Talk:Line of succession to the British throne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former FLC Line of succession to the British throne is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
British Royalty This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]


Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Does this article really need over 1000 names?

What is the point of having anyone past 1000th in the line of succession? These people will never succeed to the British throne. I don't even think there is a need to include people past the 100th. Failing all that we should at least remove those who are skipped in the line of succession. The size of this article is ridiculous the Wikitext is 306KB and the actual page is 77KB. Editing this page in Firefox is practically impossible I'm not sure about IE but I can't imagine that it does it easily. If anyone needs to know anyone past the 1000th or 100th person in line they can easily follow the link at the bottom which has the list all the way up to 4000. As has been previously mentioned, the accuracy of this list can't be guaranteed for any date after the original publication of that list. It would be a pretty safe bet that some people on this list have died in the last 6 years. -- Gudeldar (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree, but I'm sure there is some historical consensus in the archives for the longer list. If not, then go ahead and chop it off at say 1K and ssee if anyone complains.Mbisanz (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it needs to be ridiculously long either. It is constantly out of date, there could be errors undetected for years (someone was removed two years after they had died) and it is just unwieldly. Charles 00:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


Hey, is that THE Charles... Charles, HTH The Prince of Wales? Probably not. Anyway, the official list on the Royal web site only runs to 40 names... although it should be 41 because they left off a baby who was born in the fall of 2007. Even a list of 40 is probably too long, since it would take an incredible catastrophe to get even down as far as #41, and if such a catastrophe ever happens, what remained of the British government would likely turn over the head of state job to someone more prominent than (say) Zenouska Mowatt (who happens to be the 17 year old granddaughter of Queen Elizabeth's first cousin and who is #41 on the list.) Timothy Horrigan (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's not HRH, he's just our Charles. And it is intriguing that Master Albert Windsor does not appear on the Royal site — do they know something we don't? They've added Severn, but not Albert — are we to assume they've made a mistake and we know more than the Palace? I'm starting to think that keeping to quite a low figure might be an idea — I might host a fluid list on my own webspace, but that would be curio, not encyclopædic. I just received Hardman's Monarchy, which has the line of succession up to 50 printed in the first appendix (it's publishing date is November, so it hasn't got Severn, but also hasn't got Albert... Again, does he know something we don't?) † DBD 17:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Probably they have it that way because Albert's either already been baptised (just hasn't been made public yet) or because there's no point (for them) in putting him on the list because he'll be baptised a Catholic sometime soon. Morhange (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Albert was baptised as a Catholic, his father Nicholas converted to Catholicism, that's why he does not appear in the palace's list of succesion

User talk:krischnig) 14:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion, we should use the longest list possible. Who cares if these people will never inherit? I am one for being as complete with information as possible. If size is a problem, why don't we just cut the list of skipped people and make another article that would list those who were skipped and where they would be? Emperor001 (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we do need all theese names they may not inheret but they are still in line and that matters this is a page on who is in line for the British throne it needs to be as thourough as possible and needs to stay longCharlieh7337 (talk) 02:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This list is becoming impossible to keep accurate. It should be capped at 1000 at the very most. — Chameleon 06:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am perplexed when somebody who has not edited this article in the past six months (and as far as I am aware, never) claims that "this list is becoming impossible to keep accurate". The people who edit the article are doing a fine job (that's coming from somebody who used to edit the article often, but recently has concentrated his efforts elsewhere). Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nth position

  • From the archive:

I'm going through linked articles and adding the Nth position to all current and extended members of the British royal family, down to the Fifes. After that, I'm going to go through every other article and, where applicable, removing these listings from people who aren't members of other reigning royal houses. With numerous births and deaths, having to go through each and every time and change these numbers is a pain. For people after the Fifes, unless they are members of reigning houses or a current pretender to a throne, where it is mentioned they are Nth in line to the British throne, I'm going to remove the number and just mention they are in line. Morhange (talk) 07:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I would remove the positions from every other royal article as it is applicable... It really is a pain maintaining those and they can go inaccurate for months. Keeping the numbers down to the Fifes though is reasonable. Charles 07:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
There was also a discussion on this very topic a few months ago and everyone, as far as I can remember, agreed, but I cannot find it in the archives. I think it might have been held elsewhere. Charles 07:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I figured reigning families, as they are more prominent, and there would at least be interest to see where they were in the line of succession. At least reigning monarchs/heads of house, I think. Morhange (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe interesting to some, maybe not to others, but it still has the issue of being inexact and then bothersome at times. It also isn't entirely relevant to who a person is, etc. The most I would do is say "so and so is also in line to succeed to the British throne" with an optional "and is approximately 750th in line". Charles 07:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hasn't made it to the archives yet, Charles. /Archive 3#Succession boxes on other pages. -- Jao (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh my, thank you! Sadly, I can't use old age as an excuse because I'm not old! ;-) Charles 23:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd cut back even further, and stop after the Lascelles. Less work to maintain, and more logical (numbering all descendants of George V). Doops | talk 13:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I just figured the Fifes, since they were considered extended members of the BRF, since Maud was a princess, and there are just four more. I numbered the Norwegians, since they are a reigning family, although I think only numbering the king and crown prince/ss of reigning families and pretenders would be best, since it trims down significantly the maintenance. Morhange (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Still though, it is more than needed, really. If the removal of the numbers can be, and is, justified for all other members of a pretender's family, why must we maintain these for the pretenders as well? It becomes inexact. Really though, pretenders may be important, but it is not because of the number they have in line of succession to the British throne. Charles 01:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I think cutting out after Marina Ogilvy's children would be perfectly appropriate. Who wants to keep track of whether any new Lascelles's are born, or marry Catholics, or whatever? john k (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. This is a case where exceptions (pretenders, etc) still make a mess of things and are fairly hard to track down. A no-nonsense cutoff would be the vest approach to this matter in maintaining articles. Charles 00:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

I believe that most of this article constitutes original research, for these reasons:-

1. After the first 40 or so places, it is not backed by the official British monarchy website or any other reliable source,

2. With a list of this length, it must be quite difficult to keep track of births and deaths, and I suspect it is often inaccurate,

3. There is the unresolved issue, discussed at some length, of whether Greek Orthodox people should be on this list,

4. There is also the unresolved issue of at what point someone becomes a Catholic for the purposes of succession laws: birth, baptism, or first communion. PatGallacher (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The CONSENSUS of other editors is that this is not the case. The opinions of one single editor should not be given undue weight.
1. This page is largely based on the published research of William Addams Reitwiesner; he is one of the most noted genealogists in the world and is definitely reliable (probably more so than www.royal.gov.uk).
2. All Wikipedia articles about current topics are somewhat out of date. It takes time for information to be published in other sources, and then for editors to summarize that information here.
3. The consensus of other editors is that Greek Orthodox people are in line of succession; at the time of actually succeeding to the throne a Greek Orthodox person would have to convert.
4. The consensus of other editors is that a "papist" is anyone baptised in a Catholic ceremony, or received into the Catholic Church. Noel S McFerran (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I endorse Mcferran's summary of the consensus Chrislintott (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

To reply:-

1. Consensus does not have the ability to overturn fundamental Wikipedia policies e.g. no original research, reliable sources. It does not have the authority to declare that the earth is flat or that the Apollo moon landings never happened. It does not have the authority to declare what a court would decide in various hypothetical situations which have never been dealt with by a court of law, and which have not been widely discussed by legal academics.

2. It is worth quoting Rietwiesnear at some length: "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." So he leaves some important questions unresolved.

3. As the British Monarchy website represents the view of the powers that be in the UK, it is bizarre to treat any other source as more authoritative.

4. Reitweisner's website simply states who the descendants of Sophia of Hanover were as of 1 Jan. 2001, it must have changed considerably since then. Even with the list on the Wikipedia website, you must have about 20 people added to and leaving the list every year.

5. While of course some problems can exist with any Wikipedia article dealing with current events, in this case they are more marked than normal, since e.g. after a general election or a change of govt. there are enough reliable and easily accessible sources about the changes to make, not so in this case.

6. The consensus in relation to Greek Orthodox people appears to me to be wrong, but that is not the crucial issue here, unless someone can find a reliable source that says otherwise the consensus is original research.

7. Since I wrote my earlier comments I realised that there were some interesting issues in relation to Albert Windsor. As far as I am aware he was never in the line of succession on the British Monarchy website, but they did add Viscount Severn soon after birth. So implicitly according to this, the most reliable source, Catholic infants are effectively excluded simply by their parents' intention to bring them up a Catholic. People (not me) have already raised the theological issue of whether people are baptised a Catholic, or simply baptised a Christian. PatGallacher (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Endorsed, particularly in relation to religion - forming consensus here does not trump OR or legal interpretation - citation should be provided as to legal interpretation of the appropriate statutes - editorial consensus or otherwise in determining who is eligible to succeed to the Throne or not on religious grounds is OR, simply. You cannot just point to the law and say "it says X", where "X" is not clearly defined. Achromatic (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that most of this article is OR. In addition to the points made above, I would add that
  • the Reitwiesner website seems to be a personal homepage and thus does not meet the qualification for a reliable source in Wikipedia. If Reitwiesner has published his work elsewhere (e.g. in book form) then this should be given in the references
  • Even if Reitwiesner is accepted as a source, the modification of his published list when births, deaths, etc. are reported is clearly a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position and thus still OR, particularly if complex and unresolved religious questions are involved.
  • Regardless of OR concerns, this article needs citations. For each entry in the list, there should be a footnote saying where the information comes from (whether it is direct from Reitwiesner's website, or a combination of Reitweisner and some other published report of a birth, death, conversion, etc.) Grover cleveland (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You think we should list nearly 1,400 references for all these people? Morhange (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
If the article's is big enough for a 1400 people, then it's big enough for 1400 references. As an alternative, say something like "all entries, unless otherwise noted, are from Reitwiesner", and only give individual refs for the rest. Grover cleveland (talk) 02:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Protestants in line

User:PatGallacher has repeatedly claimed that one has to be Protestant in order to be in line of succession ("The list includes several people who are probably members of the Greek Orthodox church, who are not skipped. By my reading of the law of succession they ought to be skipped, since the succession is restricted to the PROTESTANT descendants of Sophia of Hanover.") Other editors have maintained that (while papists are excluded) one need not be Protestant TO BE IN LINE, but one must be Protestant in order actually TO SUCCEED. User:PatGallacher has also used the word "authoritative" in reference to "the British monarchy website". Currently this website lists in seventh position an individual who is not a Protestant (i.e. somebody who has not yet been baptised). I hope that this settles the matter. Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, as far as I am aware Albert Windsor was not included in this list during his brief period between birth and baptism. My official record from my maternity hospital described me as a Protestant, even though I was not yet baptised. So it seems that for some purposes the religious status of infants is decided by their parents' intentions on how to bring them up, not baptism. I can see some arguments for this approach. PatGallacher (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
With apologies to the seriousness of the issue, and to Monty Python for Every Sperm Is Sacred, "The one thing they say about Catholics is: they'll take you as soon as you're warm". In all due seriousness, though, anyone here's "readings of the law" doesn't really count for much - it's a textbook definition of OR. Achromatic (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is Pat Gallacher's obsession with Eastern Orthodoxy. I presume that there are plenty of atheists, agnostics, and other secularists in the table — what about them? Doops | talk 20:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not an obsession, I was simply pointing it out as the issue where the problems seemed to be the most glaring. Doops correctly points out other areas where there could be problems. PatGallacher (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
But think of all the original research we'd have to engage in to figure out just who is in or out of the table by your standards! So much for Elizabeth and her windows onto men's souls. Doops | talk 21:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly! We shouldn't be engaging in original research. So we shouldn't be going beyond what is in reliable sources. PatGallacher (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. Catholics have permanently lost their place in the succession; but Greek Orthodox & Rastafarians & Atheists, although they cannot ascend the throne, have not lost their place in line — their place in line is 'saved for them' (as it were) in case they become Protestants again. So since we report facts here in the Wikipedia, not mere speculation, it's not our business to go around removing people from the list based assumptions of what could happen in the future (in the event, extremely unlikely to begin with, that dozens of people all died at once). To do so would be the essence of original research. Doops | talk 22:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Parliament defines, by statute, any alterations or exclusions from the succession. Roman Cathoilics are specifically excluded under a law the Act of Settlement 1701, which SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES Roman Catholics rather than restricting succession to protestants. This is not 'concensus' or 'Original research' -THIS IS THE LAW. Would Pat Gallacher please re-read the sections of the act he has quoted - they are ALL about excluding Catholics, not restricting the succession to Protestants. There is no legal impediment that prevents a Muslim or Rastafarian person assuming the throne and exercising the full powers and responsibilities connected with it, because no law has ever been passed to prevent it. We don't have a written constitution, and such matters are settled by individual bits of legislation dealing with immeadiate issues, without thinking about the broader implications. The acts that PatGallacher refers to deal with a specific issue at the beginning of the 18th Century - excluding the two sons of the deposed monarch James II from the throne as, legally, they had a superior claim under primogeniture but were unnacceptable to Parliament as Catholics. Therefore, Parliament passed a law to exclude Roman Catholics (also neatly excluding the Catholic descendants of Charles I's daughters), which has never been repealed. If future circumstances presented themselves, and Parliament wished to exclude some other group, they would need to pass another law to do so, as the wording of the current law deals with Roman Catholics only. Unless there is a danger of that happening, MPs usually feel they have better things to do. Indisciplined (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Er... I respectfully disagree with your assertions that "ALL [the sections of the Act of Succession are] about excluding Catholics, not restricting the succession to Protestants" and "[t]here is no legal impediment that prevents a Muslim or Rastafarian person assuming the throne and exercising the full powers and responsibilities connected with it, because no law has ever been passed to prevent it." You're correct that s.1 of the Act of Settlement "specifically excludes Roman Catholics rather than restricting succession to protestants", as you say, but s.3 goes further, and states "[t]hat whosoever shall hereafter come to the Possession of this Crown shall joyn [sic] in Communion with the Church of England as by Law established". talkGiler 10:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I think people are confusing 2 different issues. A Roman Catholic is prohibited even if the offered to convert to Protestantism. As soon as someone converts to Roman Catholicism or marries a Cathiolic, they are barred from the succession, and this cannot be reversed as the law currently stands. This disability is unique, and is laid down in legislation. The reasoning for this is connected with the politics of the late Stuart era - i.e excluding James II's son and male-line grandsons. No other religious group is excluded in this way - the wording of the legislation is absolutely specific to Roman Catholics. It may be morally wrong, but the law is CLEAR. Indisciplined (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

User:PatGallacher wrote, "Consensus does not have the ability to overturn fundamental Wikipedia policies e.g. no original research, reliable sources." The consensus of other editors is that this article is NOT original research, and that it is based on reliable sources. One single editor (particularly one who does not have a history of editing this article, or has shown any expertise in the subject) does not have the right to override this consensus. Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Converting from Catholicism

I was wondering what would happen if one of the persons skipped on the list because of being a practicing Catholic, suddenly reverted to Protestantism. For instance, if Lord Nicholas Windsor decided to give up Catholicism, would he be added back into the line of succession? Prsgoddess187 22:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As most people interpret the law, no — the incapacity is permanent. (See Act of Settlement 1701.) Mind you, I'm sure that if the situation ever occurred with somebody close enough to actually have a chance of inheriting, Parliament would be asked to pass legislation clarifying the matter one way or the other. Doops | talk 22:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I never realized that the removal was permanent, but like you say, I am sure that if someone high enough in the LoS converted than reconverted, they would find a way to change the Act. Prsgoddess187 23:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
But does the incapacity apply from e.g. first communion, baptism, birth, or even the moment of conception? PatGallacher (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Most sources think baptism or conversion (whichever is applicable). Personally, I have my doubts about whether infant baptism actually incapacitates (after all, there's a religious argument that babies are baptized Christian, not Catholic; and a legal argument that it's iniquitous to hold infants to their guardians' decisions) but I don't make a big deal about this because that would be original research. Doops | talk 05:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Where are these "most sources" which say that? Your doubts are interesting, I share them myself, but to reject them without any source is original research. PatGallacher (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I want to point out that here's a question for which no right answer exists, and no right answer CAN exist until some UK court considers the matter and settles it, creating a precedent. But that will never happen: there isn't such a thing as a 'line of succession' (it's a theoretical construct) so (although I am not a lawyer) I'm pretty sure if somebody sued to 'regain' his spot at #30 or whatever the court would dismiss the case as being about nothing. Only if somebody were actually dispossessed by the interpretation — i.e. somebody were actually passed over — would he have grounds to bring suit; and of course long before such a thing happened Parliament would have intervened and passed legislation clarifying. So I really think that this is a question for which no answer is ever likely to exist.
My opinion, at any rate, is a purely personal one; I just came up with it out of thin air. Everybody else — from nearly all other Wikipedia editors to the websites this page cites as sources to various articles I've read over the years in the British press (not articles ABOUT this subject, but ones which mention it in passing) to the Royal Family website — seems to assume the contrary. Doops | talk 16:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is it declared that NN Long(b. 2007) becomes a Roman Catholic?

Miss Morhange excluded NN Long(b. 2007). Is it declared that she becomes a Roman Catholic? Her cousins(currently 70, 71, 72, 73) are Lutherans, despite all of Princess Ragnhild of Norway's children have married catholics. --Motsu (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I took the baby off because in all probability, since her father is Catholic, she would be baptised Catholic too. This may not be the case, but I don't know where we could find a source to say either way :( Morhange (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Miss Morhange (and I'm sorry...). However, I expect that the Norwegian news will be given about her christening as well as her birth. --Motsu (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Article split

Would anyone have any objections if I begin to split this article up into subsections (ie. Line of Succession to the British Throne/Descendants of NN, freeing up some space on the main article and replacing it with a link to the new subsection? PeterSymonds | talk 14:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep the first 100 or so on this page, and split the rest, certainly. MBisanz Talk 14:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I object. For one thing (this is not my only concern), how would the numbers on separate pages be continuous? Noel S McFerran (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking at Peter's edits and it appears that somehow he has maintained the numerical sequence. MBisanz Talk 16:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me, but I think you should add a numeric list of the sub-articles, so that people realize what the correct order is. Happy138 (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Good idea, thanks for that. Will get onto it. PeterSymonds | talk 17:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but has anyone else realised that, whenever anyone is born or died, then the numbers at the start of every page thereafter in the order will need changing? That's going to be tiresome. † DBD 18:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, I did consider that, and it's a valid point. However, the article was simply too long and quite confusing in its former state. Whenever someone is born or dies, they will be edited in/out, so the numbers could be changed when that occurs. Perhaps a hidden note at the top as a reminder? PeterSymonds | talk 18:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I've just realised the shortfall in my argument! Can pages be linked in some way? So that when something happens to one page, it happens on all that are linked? I'm not sure. PeterSymonds | talk 18:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Subpages (using the '/' notation) are not valid in article space. The sub-articles should be titled as normal articles are, and they need to have introductory prose just as normal articles do. Powers T 18:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. A better format would be Descendants of NN in the line of succession to the British Throne.--Pharos (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it would just get cluttered. It's more convenient to have everyone on the same page, even it it is long. You may be looking for a specific person, what if the casual browser, for example wants to know at what number the members of the Danish Royal Family are. Would they know that they are descended from Prince Arthur? Would they want to go through four different pages before being able to find any of this out? How would the pages be split? By common ancestor? Descent from George III? Descent from Queen Victoria? Anyway, wasn't there talk of doing this a month or so ago? Morhange (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that the splitting had already been done. I don't know about the way the article looks now, honestly. It's much easier to have people on the same page, that way, we don't have to go through each and every article when a person is born, or dies or becomes or marries a Catholic. That becomes very tedious. Morhange (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the principle of splitting the page; big pages cause problems for users with older browsers, and the guidelines are there for good reasons. However, this isn't it the solution - it makes it very difficult to find something specific if you don't know their descent, something which I'm guessing isn't on most of the individual pages. Not sure what the solution is, but I wish someone more competent than me would revert this. Chrislintott (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What about getting an admin to rollback to the point when I started, but cutting the page down? Maybe have the descendents of Queen Victoria, and give an external link to the rest? PeterSymonds | talk 19:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
It'd be a shame to lose the information...is there an easy way to create an alphabetic index? Presumably that might have to be maintained off-wiki but if we could have lists by surname for people that would solve the problem of people looking for specific members of the list. No idea if that's allowable, though Chrislintott (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I've seen alphabetical indexes used so I presume it's allowed. That may be a better suggestion. PeterSymonds | talk 19:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
So that leaves people with an option to click through chronological pages or look for somebody by surname. That sounds good to me - I'll get out of the way after noting that the first set of people will remain on this page, so we don't need to argue through what the senior royals' surname is or isn't. Chrislintott (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New idea

How about returning them all to the original page, but where there are now links, put a title, with the details hidden. Whoever wants to see them will click "show". What do you think? Happy138 (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That would certainly clear up major confusions of the page as it stood. PeterSymonds | talk 20:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I cannot believe no-one's thought of that before! I'll look into how/whether it can/should be done... † DBD 23:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
My efforts have proven problematic — it seems that the 'flow' of the <ol> (and therefore the continuity of the numbering) is interrupted by the method I've used to create a collapse... † DBD 23:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
There's another way to do a collapse, isn't there? At least I thought there was one... Morhange (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I daresay m'dear, I daresay. I'll keep looking. On the morrow. † DBD 01:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

PeterSymonds made a very bold edit today. I have now reverted it. Now is the time for discussion to achieve consensus. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As regards the technical difficulties, those who are in favour of a change should figure these out in their own sandboxes. Then they can tell the rest of us here to take a look at their user pages without messing around with the current article. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The good intent was there, but I can see the problems it may cause. At any rate, something needs to be done about the article, I believe. I wonder if there is a template or something that can add a number to each number in a list, which would make it easier to break it up a little bit. Charles 04:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Two ideas I've had on this issue
1. Eliminate the indented people who are NOT in the line of succession, replacing it with something like "skipping 26 ineligble persons"
2. setting a hard cap of say the first 500 positions.MBisanz Talk 07:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. For example, in the descendants of Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom, there are over 50 or so names but only one of them is in the line of succession (Catholic Spain descent). Is this necessary? None of the names are wikilinked and are not important enough to have articles. We could just say that 50 or so people are not in the line. Or we could hide them, so if people want to see them they can click "show". PeterSymonds | talk 10:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I strongly favour hiding them instead of deleting them. If you just say '50 people' then it's hard for anyone to know - if they want to add someone - whether its already been done or not. If someone is searching for someone without realising they've been skipped then they should be able to find them. Chrislintott (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Well this is the line of succession to the British Throne, not the list of people who could be king :). In any case, my biggest issue with this page is it sheer size, even cutting it to the first 1000 places would be a drastic improvement. MBisanz Talk 14:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that hiding lots of the names wouldn't reduce the size acceptably? Chrislintott (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
My fault, I wasn't clear, I meant page size. If anything, adding the expansion boxes would increase page size and be the opposite of what I prefer. MBisanz talk 14:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Juan Carlos of Spain is among that list of Beatrice's skipped descendants. I daresay he's important enough to have his own article :) Morhange (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's the problem with the size?

This article presently attracts some attention because it is approximately 322 Kbytes - the longest Wikipedia article. The article on Wikipedia:Article size discusses some of the issues with length. It talks about readability - but notes that lists are an exception. It talks about technical issues with editing, and notes that the possibility of section editing has removed most of these problems. It talks about some web browsers which have display problems for articles over 400 Kbytes - not a problem with this article. It specifically states, "Avoid arbitrary splitting mainspace articles unless there is a demonstrated technical problem loading the page on at least one major browser." I can't see that this article's length is currently a problem. Can somebody show why they think there is a problem? Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The main section (the first) is extremely unwieldy and severely needs section breaks, minimally. Powers T 16:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I've edited this page dozens and dozens of times in the last year; I'm not aware that Powers has ever edited this page. I won't say that editing is easy, but the fact that there is ae a number of dedicated editors who maintain the page at the current high standard shows that it can be done. As far as I am aware there is no way of breaking the list into sections without losing the numbering sequence. For a list such as this, the numbering sequence is one of the most important things. Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You asked what the problem was; I told you. I didn't mean to imply it was easily solved. Powers T 21:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Please be careful, Noel - several times on this page, you make reference to people voicing an opinion as "not being people who have worked (significantly) on this page". Editors are entitled to express their opinion, and an editor who has made but one, or even no, edits to an article is as entitled (within the grounds of consensus, etc) to do as much as any other. I must say, that having read for the third time you remark on someone as "not being noted as an editor of on this page", particularly in reference to how many times you have edited it, would be stepping very close to WP:OWN. Achromatic (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
When other editors comment on how difficult it is to edit this page - but haven't ever tried to - it's perfectly reasonable for those of us who do edit this page to cite our own experience and point out that it is possible. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It is possible to add sections without disrupting the numbering. I just added one between positions 1037 and 1038. Adding more would certainly be a good idea, but I'll let those who know the topic better decide where they should be. Pruneautalk 11:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photographs

Currently this article includes several photographs of those in line (Charles; Kings of Norway, Sweden, and Spain; Queens of Denmark, the Netherlands, and Spain). I suggest that all be removed. With the exception of Charles, there are other people who are more important to the line of succession than European sovereigns; it seems to be just a curiosity. I suggest removing all the photographs. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


- They make it easier to locate those who are mentioned at the very end of the article (other European soveregins).Norwegianzealot (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting out misc sections

Two of the miscellaneous sections at the bottom have been split out as separate articles. This is probably a good idea since it helps (at least a bit) with the large article size. I would suggest moving the section on Other monarchs in the line of succession to the split page List of other royal and princely houses in the line of succession to the British Throne since thye contain similar information and monarchs are heads of royal houses by definition.

The other page Family branches of the line of succession to the British Throne is more problematic since it simply sets out information already included in the main page in a, IMHO, hard to read schematic format. I'd suggest simply deleting it as unnecessary but thought I should ask here since there is no point listing it for deletion if there is a consensus that it is encyclopedic and useful. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Length

From: Talk:Line of succession to the British throne Whilst I understand some might say that the only value to a list like this is if it is complete, at what point do we realistically say "Stop"? The current list is some 1,300+ entries long. Do we say 100? (Probably not, too few), 500 (perhaps), 1,000 (a realistic maximum)? After all, ultimately, isn't every British subject somewhere in the line of succession (or am I channelling a Neil Gaiman short story here)? Achromatic (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As said before, the Line Of Succession To The British Throne is restricted to the descendants of Sophia of Hanover. This is, I've heard, about 4800 people, probably much less when you discount the Catholics. As I've also said, a law should be passed that limits the line of succession to descendants of George V (as has similarly happened in Denmark and Sweden), but since such a law has not been passed, all Sophia's non-Papist and legitimate descendants are legally in the Line of Succession, so there you go. Lec CRP1 (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the education! Thanks :) Achromatic (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete?

It would seem the list in this article is incomplete. The order of succession contains over 4000 names.

www.wargs.com/essays/succession/2001.html

Ordinary Person (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that everyone knows this, but we already have a big enough problem with the article being too long to begin with. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Those skipped

If we want a smaller article, why don't we move the names of those who are skipped to a new article titled List of individuals skipped in the British line of sucession or something like that? Emperor001 (talk) 20:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't need a new article, we should just delete those people from the list since they aren't in line anyway. If there is an argument that they need to stay on the list to keep track for non-Catholic descendants I call bull, that's just reason to shorten the entire list itself. Charles 17:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Length

Absurdly long, not very encyclopedic, please think about chopping several hundred names off the list. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I know it's long, but as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should strive to provide as much information as possible. As I've said before, if it's too long, cut the list of those who've been skipped and move it to another article. Emperor001 (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just thought I'd remind everyone... Skiasaurus (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I split the long section into easier-to-edit sections. A more logical split would have been a hierarchical split showing all "ancestor hierarchies" for any given lowest-level-section. My goal was just to make it easier to edit to to look neat and spiffy. Redo it if you like. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I like it being more edit-friendly, but now I think it looks more cluttered, admittedly... Morhange (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The longest page on the wiki! C Teng 20:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sectioned off roughly every other generation

I created sections for roughly every other generation. After Victoria's descendants, I got lazy and didn't section when I could have. Please feel free to add them. Also, when necessary, I created sections with only 1 generation. At the very end there are two nearly-empty mid-generation sections waiting for names. Please do not remove them unless you are replacing them with sections that conform to the rest of the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 07:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia

Wouldn't Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia, mother of the actress Catherine Oxenberg, figure somewhere in this list? In the general vicinity of the other Yugoslav royals? At least as someone passed over? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfsareeer (talk • contribs) 11:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything British in her ancestry, what are you thinking of? The ones listed here are included because of their ancestry through Maria of Romania, who was Elizabeth's father's cousin's consort. -- Jao (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
She comes in the next section to be added: Sophia → George I → Sophia Dorothea of Hanover → Prince Augustus William of Prussia → Frederick William III of Prussia → Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing it out. I should, of course, have looked further before believing that a European royal were not in line to the British throne. -- Jao (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Princess Alexia of Greece...

It says that she was skipped and when I clicked on her name and saw that her husband has a Spanish-looking name I guessed why. But can someone confirm whether or not her children are "papist"? Since if they are, should they not be skipped? GiovanniCarestini (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Alexia's husband is Roman Catholic, but their children are Greek Orthodox. See here, here and here which say how the children were baptised according to the Orthodox rites. Morhange (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Would you also happen to know about Duchess Marie of Wurttemberg (skipped around 558) and her children? I understand that her husband's mother, Princess Diane, is Catholic, but is the entire family as well? GiovanniCarestini (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Marie, her husband Friedrich, and their three children are all Catholic. There are published articles about the baptism of each child. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Honorifics

I think the honorifics (HM, HRH, etc.) should be removed as a violation of WP:NPOV. If nobody objects I will remove them. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could be more specific about why you think this is a violation of WP:NPOV. Do you also think it a violation of WP:NPOV for us to refer to somebody who has received a university medical degree as "Dr."? Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Here I am, objecting. HM and HRH aren't POV at all, you silly billy you! † DBD 11:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
And I object, too. Honorifics are officially designated titles and are an official part of a person's name. I would be curious to hear in what way WP:NPOV is being interpreted that makes it appear as if official honorifics (and HRH, HM, Hon. are indisputably official) are somehow expressing a point of view. 23skidoo (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nameless Girls

Four people on the list, Babies Long, Soltmann, Roderburg and Iuel are all still nameless. Are there any sources that could help point out names for these little girls? Morhange (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Phillips

I see Peter Phillips and Autumn Kelly were married yesterday. From this reference on his and her page, she's now an Anglican. From what I understand of the Act of Succession, shouldn't Peter Phillips be excluded now, even though Autumn Kelly 'converted'? Could anyone confirm if he should still be in the list or not? Craigy (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, because at the time of their marriage, she was Anglican. I believe the exclusion only happens if the spouse is Roman Catholic at the time of the marriage. Morhange (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarity

It may help to improve readability if a colon (:) is added in front of to show certain divisions. I will give an example:

  • Lady Louise Windsor (legally HRH Princess Louise of Wessex; b. 2003), daughter of The Earl of Wessex


Victoria → Edward VII → George V → George VI → Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon

  • Samuel Chatto (b. 1996), son of Lady Sarah Chatto
  • Arthur Chatto (b. 1999), son of Lady Sarah Chatto


Victoria → Edward VII → George V → Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester

(I realize that the numbers have been lost, I copied this from the article and I don't know what happened) And so forth. I believe that this will make it much easier to read, as when I was looking at the list, there were several times where I became confused about who was the child of whom. Secondly, there are several parts of the article when it says either sister of or brother of, when it should say son/daughter of. The first instance I can find is number 34, where it says that Princess Alexandria is sister of the Duke of Kent. This is confusing and it should say daughter of Prince George, Duke of Kent. Just a few suggestions trying to be helpful. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article length and technical browser limitations

The article is long at over 300KB. Some browsers are known to break when editing entire articles over 400KB. Fortunately, logged-in users don't have this problem now that they can easily edit the introduction as a standalone section.

When this article is complete and has all the 4800-or-so names it should have, this may be a real problem. At that point, I recommend splitting off any section bigger than 80% of the technical size limit, whatever that may be.

As a point of information, at 138KB, "1.1.5 Descendants of Princess Carolina of Orange-Nassau (1743–1787)" is the largest section at its indent-level today.

Note: The servers must have a sense of humor or maybe it's just karma, but as I was about to post this, I get an error screen that says "Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought that we don't have to provide a list of every single person in line of succession to the British throne. I don't know if this word is allowed but I think it is cruft. In my opinion, cutting it off at 100 or 250 would be much, much better and I would never visit this page again if it got to 4800 or so people. If we don't do it all, why can't we pare it back? All or something (better). Charles 03:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Basically, we have 3 choices: 1) make a concerted effort to have a complete list of 4800 names, 2) have an article called "Line of succession..." but only populate it as much as editors are willing to do so, leaving large sections un- or under-populated, or 3) rename the article to something else. #2 is the current state of affairs and appears to be the community consensus. Until someone actually makes an effort to make the list 100% complete, there is no need to tell him "no, we don't want that on Wikipedia."
Personally, I would love to see the complete list on Wikipedia. That way, if people didn't like it, we could have an honest discussion on whether to trim or delete it, and we would have some sense of its value to the project. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old people

1402 and 1411 were born in 1908. Surely they must have died by now? (They're the oldest people in the list. And they're cousins.) Does anyone know? --Mark J (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please provide citations when adding-removing names

Normal citations are probably inappropriate for a list like this but please document it in the edit summary, here on the talk page, in HTML comments &lt!-- like this -->, or put it in the edit then edit-out the documentation. Otherwise, people won't believe you and will revert your edits. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Orignal Research and Citations Missing maintenance tags

Do we still need {{Original research|date=December 2007}} and {{Citations missing|date=March 2008}}? An anonymous editor removed them but any removal should follow a discussion period and the removal point to the discussion in the edit summary. I've undone the edit for now. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The great majority of this article is clearly OR and also lacking citations. I've given my arguments for this above on this talkpage, and as far as I can see no one has tried to contradict them. Grover cleveland (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The vast majority of people listed on this page appear in William Addams Reitwiesner's list Persons eligible to succeed to the British Throne as of 1 Jan 2001. It is patently false to suggest that "the great majority of this article is clearly OR". Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)