Talk:Line of succession to the British throne

Unborn child

Given that an unborn child is not in any line of succession, IP's edit[1] is in error. Qexigator (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

+Such is the need to repeat information sufficiently known to regular editors here, for casual readers and occasional editors, it is better to add back who will, from birth, be fourth in the line of succession, behind elder brother, father, and grandfather,[2] and to add also "whether boy or girl", to read "who from birth, whether boy or girl, will be fourth in the line of succession, behind elder brother, father, and grandfather". Qexigator (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Unborn children ARE in the line of succession. When King William IV died, princess Victoria was proclaimed Queen, however the Accession Proclamation stated that "the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is solely and rightfully come to the high and mighty Princess Alexandrina Victoria, saving the rights of any issue of his late Majesty King William IV. which may be born of his late Majesty's consort". Varro (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The very fact that Victoria ascended immediately on the death of William IV proves that unborn children are not in the line of succession. I have no idea how you interpreted it the other way around. Had Adelaide been pregnant, Victoria's reign would have ended upon the birth of the child, if born alive, not a moment sooner. That was the point of the proclamation. Surtsicna (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Surtsicna's point seems to be valid. Under the laws of England a fetus is not a person. In fact today, Adelaid might have conceived a child from her late husband after Victoria ascended the throne, and that child would have succeeded to the throne at birth. This again illustrates why it is original research to adjust the list rather than wait for a new list and use it as a source. TFD (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe there is no need to state that the child will be fourth in the line and be "behind elder brother, father, and grandfather". Right below that sentence is a wonderfully detailed graph that clearly names the first three people in the line. Casual readers and occasional editors surely know that 4 comes after 1, 2 and 3. Not naming the "elder brother, father, and grandfather" makes the sentence entirely unhelpful, redundancy notwithstanding. If we are going to assume that our readers, though obviously literate, cannot count to five, why assume they won't think the grandfather is Michael Middleton? Finally, the word child means "a son or daughter", so the phrase "whether boy or girl" adds nothing but length to the sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

We need not be argumentative about this when we can settle for[3]. --Qexigator (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Alfonso XIII of Spain succeeded his older sister at birth. That would have been the same here, had not the law of succession been changed. However, in Medieval France, an interregnum was declared prior to the nominal reign of Jean I of France. However, say King George VII is killed by a rogue drone during the 2066 commemoration of the Battle of Hastings, his pregnant and much, much younger Queen might then become regent for the fetus, for whatever gender it was, it was next in line. However, if there was a two year old princess at the time, she would be Queen even if the baby was to be a brother, as the act of succession has been changed to absolute primogeniture.Ericl (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A fetus is not a person. Therefore the succession would pass to Prince Harry as heir presumptive and George VII's son or daughter would become king or queen at birth, and a regent appointed. TFD (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Dates

Can the reason for this be clarified? Statement of the change in NZ planted between statement of the change being implemented somewhere and the change being implemented in the UK; it makes no sense. There've been, so far as we know, two changes: in New Zealand on 25 March and in the UK on 26 March. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

See further revised edit[4]. Qexigator (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

+It is odd to see the Lord President's statement in the House of Commons, repeated in the House of Lords, Today the provisions of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 come into force, with no instrument to that effect, as the Act requires, yet available. Perhaps it will be in the London Gazette, but if Australia and New Zealand can act in time for today, why not UK? Qexigator (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The edits still don't make sense.

I've reduced the matter to its most pertinent. It's in the lede of an article that isn't about succession law. All the extra information is available at a number of other pages.

You can find citation templates here (if I haven't pointed that out to you already). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

BRF website

With the changes to the Succession to the Crown Act coming into effect, I was expecting the official BRF website to make updates to reflect this so that it matched our version (aside from their confusion about Lady Helen and Lord Nicholas' lines). However, it seems that they've removed everyone following Lady Louise. Are we still requiring that silly stipulation about only including someone if their exact number is sourced somewhere? Because now none of the sources we're using are accurate or follow the current list we have. Does anyone have the updated 2015 edition of Whitaker's? We're still using the 2013 version, but even so, it's still going to be outdated by the end of next month anyway once the second Cambridge baby is born. The BBC and Express both say Prince Michael is 47th for some bizarre reason, probably because they think Lord Nicholas, Lord Downpatrick and Lady Marina got put back in. Morhange (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

If no one has published a current list beyond the first ten people in line to the throne, then the rest of the list lacks notability. And researching the facts on each person and determining whether they fit under 16 Commonwealth Realms, 15 British overseas territories, 10 Canadian provinces, and other realms and territories is original research, which is specifically prohibited. It might be the case for example that Canada's Succession Act is invalid, and that could invalidate the UK one. TFD (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

By that rationale, the fact that BBC and Express publish Prince Michael as 47th in line means a. being in the line of succession up to #47 is, ipso facto, "notable", and b. their error in calculation may not be corrected or even acknowledged. Determining who is where in the line of succession is a mere numerical calculation that is constitutionally and legally significant -- both in terms of who is called upon to exercise the prerogatives of the Crown as Counsellors of State (in the past, at least two of these dynasts didn't even use royal titles) and who is subject to the Succession to the Crown Act 2013's restrictions on marriage. But Wikipedia remains tongue-tied on the matter, the very kind of facts for which people turn every day to an encyclopedia to ascertain what is accurate. The institution called "the British Royal Family" and those deemed members of it -- consisting of significantly more than 10 individuals -- are notable by virtue of that fact as evidenced by the vast amount of ink they elicit in reliable sources -- yet Wikipedia's policy that the order of their proximity to the throne is reportable only for the first 10 is a glaring, head-scratching anomaly that calls for a re-consideration of how "the rules" are applied to coverage about them. Morhange's right: if we follow our own rules, the moment the next Cambridge baby is born (and by logical extension every dynastic newborn) all of our info about who is in the line of succession from that point on should be deleted as obsolete -- yet everyone knows that the line of succession continues to exist beyond that point, and what it is -- everyone, that is, except Wikipedia! (It just seems to me that we continue to withhold information that the public properly wants not because we don't or can't find it, but because some think people's interest in matters monarchical is unwarranted and that Wikipedia should discourage it by adhering to counter-intuitive rules bound to starve their interest. Hope I'm wrong, but just can"t else understand why WP has become such a thwartingly small-minded hobgoblin in this area. ) FactStraight (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Retain the old, shorten the new

The old

Given that the list as it was before 26 March was correct[5], is it possible for it to be retained as such, together with the annotations, and indicating any which were at that time expected to change when the new rules became effective? It would be of lasting interest to anyone wishing to have the historic information, and it need not be consigned to oblivion.

The new

But that version of the list is no longer valid, and a shorter list will suffice. The shorter the list, the less the updating problem. Which of the following would be acceptable?

• If the line included only the heir apparent and his descendants, it would number no more than (4) going on (5).
• If it included the other descendants of the Queen, it would number (16) going on (17).

Qexigator (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

We should only use lists that already appear in reliable sources, rather than creating our own, so I would favor 2. If you have any sources that explain how the new laws affected individual ranking, that could be added to the article. TFD (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

People are much more likely to be interested in the current line of succession than in an obsolete list. There will not yet be many sources which contain an up to date list because the changes are new, and there is no rule or policy in Wikipedia that says we can't make our own list, as long as it is verifiable, which it already is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Anyone who wants to know the old order can go to the article history and look up 25 March. As for the length of the list, most interested people already know who the first four or five in line are, so they will be coming to this article to see who is further down the line. Richard75 (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Noting the above comments, a further option would be to break the current version of the list at (16) which has not been changed by the new rules, and let that be updated, while making a new section for the remainder as it was in the old version together with the annotations, etc., with a clear statement that this part of the old list stops before the changes, and is not being updated. Not all who come here will know where to find the back numbers. Nor is it safe to surmise that most interested people know who the first four or five are; many may not, and those that do may wish to check. It will become increasingly difficult to verify collateral lines. Qexigator (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

IMO, do as we have been doing and continue to list the male-line descendants of George V. Right now, the only real point of contention in our current list is whether or not Lord Nicholas Windsor's children are actually in line, because all we know is that taking a Catholic sacrament excludes you; whether that occurs as early as infant baptism or requires consent with confirmation is unknown. We know the female-line Gloucester grandchildren have switched places. We know Lord St Andrews and Prince Michael of Kent are back in line. At the very least, the first 35 spots (soon to be 36 when Baby Cambridge #2 is born) are accurate based on the last list the BRF website kept and factoring in the changes to the Gloucesters and Kents caused by the new law. Morhange (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

the only real point of contention...is whether or not Lord Nicholas Windsor's children are actually in line: Agree with that. Qexigator (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The Old: Link to old version now added.[6] --Qexigator (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

We're punting and stalling here. Two facts: The official Royal Family website did not update the list to make it more accurate -- it truncated the list to prevent it being inaccurate, and the imminent birth of the next Cambridge prince/ss will render all other published sources on the line of succession obsolete beyond the first three. Since we know these facts, both reliance upon the recently changed website and ignoring the real changes amount to collusion on the part of anyone reading this to fail to bring this article into compliance with what heretofore has been treated by consensus as the most reliable source -- although it never has been. I admire the above efforts to come up with a version of this page which doesn't deviate too obviously from what everyone knows is the current truth while appearing to comply with our distortingly constrictive rules, but it's a contortion, and one which will fail glaringly a few hours after Kate Middleton goes into labour. As Qexigator rightly notes, people don't just come here to find out what they already (think they) know, but to confirm it and to find out more -- since the "more" is known to exist and known to be calculable by anyone who can add and knows the dramatis personae to whom to apply the addition. At that point, there simply won't yet be "reliable sources" which accurately enumerate the order of successors to the crown (indeed, some of them may be awaiting Wikipedia's publication of same), yet successors there will be, and an order in which they succeed there will also be. What then? FactStraight (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

...distortingly constrictive rules...etc. There are some good npov editing reasons for not over-extending the list, and if the keepers of the British Monarchy site [7] have decided to continue with a cut-off point at Zara Tindall (15) going on (16), we may consider that in itself is a pointer to letting it be the cut-off in future updates, in other words, retaining only the Queen's descendants to Zara, and discontinuing remoter descendants or collaterals. They are unlikely to come near enough to the succcession to be notable by reason only of proximity, whatever notability any one of them may otherwise have from time to time. But there will be sufficient continuing historical interest to warrant recording the few changes in position which occurred when the rules changed, and the simplest way of presenting the information is with the vertical tree format which is used in the article. This is not the article for maintaining a genealogy or tree of the Royal Family, but only for the quite different purpose of listing (tree-wise) those currently in proximate line of succession, including the information about any of them who happen to be within the number affected by application of the rules affecting marriage. That should suffice here for keeping the facts straight. Qexigator (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to do that. It wasn't POV before 26 March and it isn't now. It's fine as it is. Richard75 (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

You were overeacting, anticipating and suggesting collusion on the part of anyone reading this, and (higher above): ...we continue to withhold information that the public properly wants not because we don't or can't find it, but because some think people's interest in matters monarchical is unwarranted and that Wikipedia should discourage it by adhering to counter-intuitive rules bound to starve their interest..... That is why I now repeat 'There are some good npov editing reasons for not over-extending the list', and gave reasons. I look forward to a reasoned response. Qexigator (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Truncation but not deprivation

Editors will be looking to the next update, expected soon. Professional and amateur enthusisasts for particular topics tend to maintain websites with additiional informative content, for which Wikipedia is not responsible, but which can be readily accessed by live external links from the encyclopedically constructed articles which Wikipedia offers, free of copyright. The unofficial 'British Royal Family History' is a good example, with one of its pages headed 'Line of Succession to the British Throne'.[8]. But while currently it lists 100 (not necessarily accurately or up-to-date), it does not match the service to readers which Wikipedia can provide: it does not present the information of lineage by tree or words and it lacks the Wkipedia inline and other links. The current version of our article (as at 18:55, 5 April) includes a link to the version before the change: For the line of succession immediately before the changes of 26 March 2015.

At the update coming soon on the birth of the second Cambridge child, let us follow the British Monarchy website in respect of the list's extent. This will not be denying notable information about the topic of the article's name. It is not that the remoter collaterals, with or without princely or other titles, have renounced or been deprived of the position in which they are now placed by birth, operation of law, and the passage of time, but simply that it can be surmised that the Queen and they themselves may be taking a more practical view of their position, and a dignified public/private balance in their lives. Those that are sufficiently notable for other reasons, such as involvement in public work, will have their own articles. For public or private information, owners of any website or online device can link themselves to the current or earlier version of our article, with the opportunity freely to use the content for constructing an updated line extending to the collaterals to suit their own interests or purposes. Qexigator (talk) 09:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No. There is no need to copy what some other website is doing. Wikipedia is not improved by removing verifiable information. People shouldnt have to go to an old version of this article to find out what they want to know. Richard75 (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yet again, have you any useful, practical, editing, npov reasons to offer us for consideration? It seems not. Qexigator (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Richard75, for revealing what seems to be the closest you can get to reasoning on the point.[9] --Qexigator (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I am with Richard75. As it stands, the article we have now is about as accurate as it can get based on the last version of the official site where it included in its full list the descendants of George V's sons; like I have previously mentioned, the only real point of contention is whether or not infant baptism into Catholicism is what disinherits a person, or if one must wait until juvenile confirmation. At any rate, as I have also argued for in the past, our list should continue to reflect the royal representatives of the Kent and Gloucester branches. As long as there are HRHs in these branches, they should be included in our list. They are still members of the British Royal Family, and despite their low chance of ever inheriting, they should still be included in the British line of succession. In due time, when the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent, Princess Alexandra and Prince Michael pass away, then we should discuss restricting it to George VI or Queen Elizabeth's descendants only. Morhange (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Previous discussions

For discussion 'Omit remoter collaterals', July-Sepember 2013, see Archive 16[10]; on introduction of the Tree list,[11], 23 June 2012, see 'Visual "succession" ' in Archive 13[12] --Qexigator (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2015

Prince Harry of Wales for some reason is shown as Prince Henry of Wales. 86.167.14.227 (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: See below: Jamietw (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Prince "Henry" listed instead of Prince Harry

This page lists a prince Henry as 4th in line, when it should be Prince Harry

108.54.56.50 (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• • Prince Henry of Wales is his real name. Harry is his nickname.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Jamietw (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Disruption?

Editors should be alerted to certain persistent bad edits currently occurring at this and other articles:

• Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge[13]
• Succession to the British throne[14]
• Line of succession to the British throne[15]

Qexigator (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite disappointed, sir. However, unlike yourself, I can't afford to stay involved in this kinda dispute, wich will be moot within 24-48 hrs. Therefore, you can have your way. GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, GD, though we've used NN consistently before, there is an argument to be heard that it is not something our readers will easily understand! Better off using prose. Or "unnamed Middleton-Windsor child". Dan BD 15:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The?

I see some are piped as "The Prince" and "The Princess" instead of "Prince" or "Princess". Why? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:52, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

The children of the monarch are "The Prince" or "The Princess." More distant relations are just "Prince" or "Princess. Psunshine87 (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Not to sound like a two-year-old, but why? Prince Charles' article doesn't refer to him that way once. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:03, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

Prince Charles's article should refer to him as The Prince Charles but he is widely known as simply Prince Charles. The correct style for the children of a reigning monarch is to refer to them as "The Prince" or "The Princess." Grandchildren of a monarch are simply "Prince" and "Princess." Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Source? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:15, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

See "Styles of British Princes", Prince Harry, p. 15.[16] TFD (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"The server encountered an error and could not complete your request." But it's a start. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:16, May 6, 2015 (UTC)

Changed link, please try again. TFD (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Access granted. Still weird to me, but seems in order. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:36, May 6, 2015 (UTC)

Karin Vogel's place in line

I'm wondering why we are using an article from 2011 that is now extremely outdated (considering the number of births, deaths and now re-additions of non-Catholics who married Catholics) to include Karin Vogel's incorrect position in the line of succession? The article is based on Dan Willis' research and he clearly stated on the site that his list includes Roman Catholics. I'm just curious as to why it's acceptable to use his site to list an incorrect number for Ms. Vogel, but not to include the Lascelles or the Fifes, etc etc. Does it count as original research to point out that her exact number on his list is incorrect because it includes Catholics? Morhange (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I would think it would make sense to include that she was, as of 2011, the last person in the list. However, there have been a number of births, deaths, and overall changes to the succession that would change her actual number potentially rather drastically. It should be changed to "As of 2011, Karin Vogel was the last person in the line of succession to the throne." Psunshine87 (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

If the usage explicitly states the date (2011) and inclusion of Catholics, it passes muster as a reliable source not known to be conveying error. The notability lies in the fact that it's approximately indicative of how vast the number of people in succession to a prominent throne has grown and is the kind of datum in which many of those browsing this article are reasonably likely to take some interest. A greater concern is an attached, unacknowledged inaccuracy in the article: The Act of Settlement 1701 altered the dynastic order to exclude some, thus moving others forward. But it didn't declare or constitute a finite limit to the succession in the descent of the Electress Sophia. There were then and are now other legitimate descendants of British kings prior to James I, the grandfather through whom Sophia inherited her right to the throne. If all of Sophia's eligible descendants were wiped out, there would still be heirs of the blood royal entitled to succeed to the the throne. FactStraight (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

No, William Blackstone explains here why it is limited to Sophia's descendants. Richard75 (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Given that, whether or not the state of affairs at the time the act was passed would have made such speculative reasoning notable, and that there is nothing to show it was in fact ever proposed before or after Blackstone's time , it is frankly too late to start such a hare running so long after Blackstone, unless some respected source can be shown to have argued to the contrary; nor is this article the place to gratify the supposed enthusiasm of amateur historians or to excite the curiosity of casual browsers, who if keen enough can follow their own calculations, without encouragement to that end from an article intended to offer factually based information. In the unlikely event of the line of succession determined by the act ending for want of heirs, there is no prospect of any credible claim to the Crown by persons otherwise descended from any earlier monarch. James II's 'abdication..rendered the throne absoloutely and completely vacant', per Blackstone. Qexigator (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

But the source is conveying error. The fact that it includes Catholics in its numbering automatically makes the number given incorrect. Let's assum for a second that at the time of the 2011 article, Mr. Reitweisner's article was completely accurate with regard to listing every single living descendant of Sophia of Hannover. That still makes Ms. Vogel's position in the line of succession incorrect. She could not have been 4,973rd in line at the time because many of the 4,972 people ahead of her were either Catholics or married to a Catholic (which was, in 2011, a condition of exclusion). The old full list that we used to maintain lists her at around 2,514th in line, and even that is questionable. Personally, I think the number should be removed. She was not 4,973rd in line at the time then, and is not 4,973rd in line now, and including a specific number when even the original source notes that their list includes all descendants regardless of religious status seems inaccurate. Morhange (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The wording of the statement says "reported to be". Perhaps we should avoid the weasel-wording and provide in-text attribution, i.e., reported by whom. Also, Blackstone is a good primary source for the Whig view in his time, but not necessarily the final word. Had there been no eligible heirs of the body of Sophia, it is possible that the the monarchy would have passed on anyway, but without sources we could not say anything. It is best and consistent with policy to only report what sources say and not speculate about whether they are correct. TFD (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Given that the main purpose of this article is to give information about the curent line of succession, as listed in it, annotated and explained, why do we have this in the article anyway?

The 4,973rd and last person in line was reported in 2011 to be Karin Vogel (born 1973) from Rostock, Germany..

It was of little relevance to this article at the time it was reported, and even less so now. If anywhere it should be in Succession to the British throne as the main article. If it is not noteworthy there, nor is it it here. Qexigator (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2015: children of Nicholas Windsor

I think the two eldest sons (and possibly the third son too)of Lord Nicholas Windsor are Catholics like their father (as stated in your own Wikipedia article on Lord Nicholas) and therefor should not be included at 37, 38 and 39 - as the recent legislation (The Succession To The Crown Act 2013) now allows spouses of Catholics to appear in the line but not Catholics themselves. 92.30.130.107 (talk) 11:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I think they were included in some lists because they were baptised after the lists were published. But the note at the end of the first son's entry makes it clear that they are not included in the most recent list. Richard75 (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

My edit was undone by someone who pointed out that they were still listed in an old version of the British monarchy website. However we don't know when that version was last updated, and in any event it is no longer the current version. Meanwhile Debrett's and Whitaker have removed them, as this very article already notes, and we have sources such as this one which say that Lord Windsor's children are baptised Catholics. A defunct version of a list on a website can't trump the sources we have. So I am restoring my edit, and anyone who wants to revert it will need to come up with a better source. Richard75 (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Firstly the line of succession was updated regularly when a new baby was born, so you can't argue that the website wasn't updated. Secondly, Lord Downpatrick and Lady Marina Charlotte Windsor were only excluded in 2003 and 2008 respectively when they were announced to have been confirmed into the Catholic Church, NOT when they were baptized. Lady Amelia Windsor, Albert Windsor and Leopold Windsor was never excluded. And there is a point there. Children should not be excluded only because their parents decided to baptise them when they were babies, the exclusion would only take effect if they really wanted to be in the Catholic Church and wanted to be confirmed. My conclusion is that you are making up things. 2.83.177.118 (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The above source indicates that Lord Downpatrick and his siblings were baptised Anglican as it mentions Albert Windsor as being the first member of the royal family baptised Catholic since 1688. - dwc lr (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Lord St. Andrews' children were all baptised as Anglicans, so that point is moot. You can't just make a claim about the rules of a line of succession based on your personal opinions about when exclusion should take place. Morhange (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

They were not removed by Whitaker's. As it says in the article, they were added. DrKiernan (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

What do Lord Downpatrick and Charlotte and Lord St Andrews have to do with it? I'm not talking about them. And your view about the exclusion not taking effect until the children really want to be Catholics is not supported by the legislation. It's just your point of view. Our article on Nicholas Windsor says, with sources, that he and his children are Catholics. Now what is your source? Richard75 (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like it's time to reduce the line of succession to the people who are currently listed on the monarchy's website. They are the only people who are remotely likely to inherit the throne, in any case. The status of the children of Lord Nicholas Windsor is an academic argument at this point. Since they were added to the list in the first place, someone fairly high up in the household (since I can't imagine the list on the website isn't vetted by someone close to the Queen) thought they WERE in the line of succession, which leads me to believe that the boys would only have been removed from that list if they had chosen to be confirmed Catholic as adolescents. No one knows for sure at this point. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should reduce the list, because it is informative and interesting to have a list of the extended royal family (even though we all know most of these people have virtually zero chances of ever ascending to the throne). As for Nicholas Windsor's children, shouldn't we write "XC" next to their names to show that they are Catholics? Also, is that tabloid source listed for Louis Windsor's birth still relevant? 109.103.87.237 (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

We do not know that they are excluded. DrKiernan (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

We could avoid all these time-consuming discussions by merely reporting what sources say rather than trying to interpret the succession laws. TFD (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

We still need Wikipedia articles to be consistent with each other. We can't just have one article that says they're Catholics and another one which says they are not. The relevant sources are in the Nicholas Windsor article. We can include them here too if you like. Richard75 (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the line of succession, not people's religion. The sources we use are supposed to weigh all the factors that determine eligibility to succession, then list the heirs. Our role is merely to report what those sources say, not re-invent the wheel. "Synthesis" precludes us from doing that. TFD (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Religion governs eligibility for succession. Richard75 (talk) 09:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it does. But "Synthesis" says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources... If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." In this case do not combine source A saying Catholics cannot ascend the throne and source B saying that so-and-so is Catholic to conclude C that so-and-so cannot ascend the throne. Instead, use secondary sources that make that conclusion. TFD (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that rule. How annoying! I will look into it later when I have time. Richard75 (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, isn't Debrett's a sufficient source (see the footnote)? Richard75 (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No, they're not mentioned in Debrett's at all. It doesn't say whether they are excluded or not. DrKiernan (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Surely they are omitted because they are excluded? Richard75 (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No. It explicitly names four Catholics and spouses of Catholics as excluded but the children are not mentioned anywhere. No reason is given for their omission. DrKiernan (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I've found this. Richard75 (talk)|

That doesn't look like a reliable source: it has for example copied some things from here. DrKiernan (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The 1701 act precluded persons who are in "Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall profess the Popish Religion." Children under around 14 cannot take communion and certainly the youngest child is too young to profess anything. How the law applies to these individuals is something we should leave to rs to determine. TFD (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

RC church traditionally allows child's first communion at age 8+, at parents' discretion.[17] irrespective of the persnal opinion of any editors here about age of mental capacity. Obviously, the presumption is that a person in line is eligible and not disqualified unless that is rebutted by a known fact. Qexigator (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Prince Henry/Harry

For this article, are regular editors agreed that we continue using 'Henry' in the Tree list and Gallery, for Wiiliam's younger brother, per diff?[18] Qexigator (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we call him Prince Henry "Harry" of Wales, so that people stop editing his name every week. Is that too coloquial? 109.103.87.237 (talk) 07:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Not as lowbrow as Hank. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind which we use, but I don't really like the Henry "Harry" idea. If stupid people don't understand what a nickname is, that's their problem. We don't have to pander to them. Richard75 (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)