Talk:Succession to the British throne/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History skips from 1830 to 1936

There appears to be a big chunk of missing history from 1830 to 1936.Alec Gargett (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Done.[1] Qexigator (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Canada

We've a problem here. Checking over Monarchy of Canada, the changes to royal succession in March 2015, apparently effects all the Commonwealth realms accept one, Canada. It's been argued that Canada's Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 merely consented to the British Parliament's changing its own (Britain's) succession rules. I've also checked out Perth Agreement and Primogeniture, which list Canada as being in the loop. Is a separate article named Succession to the Canadian throne required? GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The history of Succession to the Canadian throne shows that the current and only version was created and last edited on 16 January 2017.[2] It is reasonable to retain it as a redirect, if we surmise that at least some would search for the information under that title. So far as I understand it, the current versions of the articles are consistent with the position in all the realms, and the cross-links for Canada specifically. If it is proposed that there should be added to one or other of the articles something more about Canada, what would that be, and what RS? Qexigator (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
My concern for inconsistency, lies in that the Canadian monarchy article appears to avoid directly mentioning if the Canadian royal succession has been altered since March 2015. If it hasn't been, then perhaps that should be reflected here. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Like the Quebec judicial review proceedings, the discussion at the Monarchy of Canada article appears to be going nowhere, [3] and there appears to be nothing further needing to be discussed about it here. The succession has been altered in all the realms according to the constitutional requirements of each, per Perth Agreement. Qexigator (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Canada does not have succession laws. The sovereign of the UK (or president should it become a republic) is sovereign of Canada. The 2015 Canadian act was designed to meet a constitutional convention which may or may not exist that the UK should obtain the Canadian parliament's approval for changes to the succession laws, since they affect Canada. TFD (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Ummm, at some point in my lifetime (1970s, 80s or maybe 1990s) the restriction that Canada could not amend its own Constitution without permission from the U.K. was lifted. This means that Head of State and/or Head of Government of Canada has nothing to do with the person holding that office in the British Isles. Canada's Head of State and/or Head of Government is any beaver, moose, or polar-bear that Canada sees fit to appoint as its Head of State and/or Head of Government. FOR NOW, Canada CHOOSES to be a Kingdom (and can stop being a Kingdom without U.K. consent), a separate Kingdom in no way part of the United Kingdom, and, just like the independent Irish monarchy from its creation in 1922 until (definitely) the late 1940s or (arguably) the late 1930s, the Monarch of that Kingdom is a person who is simultaneously moonlighting as Monarch of some other Kingdoms. And Canada may have seen fit to construe its rules of Succession to engineer the circumstance that these two entirely separate Kingdoms will ALWAYS have the same Monarch. Australia I will guess does likewise. This in no way implies that these separate countries which choose of their free will to be Monarchies are in any way at all THE SAME Monarchy even though things can be rigged so that they always have the same Monarch. If by-laws and State Law permit, I can be chairman of the board of Ford Motors and General Motors. That won't ever cause Ford Motors and General Motors to be the same corporation. I suspect that the U.K. in fact changed its succession because (this is a guess) Canada and Australia were going to change theirs and a future situation in which an elder daughter was Queen Regnant of Canada and Queen Regnant of Australia while her younger brother was King of the U.K. could arise. Rather than see that, the U.K. gave in to the more progressive modernized countries. New Zealand if you're part of this wave I apologize for overlooking you.74.64.104.99 (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
I guessing some Canadian monarchists would beg to differ ;) GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
In fact they did differ when they supported Motard Taillon v AG and lost. So even if we want to be extremely generous with them, we still cannot accept their opinion as fact. TFD (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
So, the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 is an example of Canada having no royal succession of its own, as the act merely assents to the British succession change, i.e the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. Effectively, the Canadian Parliament signifying that the British succession is the Canadian succession & thus the British Parliament merely changed the Canadian succession via changing the British succession. GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that was the reasoning of the government when it drafted the act. And note it gives assent to the changes to the succession to the throne, which of course is to the British throne. TFD (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Prince of Wales

I'm not finding much information as to whether a female Heir Apparent to the Throne(s) of the various countries (and who will, as long as the thrones in question include a successor Kingdom to the Kingdom of England as whose heir Apparent she will have the ostrich-feather badge) will be created suo jure Princess of Wales (although a female Heir Apparent who is not Prince of Wales would have the ostrich-feathers that belong to the Heir Apparent of England, NOT belonging to the Prince of Wales, and NOT belonging to the Heir Apparent of the U.K. (which is a red-dragon badge differenced with an argent (arguably white) label). The U.K. has done nothing to abolish males-only succession for some noble titles and male-preference succession for other noble titles. Arguably who does and doesn't get to be Prince(ss) of Wales pertains only to the U.K., so while the U.K. must have a female Heir Apparent every now and then, they don't have to create her suo jure Princess of Wales. The other Dominions can't gripe because the Wales title is the U.K.'s business and the U.K. isn't going to switch males-only Dukedoms to gender-indifferent primogeniture. It would be very difficult if an older daughter were the Heir Apparent and her younger brother, as Monarch's eldest son, were created Prince of Wales. Under the present system the title can't be inherited: the holder dies and it goes extinct (even if he dies leaving a son, who isn't Prince of Wales until so created), or the holder becomes King and the title goes extinct by merging with Crown. If the older sister has lots of children and grand-children, the younger son created Prince of Wales has no realistic expectation of becoming King. I GUESS the title would still go extinct with his death? To me, a Prince of Wales who isn't Heir Apparent doesn't make much sense. But I can also see that when a female is Heir Apparent they simply don't HAVE a Prince of Wales, rather than having a suo jure Princess of Wales.74.64.104.99 (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Material on this subject belongs at Prince of Wales. DrKay (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Duke of Cornwall

The Duchy of Cornwall, ditto what I said above about Prince of Wales. This time it's a bit more material because the Duchy of Cornwall is a cash cow and a major real-estate owner, while the Principality of Wales is just a title and some ceremonial things. In the past, when a Monarch's oldest son (Duke of Cornwall) has a son, and the Duke of Cornwall dies, and the next Heir Apparent never became Duke of Cornwall because he was never the SON of a Monarch but always a grandson until the moment he himself was Monarch, who got the revenues (and the peppercorns, and all that other stuff) from the Duchy of Cornwall? The Monarch? I guess this too could be continued. A Monarch has an older daughter and a younger son. The younger son is Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall without any ability to transmit either title to offspring. When a Monarch has only daughters, one of them will be an Heir Apparent (not, as was Elizabeth, an Heir Presumptive), but won't be suo jure Princess of Wales or suo jure Duchess of Cornwall, and there just won't be one of either until the next time there is a Monarch who has an oldest male child.

But all of this is merely my own surmise and speculation on how the Duchy of Cornwall and the Principality of Wales MIGHT be handled by the change. It would be far better to have in this article "Here is what happens to the Prince of Wales title" and "here is what happens to the Duke of Cornwall" title AND SPELL IT OUT, no surmise, no "might be".74.64.104.99 (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
Material on this subject belongs at Duke of Cornwall. DrKay (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Lady Louise & James

Should their surname not be updated to read Mountbatten-Windsor, as it does on the official website of the Royal Family? https://www.royal.uk/succession This surname will obviously be more frequently used now with the arrival of Archie and any subsequent children of the Sussexes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.252.122 (talk) 09:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Princess Anne

Shouldn't Princess Anne be 8th in line to the throne? Why are Andrew and Edward ahead of her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil6875 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

She's a woman. Women born before 2011 are after their brothers in the line of succession. DrKay (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Roman Catholics

Albert, Leopold, and Louis Windsor were all born after their father Nicholas Windsor forfeited his place by becoming RC. And the three boys were all baptized into the RC Church, where they have remained. I realize Debrett's lists the three boys as heirs, and Debrett's is a significant source. So I wouldn't suggest original research to change the article. I guess I'm just putting this here so a reader will realize there might be erroneous information. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It is original research. We don't know what would actually happen if the matter of their succession came up or even who would decide it, except that it won't be up to Wikipedia editors. TFD (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Four: The law is quite clear, Catholics are excluded. Its pure OR/Crystalballing to make any assumptions of what might happen if someone in close line was catholic. Only that the law is what it is now and we can't guess what might happen.Garlicplanting (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
The law is not that clear, if Debrets and others include Catholics. Someone must find something confusing.2607:FEA8:D5DF:F945:D4A9:A92:B158:A8C7 (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Roman Catholics are included since the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. All a bit of a red herring now.78.16.107.249 (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Catholics are still excluded. DrKay (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Grandchildren of Mary, Princess Royal not on the list

Is there a reason, other to simply provide the alleged "senior" Windsors, as to why Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood and her descendent are absent? She was the third child of George V and 5th in line at her birth and later became 7th at the birth of her youngest sibling John. She and her husband show with the Lascelles family cadet branch at the Family tree of the British royal family article but not here which is rather odd. I am aware the family has a few issues surrounding succession, such as unofficial, or should I say unrecognised, marriages and as a result includes effective illegitimate children in terms of titular inheritance. If his Wikipedia entry should be trusted, at the birth of her eldest son George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood he was 6th in the line of succession and at his death, he was 46th as he was the eldest nephew of both King Edward VIII and King George VI. All of the monarchs paternal uncles and their descendent are included, except Mary, Princess Royal. It seems a little silly that Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick, the most senior male excluded for being a Roman Catholic appears in contrast. I believe they should be included like they were in the far older incarnation of this article, even if their succession numbers are not provided. UaMaol (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

As you say, the eligibility of the Lascelles family members is confused. I believe discussion elsewhere (probably at Talk:Line of succession to the British throne) has highlighted that there's a lack of reliable sources for the line beyond the 7th Earl of Harewood. DrKay (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

If this list includes the descendants of George V, why aren't any of his daughter's descendants on (e.g. David Lascelles at number 60)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSmartLife (talk • contribs) 04:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

See above. DrKay (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears that some of the former Princess Royal's great-grandchildren are private, and have families whose information are not publicly known; therefore, it would be practically impossible to make the succession complete to her descendants. For example, it was reported that her great-grandson Tewa Lascelles, currently (April 2021) 65th in line for the throne according to my calculations, had a son with his wife in May 2014, name unknown. Therefore, it is best to limit the succession shown here to the descendants of sons of George V; soon it will likely be necessary for similar reasons to limit the succession shown to the descendants of George VI. Mathmannix (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Sons of Lord Nicholas Windsor

Lord Nicholas Windsor's sons are listed here as 40 to 42 in the line of succession, but it says in his article, with sources, that his sons are Catholics, in which case they are excluded from the line of succession. There is a footnote for two of the sons on this list which mention this, but they are still listed as if they are eligible. I propose removing their numbers and adding an X to each of them, but want to check here first in case I'm missing something. Richard75 (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The balance of sources as given in the article is that they are in line. Therefore, the article should list them inline. The article can remove them as in line if and when the balance of sources says that they are not in line. DrKay (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Ok but we're not confined to using Debrett's and Whitaker's. We also have: royalcentral.co.uk, Cracroft's Peerage, and the BBC. Richard75 (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Per no synthesis, we cannot interpret the succession laws ourselves and determine who is in line or what place they hold. TFD (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Then how did we come up with this list in the first place? Answer: by looking at sources. Richard75 (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Incidentally, synthesis is "source 1 says A, source 2 says B, therefore C." That isn't the case for any of the sources I've linked to. Richard75 (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

For now I've left them in the list numbered as 40-42, but noted them as "X? D W". Richard75 (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Roman Catholics

There are notes beside individuals on the list who are Roman Catholic or who have married Catholics saying "Excluded as Roman Catholics" or "had been excluded through marriage to a Roman Catholic." This represents synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." We need a source that specifically says the person is/was excluded from the succession due to their religion. TFD (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The sources are given in the article. Richard75 (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I can't find them. George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews for example is marked as "M" (excluded by marriage to a Catholic, subsequently restored), but there is no reference to him elsewhere in the article. TFD (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Debrett's and Whitaker's are given next to his name. Debrett's excluded him on the basis of marriage to a Catholic[4]; it now includes him[5]. Whitaker's 2013 edition (Whitaker's Almanack 2013, London: Bloomsbury, ISBN 978-1-4081-7207-0, p. 21) excludes him on the basis of marriage to a Catholic; Whitaker's since 2015 includes him. DrKay (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Right at the end of the list there's a table called notes and sources. Richard75 (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester

Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester died in the 1970s, with no children. He isn’t on the line of succession (because he’s dead) and he doesn’t have any children. That’s means it’s a dead end. (Please check the tree to understand what I mean more clearly). Should we remove him? The family tree is about the line of succession, not about being a part of the British royal family. By the logic of him staying, we add the dead teenage brother of his father. HERMIT100 (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

And by the way, the “dead teenage brother of his father” is prince john. HERMIT100 (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have confused Prince William of Gloucester with his father. He was added recently[6]. DrKay (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I meant William. Why was he added? HERMIT100 (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Because the list also identifies people who were in the line of succession in 1952. Richard75 (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, it’s confirmed that he isn’t on the line of succession anymore. I’m waiting to get the green light to remove him. HERMIT100 (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not just a list of the current succession. It's also a list of the 1952 succession. Red light. Richard75 (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Why is it also a list of the 1952 succession? 142.163.195.153 (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
The list shows the descendants of George V. That's probably a good starting place because it includes all the heirs that usually appear in reliable lists. An amateur historian with a high reputation compiled a list of all the heirs to the body of the Sophia of Hanover, which ran to about 4,000 individuals, but it's now out of date and per no original research we cannot maintain it. TFD (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protect?

We should probably semi-protect this page for a few days, as a royal death has already brought some nutters out. Richard75 (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. DrKay (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Question/suggestion for article content

Thinking about the article as I read it, I was wondering why it is important to know that so-and-so was the Nth in line of succession? Why would anyone care, beyond, say, a dozen successors or so? Isn't being 50th in line just a bit ridiculous? Perhaps the article could have a paragraph on that. Is there some benefit for being Nth in line of succession? etc. My only thought was, well, perhaps there is some big terrorist attack or Parliament has a gas explosion, say, so that suddenly the Nth line of succession becomes important. Anyways, perhaps a brief paragraph could be added to elucidate the situation. Bdushaw (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The reason for the list is that it is frequently mentioned in reliable sources, hence is notable. Different lists list different numbers of people. The default in Wikipedia would be to have the longest reliably sourced list. TFD (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Thx, though I wasn't questioning the notability, etc. It was just a suggestion to add a brief paragraph explaining why the lengthy line of suggestion was important, why people were interested in it. I am sorry I was not clear. Bdushaw (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Why wouldn't we want to make the article as informative as possible? Richard75 (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
We would need sources for that. TFD (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Royal.uk website

Maybe we should stop using the royal.uk website as a source? It's out of date, it's regularly misleading people who keep introducing errors into the article as a result, and whoever maintains it apparently has no intention of updating it. We already have another reliable, up to date source. Richard75 (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Richard75, can you elaborate please with examples of where it is out of date, evidence that there is no intention of maintaining it, and with the name of the source you consider to be more reliable. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Just look at the recent history of this article: people keep deleting Harry's daughter Lilibet because she still hasn't been added to the royal website. We are already using Debrett's as a source, which added her right away. If the royal.uk website was serious about maintaining an accurate list, it would certainly have added her by now. Richard75 (talk) 10:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
They'll catch up eventually; it seems to be more a question of the frequency of updates. They took their time for the previous additions to the list (August Brooksbank & Lucas Tindall), and indeed if memory serves they were pretty slow off the mark for Louis and Archie, too. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Well can we at least semi-protect the page until then? There are regular edits by anon IPs who keep deleting Harry's daughter and being reverted. Richard75 (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Official website & collateral relatives

When did the official website remove the descendants of Elizabeth's sister and cousins from its line of succession page? I clearly remember them being included for a long time. Can (and should) the references indicate this, perhaps by linking to an archived version? Surtsicna (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I just went back to look at the edit history of the old page. The Kents, Gloucesters and Snowdons were still included as recently as 2015--see here in March but removed by October of that year. There are a few archived snapshots on the Wayback Machine but they aren't loading for me. I'm guessing that once the Succession to the Crown Act finally went into force that year, they decided to just get rid of all the collateral lines rather than undertake the incredibly simple task of swapping the Lewis and Gilman kids. I do believe someone also brought up to them the confusing placement of Lord Nicholas Windsor's sons and questioned why they were listed after their aunt Helen when they should've been before, and whether infant baptism into Catholicism was enough to exclude them or not, so I guess that avoided them having to answer that question. Piratesswoop (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Order of sections

I suggest that we should move the History section to the bottom, so that the article discusses the current position first. At present, the reader first encounters a lot of detail about the Tudors, Stuarts and Hanoverians before they read about the rules which apply today. Richard75 (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to redirect. Jamzze (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Foofighter20x: I am proposing to merge the content from claims to a crown to this article. The content on claims to a crown is currently ambiguous. Every society that has a monarchy does not have a universal way of a claim being made to a ruiling crown. As such, the current text tries to present a universal system that relies heavily on claims within European monarchy, making it Eurocentric. But, its sources totally involve claims to a crown within the British monarchy system. As this revolves around succession, maybe saving some of these contestations from that article within this article might be useful from a historical point of view to review how British successions are not always smooth sailing. If failing this, I think the other article should be deleted as I do not believe it is notable enough by itself. Jamzze (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not much of an article really. Some of it is dubious, or OR, and it doesn't seem like a subject that needs an article. I would just redirect it here. Richard75 (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Updates from Whitaker's?

We are using the 2015 edition of Whitaker's as a resource for some of the collateral branches, but it looks like Whitaker's has recently published its 2021 edition. The synopsis for the current edition mentions that it contains chapters on royalty and peerage and I would assume this means it has an updated line of succession? Is anyone in the UK able to obtain a copy so we can update our citations for a more recent version? Piratesswoop (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

History

Why does the History section start in 1485? It's not as if nothing relevant happened before then! Richard75 (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree. It should mention that the common law of inheritance applied. The history is basically about cases where exceptions were made through orders by the king or by legislation. Also, there were disputes over succession dating back at least to the death of Edward the Confessor, when three claimants battled for the throne. TFD (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Why did you leave out Queen Victoria?

She is the start of this dynasty and I feel it is sexist for you to have left her out 76.71.93.42 (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

It's to keep the list to a manageable length. It has nothing to do with sexism, since we also left out Edward VII. Richard75 (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
There must be hundreds of Descendants of Queen Victoria and no reliable sources that have ranked their order of succession. TFD (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Victoria was not the start of any dynasty. She was the last member of the House of Hanover to reign in Britain. Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Split

Can you split this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamytttsgsg (talk • contribs) 00:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Richard75 (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Resignation of Andrew

Does that not take Andrew's children out of succession as well? 2600:1700:8740:5890:1C6A:2496:6794:908B (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Andrew is still in the line of succession. TFD (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Nobody in the line of succession can unilaterally "resign" their position in it. Whatever they may do or not do in terms of royal duties has no bearing on their eligibility. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Clarification in introduction

The second paragraph of the article currently begins "King Charles III is the sovereign, and his heir apparent is his elder son, William, Prince of Wales. Second in line is Prince George of Wales, the eldest child of the Duke of Cornwall." Either there should be something here to explain that William is both Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, or he should be mentioned by name instead of by title in the second paragraph. Otherwise readers might reasonably suppose that the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cornwall are different people. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I changed the phrasing.[7] TFD (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, looks good. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

why louise after james mountbatten?

is this a historical error, or louise is not affected by the woman are equal in success laws 10 years ago? same for flora westerberg. ThurnerRupert (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It's because the change in the law does not apply to people born before October 2011. Richard75 (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Free-to-access Debrett's source

I saw that the current link on the source table of Debrett is on https://www.debretts.com/the-royal-family/the-line-of-succession/. However, there's also https://debretts.com/royal-family/line-of-succession/, which can be accessed by everyone currently, also stops at Estella Taylor. I guess the old link link can be substituted (and possibly also put it on IA), but I'm saying this here first in case I'm doing it wrong. Hans5958 talk 10:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

That's great, thanks for finding that! I've added it to the article. Richard75 (talk) 12:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Princess Anne

Why is The Duke of York ahead of The Princess Royal in the line of succession? She was born first! 95.147.146.210 (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Men born prior to 2011 precede their sisters: male-preference primogeniture. DrKay (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Missing links?

Many of the later descendents have wikipedia pages but aren't linked to them, should they be or is it not worth it for any reason? Itseddieh (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I think they don't have their own articles, and those links just redirect to their parent's articles. Richard75 (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Ah okay, hadn't realised that so thanks for letting me know Itseddieh (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Monarch's consent required for first six in the line of succession to get married.

I realise the source has "her". But, I think we can change the note to say "his", seeing as Charles III is now the British monarch. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The text hasn't changed. Under section 10 of the Interpretation Act 1978 a reference to the sovereign means the sovereign for the time being, so "her majesty" now means Charles III, but the quoted text hasn't changed. Richard75 (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Succession list re-visited

With the ascension of Charles, we no longer have a reliable source for the complete line of succession in the article. I suggest we use Debrett's as it is longest, which means removing a few names.

Per no original research, we cannot have members who are not sourced. The only way for us to keep the list accurate would be to follow royal births, deaths and any disqualifications, but we cannot be sure that our information is complete.

TFD (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean? The sources didn't cease to be reliable when the Queen died. They're perfectly fine. Richard75 (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
The other source used is ''Whitaker's Almanac'' (2015), which was a good source in 2015. Since then Charles is no longer first in line to the throne, but is the king. Prince Louis of Wales, Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor, Sienna Mapelli Mozzi, August Brooksbank, Lena Tindall, Lucas Tindall, Isabella Windsor have all been added, although they had not been born when the Almanac was published. It's outdated. Without OR, we cannot determine if there is anyone not included in the Royal family site or Debrett's who should be added or removed from the more distant heirs. TFD (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Everyone just moved up a place. Nothing major needs to be changed. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
How do you know that no one in list has died or been disqualified or that a child has been born pushing someone else down the list, without original research? While i am sure that you pay close attention to royal births and deaths, conversions to Catholicism and marriages without royal consent, that's still OR. TFD (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
By all means, update the source & whatever else has happened since 8 Sept 2002. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
That would be a violation of policy, specifically no original research. Not only that, but I don't find it interesting to scan through birth records and announcements, death certificates, etc., to figure this out. TFD (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Which is it? Do you want to update or not. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I would like to remove the people whose position can no longer be verified by reliable sources, which is everyone beyond the first fifty, whose position is in Debrett's. TFD (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Best that you don't, if they qualify under the 1701, 2013 succession acts & are direct descendants of King George V. GoodDay (talk) 03:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the policies of no original research and synthesis. We are not supposed to apply our understanding of laws and determine who should be in the line of succession. Incidentally, you forgot the common law of inheritance, which determines succession for people born before 2013. It explains why Andrew precedes Anne in the order of succession. That's why we rely on experts rather than Wikipedia editors to determine succession. TFD (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Nobody forgot that, it's there in the article. Richard75 (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

By "you," I was referring to the person whose comment I was replying to. Their statement at 03:38, 2 November 2022 does not mention the common law of inheritance.[8] Applying two statutes and common law to facts (such as births), which may or may not exist in reliable sources is original research.

Is the 2013 succession act not already mentioned & explained, in the page? You're looking for a problem, where there is none. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
It's a problem when editors have to consult two statutes and common law and determine the facts to compile a list. It goes against synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." In this case you asking editors to form conclusions about the relative position of people in the line of succession, even though you have no reliable sources that do this. Furthermore, if reliable sources don't cover who falls in line after no. 50, then it lacks weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Do you have proof that the succession stops at the 50th person? GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
He's not saying that; he's saying we don't have an up to date source for beyond the 50th person. Richard75 (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Still, deleting Prince Michael of Kent & those after him, is a bit drastic. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
If you think it's a bit drastic that the Royal Family website and Debrett's have deleted these names, you should complain to them. Our sole concern as editors is that the article reflects what appears in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
So the royal family website (a primary source, rather then a preferred secondary source) has removed Michael & those after him, from the line of succession? GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
No, the list just stops there. Richard75 (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I've asked for further input from WP:ROYALTY, as this decision shouldn't be left in the hands of just three editors. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

First of all, and from this discussion it came clear that the article doesn't clearify enugh, that the full line of succession contains over 5000 individuals and would be a full-time-job to maintain on a daily basis. Therfore it should be clear that we never have the complete list but only an excerpt.
How long this excerpt should be is a complicated question and the reasonable answer found here is, to copy what reliable and regulary maintained sources.
Therfore the question is: is whitaker's still regulary maintained? I just did a very quick search and came to the conclusion, that whitacker's future is uncertain. There might be (regular) future editions. As deaths, births and conversions are no daily events, especially for the 12 persons in question as difference between Debrett's and Whitaker's, Whitaker's 2021 should remain a reliable source for the current list for a couple of years. My vote would be, that the list in the current form can remain, but all editors involved should be mentally prepared, that when whitaker's is not continued or cuts the list they maintain or only gets published so rarly that always multiple amendments in the part only covered by whitaker's are necessary, it cease to be a reliable source for such a current list. Theoreticalmawi (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Too long succession list

The list of succession need to be trimed down to only include King George VI and his descendants.

If not the list wil soon include past top 100, and that is completely useless. Not to menton the visual noise. Pederjo99 (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the article should provide as much information as can be reliably sourced. It might be useful though to have a condensed version that shows only the 24 descendants of Elizabeth II, since they are most likely to be referred to by their order of succession. Conveniently, it's also published on the royal family website.[9] TFD (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. There are living royals descended from George V still taking part in royal events. During Queen Elizabeth's funeral I found it useful to see how TRH Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy and Prince Michael of Kent were related to the late Queen using this diagram. (They are all first cousins of the Queen, with common grandparents in King George V and Queen Mary). GrahamN-UK

It would be handy if branches of the tree could be collapsed and opened, if the relevant feature is available.(GrahamN-UK) 23:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

There are only 62 people on the list, so the notion that this will increase to 100 "soon" is highly implausible. Richard75 (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, the list below is much cleaner. Yes, Richard and Edward are still "active" royals, but at a certain point it will need to be trimmed. Limiting it to cousins of the current monarch and their children seems reasonable, as it was under Elizabeth II.

Jdavi333 (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Technically speaking, under Elizabeth II, it wasn't strictly "cousins of the current monarch and their children" as the descendants of George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood and Gerald David Lascelles weren't included, likely because they weren't royal. So it's more accurate to say it was limited to "cousins of the current monarch and their children", which would mean that applying that standard to the next generation would mean that the children David Armstrong-Jones, 2nd Earl of Snowdon and Lady Sarah Chatto wouldn't be included as their parents aren't titled royals. 2601:249:9301:D570:2CF8:76E8:3AE0:3755 (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I am in favor of retaining all the descendants of George V's sons for as long as any of Elizabeth II's HRH-cousins are alive. Surtsicna (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Whan does it end though? Assuming Charles inherits his parents gene's, he will live 20+ more years, at which point this list can be well over 150 people. Jdavi333 (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
We can keep the list under review and prune it if necessary, but I don't think we're at that stage yet. Richard75 (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
In 2023 - the Duke of Gloucester will be 79, the Duke of Kent will be 88, Michael of Kent will be 81 & Alexandra will be 87. When they pass, then we remove 'em & their descendents? GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable way to treat this. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Probably sensible. Richard75 (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
I also suggest waiting until all four pass to remove their descendants. It would look odd if Prince Edward and Princess Alexandra pass and we remove their descendants and then there's a gap between the Gloucester descendants then we go straight to Prince Michael's descendants. Once those four pass on, then we no longer have living royal grandchildren of George V and then I think we can remove their descendants. I would also say we do the same for Princess Mararet's descendants as well but that's a conversation we can have when it comes up. Piratesswoop (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Succession_to_the_British_throne/Archive_4&oldid=1210745986"