble says, to protect the honour and dignity of the crown. It is indeed a question (discussed before) and, in my view, the most valid reason for not having a list of more than 40 names. AnthonyCamp ( talk) 11:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC).
Well, it's true that there can be some argument over whether Tewa Lascelles or Jeremy Lascelles's children are in the line of succession. But we do know that Viscount Lascelles and his two sons who were born after his marriage are in the line of succession. We know that James Lascelles and the two children of his first marriage are in line. We know that Jeremy Lascelles is in line, and that Henry Lascelles and his son are. We know that the Duke of Fife and his children and grandchildren are in line. After that point, most people are exempt from the RMA. Queen Maud of Norway's descendants became exempt by her marriage to Prince Carl of Denmark, a foreigner. The descendants of Prince Alfred's four daughters are likewise exempt by their marriages to foreigners. So also the descendants of the Duke of Connaught's older daughter. Lady Patricia Ramsay's descendants are certainly in line, as well. After that, it becomes complicated, as none of the Duke of Albany's descendants, that I'm aware of, have applied for RMA permission to marry. But we've still got the vast majority of the first 258 people on our list who seem to clearly qualify. The only questions seem to be about Tewa Lascelles and Jeremy Lascelles's children. Simply excluding them if we cannot find evidence that they are considered to be in line would seem like the way to go, rather than dropping the whole list. john k ( talk) 22:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Why can't there just be another article entitled "First n people in the line of succession to the British throne" or similar which is linked from all the other line-of-succession articles, and then keep this article as it is? Opera hat ( talk) 22:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This would seem a sensible suggestion. john k ( talk) 03:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


Yes, but we can produce the impression that the list contains an extremely large number of people by simply stating that we're restricting the list for reasonjs of clarity and coherence, and that the list in full is much larger. We don't need to reproduce each name to give that effect. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 10:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to make a couple of "drive-by" comments here. Firstly Wikipedians continue to astound me with the breadth of their knowledge and ability to find information, as demonstrated by this page. I've no wish to belittle the work done by editors on this page. However, given there is a need to shorten this list, I think it would be sensible to recognise that unlike potentially many pages on WP this one is unlikely ever to be totally accurate given the constantly changing nature of the subject. In addition, the further away from HMQ one gets, the greater the potential for error. Therefore, I would support Opera hat's suggestion of restricting the scope of the article to an agreed number of descendents, with YeshuaDavid • Talk's caveat acknowledging the fact that there is an extremely large number of people who could be included (why, for example stop with George III and not, say William the conqueror? I'm sure you'd find an substantial proportion of the population of the UK and Europe could be listed in this case. The reason editors have not included all the descendents of WTC in this case is practicality). Best of luck! Major Bloodnok ( talk) 19:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Why not descendants of William the Conqueror? Because descendants of William the Conqueror are not in line for the British throne. The Act of Settlement of 1701 settles the British throne on the heir of the body of the Electress Sophia of Hanover. She was a granddaughter of King James VI and I. She died in 1714, shortly before Queen Anne, who was thus succeeded by Sophia's son George I. Sophia has no descendants who are not also descendants of George I (her daughter's only son married George I's daughter, and none of her other sons ever married). Therefore, only descendants of George I are legally in line for the British throne. It is certainly true that the list can never be fully accurate. But I don't see what the harm is in being as accurate as we can. We have reliable genealogical sources which list the descendants of Sophia, in order, as of a few years ago (notably the Reitwiesner). We have other sources that can tell us about births and deaths since the time that list was compiled. Presumably other sources can inform us of who is Catholic, although that becomes a lot more problematic. It seems to me that what we should do is go back to the Reitwiesner list. Then we should remove anyone who we can confirm has died, and add anyone who we can confirm has been born since the list was made, with sources. Then we should remove anyone that we can confirm is Catholic, or has married a Catholic, again with sources. If there is someone whom we suspect is Catholic, but have no specific information on, we probably shouldn't exclude them from the list. I don't think that illegitimate descendants should be listed at all. Those who are excluded for Catholicism or marriage to a Catholic should probably be commented out, rather than listed in Italics. The list would then become completely verifiable, and everything on it would be sourced. john k ( talk) 04:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
ETA: Admittedly, Reitwiesner has some weirdness and idiosyncrasy. He considers King Michael of Romania to be illegitimate, for instance, and does not list him or his descendants. But I imagine we could find a source which notes that this is generally not considered to be the case. john k ( talk) 04:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I bow to your greater knowledge of the matter. However, I think there is a valid argument in reducing the list of included names to a more managable level because of practical considerations. Afterall, one could direct readers to Reitwiesner for a longer list if that is a important primary source. Major Bloodnok ( talk) 09:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
EDIT: I am thinking of significance here - are the names note-worthy ( WP:N) beyond, say the first 200? Maybe there are important figures of European royalty further down the list, in which case it would be a significant fact worth bringing to the attention of WP readers. In other words, further down the list you go the less notable these figures are unless there are other reasons why they are notable. Major Bloodnok ( talk) 09:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
A list can be notable without every individual on it being notable, can't it? I don't think anyone would argue that, say, the children of Jeremy Lascelles are notable. But that doesn't mean it's not notable to list them here. john k ( talk) 16:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The current and former monarchs (and in some cases, their spouses) of Sweden, Denmark, Spain, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Greece, Romania and Bulgaria, as well as the pretenders to the thrones of Germany, Hannover, Yugoslavia, France (Orléanist, Legitimist AND Bonaparte), Brazil, Bavaria, Russia (both lines), Württemberg, Two Sicilies and Austrian. So yes, I would say quite a few of them beyond 200 are quite notable. Morhange ( talk) 23:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Ahem, I would have thought I'd made clear that I don't think the scope of the article should be restricted. Opera hat ( talk) 09:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I think I obviously misread your comment. My apologies. Major Bloodnok ( talk) 09:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Being Catholic

Yesterday Albert Windsor was reinstated at position 26. He was born in 2007 and was baptised Catholic. His younger brother appears at position 27 (born September 2009) on the basis that he has not been baptised yet. Curiously the superscript for exclusion "XP" still appears next to Albert's name. The question is whether an infant is excluded from the line by being baptised Catholic. The actual words of the Act of Settlement 1701 provide "And it was thereby further enacted That 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 professe the Popish Religion or marry a Papist should be excluded and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit". So there are five circumstances: (1) the person is "then" a Catholic (meaning in 1701); (2) "afterwards should be reconciled ... with the See of Church of Rome"; (3) "shall hold Communion with the See of Church of Rome"; (4) should professe the Popish Rligion"; (5) "marry a Papist". My understanding is that these words have not been formally interpreted by the Courts. But I would suggest that Albert should be excluded under (2) - being reconciled with the See or Church of Rome. In this particular case the parents are Catholic - I believe they were married at the Vatican - and the children are raised Catholic. This seems to be the position taken by the Official Site of British Monarchy, because Albert does not appear. Comments? In the absence of coments I will change it back. Alan Davidson ( talk) 00:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say for now exclude babies and young children who were born Catholic, but until we can get a legal ruling or at least a lawyer's opinion, be open to re-adding older children and adults who were babtized Catholic but never took Communion. The idea being that in practical terms it's very likely that if the child is being raised Catholic, he will eventually take Communion, we need to be open to the possibility that such a child might not take communion and that the legal interpretation would not disbar someone for the decision of his or her parents if it were clearly not ratified by the child. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 02:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
It is most difficult to determine the meaning of "afterwards should be reconciled". I prefer the view that children are not born Catholic; but that they are reconciled as Catholic on baptism. I think that would be the view of the Catholic church. At this stage I would reverse Albert's inclusion; but as for Leopold, I would wait until baptism. Alan Davidson ( talk) 15:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
The majority of the sources used in this list have no official sanction. The only official source is the website of the British Royal Family. That website excludes Lord Nicholas' sons. I would therefore support their exclusion. Opera hat ( talk) 23:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I have undone the last changes. Baptism is probably "reconciled". In any event, the official site seems to agree. I would only remove Leopold on baptism (reconciliation). On the other changes - (1) the Duke of Kent's wife was not Catholic at the time of the marriage. (2) only the year of birth is shown (3) Gilman reference removed - adds nothing in the context. Alan Davidson ( talk) 13:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Being raised Catholic is not the standard in the law stated above. There must be some reconciliation (or communion, professing or marriage by Leopold). I agree that baptism would be sufficient. There are many examples in the list of Catholic parents with children who are in line. (I agree that these parents will most likely baptise Leopold in the near future - but that has not happened yet. Alan Davidson ( talk) 07:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/Successionandprecedence/Succession/Overview.aspx

I agree with Opera hat. Leopold is born into a Catholic family, and is being raised Catholic. The official arbiter of the line of succession should be the royal family web site which does not include Leopold, and has never included his older brother. The Lady Amelia Windsor (#25)(age 14) is a different case. Although she will probably attend catechism when she gets older and join her siblings and parents in being baptized as members of the Catholic church she could theoretically make a different decision. Her sister was confirmed at the age of 15.5 . When Lady Marina was confirmed they changed the web site to delete her name. Leopold should be taken out so that the list is consistent with the royal web site. There should not be disagreement in the first 40 names. Pacomartin ( talk) 01:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"There should not be disagreement in the first 40 names." Well said. If the official web site says X there better be compelling evidence that X is wrong before we say otherwise. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 02:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm basically getting tired of changing this. I think there should be no disagreement with the official royal web site" which does not show Leopold Windsor in the line of succession. As of 07:37, 4 October 2009 Alandavidson has undid the change. Somebody else change this so Wikipedia and the royal website are in agreement. Pacomartin ( talk) 08:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
no Declined Declined for now. As much as I would love to do so, I can't just yet due to reliability issues with the official web site. The Official web site may not be current for events after 19 July 2008. It calls Lady Rose Gilman "Lady Rose Windsor." Either our list is incorrect and she kept her last name, or the list is missing at least one change dating to 2008.
Therefore, unless we find out that Lady Rose's last name is Windsor, the failure of the official web site to reflect a birth, death, or other change of status after July 19, 2008 cannot be considered deliberate and the absence of the name of an infant from the list cannot be considered canonical. This is despite a "copyright 2008-2009" tag on the web site itself. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 13:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Research in progress - I've made an inquiry with the official web site maintainers for both the name of Lady Rose Gilman (formerly Windsor) and for the baptismal and line-of-succession status of baby Leopold. Stay tuned. It could very well be that "Windsor" is an appropriate name and that baby Leopold is not on the list as a matter of practical convenience, on the assumption that he won't be there for very long. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 14:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
That is a good comment. I too wondered first whether the official site was up to date and second, considering that Leopold will be baptised Catholic in that family whether it seemed pointless (for the official site) to put him in only to change it a few weeks later. Alan Davidson ( talk) 16:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


I didn't mean to imply that the official royal web site was infallible or always up to date. For instance the family tree is missing three children under the age of three, but is not missing ALL the children under the age of three.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Windsor%20family%20tree.pdf Let's think about the reality of this situation. After 3 centuries this is a relatively new area of legal interpretation. No one wants to undergo a complex legal analysis, because they don't want to make a big deal about the situation. I just think the Wikipedia article should defer to what seems to be the only official document on this issue. The palace is not giving press releases. But I wouldn't cite a newspaper article to include him over the royal web site. Pacomartin ( talk) 22:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is a question of complex legal analysis. It is simple. There is no law that states being born of Catholic parents - or even being raised by Catholic parents disqualifies a person. The solution would be to wait a couple of weeks for the baptism. (Also how would one explain Lord Frederick Windsor; Lady Gabriella Windsor; The Honourable Lady Ogilvy; Olav Lorentzen; Victoria Ribeiro; Alexandra Long; HRH Princess Margarita of Romania - some are in and some are out). And I agree with Davidwr about assuming whether the other British family site is up to date. Alan Davidson ( talk) 06:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
With Lord Freddy and Lady Ella, the parents clearly announced their intention to raise the children in the Anglican church whereas just the opposite is true with Leopold. Pacomartin ( talk) 17:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Again the test is not being born to Catholic parents; being raised by Catholic parents or any statement of the parents' intention. Alan Davidson ( talk) 11:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
One last try. The baby is now 5 weeks old. It is my understanding that there was no official announcement regarding the baptism of the older brother. Presumably there will be no announcement regarding Leopold. I believe most babies are baptised within the first several weeks anyway. There may be no way to know when the baby is baptised or if he has already. In the absence of any official announcement, I think the editors should assume that the baby was baptised and that the Wikipedia article should not contradict the royal website. I would support a qualifying statement. If you disagree then tell me when you think it should be changed? Do we wait until the child is three years old, or until he gives his first press interview to Hello magazine?. Pacomartin ( talk) 22:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I have been searching for information regarding baptism as that would resolve this; but with no luck. I don't like putting changes in Wikipedia on the basis of no information; but can anyone say when baptism typically occurs. I agree with a qualifiying statement - I assume like the one for Julia Carolina Catharina ten Cate (just after position 824). Alan Davidson ( talk) 23:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Kings in line

Why are kings Harald V of Norway and Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden etc shown as "The King of Norway" and "The King of Sweden"? Surely the latter are titles that could refer to any kings of those countries, whereas what we want here are names of actual people in the line of succession. Not all kings of those countries will necessarily be in line. -- JackofOz ( talk) 08:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably because Charles, Prince of Wales is shown as "The Prince of Wales" and his brothers are "The Title of Designation". There is no reason to treat them differently. I would support changing "The Prince of Wales" to "The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales" and then "The King of Norway" to King Harald V of Norway. Surtsicna ( talk) 16:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. But why must we be so formal about it? If it's good enough to refer to Charles as Charles, Prince of Wales in his own article, why does it have to be "The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales" here? -- JackofOz ( talk) 19:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Because there are "HRH", "HM", "HH", "HSH", etc. "HRH Charles, Prince of Wales" is incorrect and it looks bad. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing required

{{editsemiprotected}} Please insert a link to the Wikipedia page of Sophie Lascelles, currently 48th in the line of succession. Her Wikipedia page is to be found here: Sophie Lascelles. There are also Wikipedia links to Tewa Lascelles, Tanit Lascelles, and Ingeborg Lorentzen (Ingeborg Ribeiro).

Jé Maverick ( talk) 15:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

 Doing...  Btilm  20:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 Done  Btilm  20:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC).

Instead of continually fudging the point I trust that these linked articles will explicity say whether the marriage(s) of the parents involved were or were not contrary to the Royal Marriages Act and that, in the latter cases, the right of the children to succeed to the throne is not known, something which this worthless article, going as it does beyond all practical bounds and with its welter of specious arguments on the talk pages, continually fails to address. AnthonyCamp ( talk) 08:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC).

Footnote No. 9

Could someone please change the link for Footnote No 9

from:

http://www.royalsportal.de/forum/index.php?showtopic=35714&st=0&#entry74511

to:

http://www.nobiliana.de/forum/index.php?/topic/35714-louis-martens-desc-sachsen-coburg-gotha/

Allan Raymond —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allanraymond ( talk • contribs) 18:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

OT

Yes, I know this isn't the place for this, but I'm going to do it anyways, please forgive me.

Dear people of Britain and all other countries which share a common crown:

Please change your laws to reduce the size of the list of people who could, in theory, claim the crown to a manageable number, and manage it. Or alternatively, manage and publish the existing list.

May I suggest, as a starter, declare that as of a year from now, anyone who, at the time of their birth, would be higher in line than 1000 is excluded, and anyone who thinks they are than 1000th in line and born more than a year from now should register by his or her 25th birthday or he and any children born after his 25th birthday are excluded. Members of the Royal Family would be assumed to be registered. People born before a year from now would not lose their place. Within a century, you would have a manageable list.

*end off-topic message*

davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 16:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC).

For what possible purpose would one change the law? We have in the United Kingdom a monarch (whom God preserve) with children and grandchildren who ensure (barring some great national calamity) that the succession to the throne is clear for many decades yet to come. That you have spent many happy hours needlessly compiling a totally hypothetical and worthless list that goes beyond all practical bounds and knows no way to address all the problems that beset it is your problem, but please don't pretend that such a transitory list, however 'corrected' by your proposed scheme would have any value in an encyclopaedia. We have a monarch. What value is there in knowing that at this precise moment, but probably not tomorrow, someone may be (but perhaps may not be) at such and such a place in the line of succession? I doubt that it concerns them and it is certainly of no relevance to anyone else. In the past those who needlessly plagued the monarch with questions about the succession to the throne were rightly executed. AnthonyCamp ( talk) 20:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

An interesting discussion. davidwr is kidding; it would be an overkill to change the law for this. To DavidCamp, it is the British law that has created the list, not an encyclopedia. The 1701 British statute was designed to alleviate the "concerns" you say is of no relevance here. Alan Davidson ( talk) 00:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
In 1701 the Queen was dead without issue, the King's health was precarious and it was unlikely that he would marry again and have issue, and the only surviving child of the next heir, the Princess Anne, had died in 1700, and it was highly improbable that she would have further issue. It was urgently necessary, as King William recognised on 11 February 1701 when he invited Parliament to make the necessary legislative provision to provide a successor to Anne. Today (and indeed probably since the marriage of Queen Victoria and the birth of her children) we do not have those concerns and for the foreseeable future the succession is clear. AnthonyCamp ( talk) 13:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC).
I agree - but it remains British law - and this article reflects the British law. Alan Davidson ( talk) 00:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
And so, of course, is the Royal Marriages Act 1772 of which this worthless article fails to take any account. My point is that yard upon yard of space in what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia is given over to statements that (at a time when the immediate succession is clear) are hypothetical and valueless because nobody knows how, if the matter ever came to be tested, the many questions that have been raised about the more distant persons listed would be dealt with. An encyclopaedia's text should not be a place in which to get carried away and indulge ones fantasies as is presently the situation here. AnthonyCamp ( talk) 14:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC).
I think we all agree with that sentiment - but this arises from British law, not encyclopedic indulgence. Again, it is not fantasy - it is British law. I am sure you are not suggesting we should falsify the article or censor its accuracy - and to shorten it, does that. Its length is the result of British law; even if remote. Alan Davidson ( talk) 17:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Is this not just the kind of specious argument that brings WP into disrepute? An encyclopaedia that knowlingly publishes worthless unsubstantiated information is valueless. Do you not see that? All the subject needs is a listing of those in the immediate line of succession that ends (as does that on the Royal website) where the legal doubts begin followed by some statement of what those legal doubts are. AnthonyCamp ( talk) 18:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC).
In a word, no. This is an article on substantive British law. Value is in the eye of the beholder. There are more than 3 million English articles here; on televisions shows, movies, the charactors (not just the actors), Star Trek ships, planets and fictional aliens; sports, teams, individual lists, types of Monopoly sets, pages on Dungeons and Dragons types and characters, Spanish football transfers, and so many more. This article reflects British law as it stands. I agree there are many questionable laws. But there is a better place to start if questioning encyclopedic value. Alan Davidson ( talk) 03:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, Mr Lawyer, then make it (and the articles that stem from it about the Lascelles children etc) reflect the Royal Marriages Act 1772. AnthonyCamp ( talk) 10:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC).
I am not responsible for this article. I am only involved in this discussion that it reflects British law as it stands today. And from your tone, I now end my side of this discussion; I have made the same point several times. Alan Davidson ( talk) 10:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

HH Duke Peter of Oldenburg XP (b 2009), son of Duke Paul Wladimir of Oldenburg

According to this link http://www.nobiliana.de/forum/index.php?/topic/47451-herzog-peter-von-oldenburg/ Paul Wladimir does not have a son Peter born 2009.

Can a source be referenced to show where the information was obtained regarding the birth of HH Duke Peter of Oldenburg XP (b 2009)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allanraymond ( talk • contribs) 14:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I’ll remove the listing and ask the User:Swakeman who inserted it to provide a source for this information. Thanks for pointing this out. - dwc lr ( talk) 00:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Americans?

Is there anyone on this list who is an American citizen? Or anyone who would be on this list except for the fact that they're an American citizen? + An gr 15:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Several people on this list are American citizens. Princess Irina of Romania's two children, Michael and Angelica are American, as are some of the descendants of Princess Ileana of Romania. The Berger-Cooks are also Americans. Being American doesn't disqualify you from being in the line of succession :) Morhange ( talk) 21:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so King Ralph isn't as implausible as I thought! ;-) + An gr 22:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Baron Joshua Cyrus Boehm, esq. (b 1992)

I left a note at User talk:GOD ACRONYM#Baron Joshua Cyrus Boehm, esq. (b 1992) explaining why his recent addition got reverted... twice. If he can establish that this person is in the line then that is fantastic, our list just became that much more accurate. Until then... davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 01:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Collapsible Table suggestion

Take a look at George V (descendant list) for a suggestion on a way to format this article so that it is more comprehensible. Please modify that article if necessary. Pacomartin ( talk) 06:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example of how we might do the tables. Here would be a complete list of the descendants of the five sons of George V (three of the sons had descendants). I am posting it here first for discussion. I included an entry for the prince and princess who died (Margaret and William). Pacomartin ( talk) 08:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Approve: Good work, this or something similar should be implemented to the article. It really horrible atm. Mattg82 ( talk) 01:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
This would definitely improve the list's readability. Coemgenus 20:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
If i recall, this article used to be formatted in a way very similar to this chart, but then was changed. indigochild777 20:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorely needed.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 08:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to try and do the entire list here in this format, first at User:Dralwik/British, then once it's finished, I'll put it on here. I'll keep track of any changes to the list on here due to births, deaths, etc. Feel free to help out on my page. --- D ralwi k| Have a Chat 18:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Line_of_succession_to_the_British_throne/Archive_6&oldid=1136262302"