Talk:Line of succession to the British throne

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I'm wondering why we are using an article from 2011 that is now extremely outdated (considering the number of births, deaths and now re-additions of non-Catholics who married Catholics) to include Karin Vogel's incorrect position in the line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)

Reitwiesner's list does not take any account of exclusions under the Royal Marriages Act and nor does the text following the present list. AnthonyCamp (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC).

They no longer apply though. The 2013 act legitimizes all those marriages. DrKiernan (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I am no expert on the 2013 Act but I had understood that Subsection 5 of Section 3 (as it says) "applies for all purposes except those relating to the succession to the Crown". AnthonyCamp (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC).

So it does. I'd missed that clause. DrKiernan (talk) 18:17, 10 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.[1] irrespective of the personal 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)

Your link says, "It is diocesan policy that First Holy Communion should be received in primary school Year 3 (the school year in which a child reaches the age of 8) or above. A child's readiness for First Holy Communion will be decided by parents, child, priests and catechists together." I doubt they live in the diocese of East Anglia, so it could be different. In any case, the eldest child was born in 2007, hence would possibly be eligible for communion this year at the earliest. TFD (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

1_RC doctrine per QUAM SINGULARI, Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Discipline of the Sacraments on First Communion, August 8, 1910[2] 2_We need not make suppositions if no known fact supports. Is it not the case that, whether or not it is known that they are being brought up as Roman Catholics (are they?), the law of succession excludes a person who is "in communion", and if there is no source for such information, for the purposes of the article they are not excluded? Qexigator (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Right, I think this source will do: [3] It says that the three children in fact are in line. Richard75 (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Your link is to a numbered list on MSN news, Why not just use this list? TFD (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

When sources differ, it is inappropriate to select one source over another. Per the NPOV policy, all notable alternatives should be included, according to due weight where necessary. DrKiernan (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Instead, we are trying to determine which list is correct. Why not use the MSN list, which is the only one that provides numbers, and add footnotes to individuals where sources either say that they do not belong on the list or should be on the list but are omitted. the relevant issue is verifiability, not truth. In fact we cannot know for certain how laws will be interpreted, nor what the actual facts are. That is part of the reason why original research is not allowed. TFD (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd be curious to know MSN's sources for their list. There's a chance that they might even be using Wiki as a source, since the Royal Family's website snipped its list several months ago. Morhange (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The 2015 Whitaker's Almanack lists all three boys in line after Amelia and before Helen Taylor. There is an explanatory note saying that Nicholas's children remain in line if they are in communion with the Church of England. DrKiernan (talk) 11:08, 13 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?[4] 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, 9 May 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)

His name is given as Henry in the Court Circular, Kensington Palace.[5] Qexigator (talk) 06:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Note B after 2 May

Note B of the 'Tree list' links to The official website of The Britiish Monarchy, said to be 'retrieved 24 March 2015'. But, given that the link now continues to show no more than 16 (as mentioned in a discussion above), is it time to remove the 'B' from all who follow, down to 55?[6] Qexigator (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

+ If so, will it be necessary to stop the tree list at 17, and add descriptively under 'Remoter Collateral lines':

The line continues with the eligible descendants in the nearest collateral line, namely, descendants of Elizabeth's younger sister Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon (1930–2002) followed by those in the next collateral lines, descending from Elizabeth and Margaret's grandfather George V, which descend from younger brothers of the Queen's father, George VI: Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (1900–1974) and Prince George, Duke of Kent (1902–1942). After that, the next collateral line descends from Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood, only daughter of George V, followed by the other eligible descendants of Edward VII and earlier British monarchs, back to George I.

Qexigator (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Not necessary, imo. We already discussed this upthread anyway. Debrett's and Whitaker's Almanack expand on the list anyway. Personally, what I find mindboggling is why, if the BRF website chose to limit their list to descendants of the Queen, did they not include Zara's daughter. Odd. Morhange (talk) 02:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we take it that you agree that note 'B' does not apply to her nor those coming after her? Boggled, as in Love Among the Chickens by P. G. Wodehouse?[7] Perhaps all parties (Mr & Mrs T, Mrs T's ma & pa, and gran and gramp) prefer it that way? Or maybe, influenced by film rights or other celeb prospects? Or maybe they feel it passes the point from the line of royal duty to vacuous trivia? Or the point from being 'royals' to mere 'commoners' or 'ordinary people'? One thing is clear at this stage: she is never likely to be among the first six, but it is not impossible that some day she or her issue may succeed as monarch, as a result of predecessors becoming RC and/or death of predecessors. Maybe that's a boggling supposition? Qexigator (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

+ Or if the line stopped at 16 (Mrs T.), the descriptive text would begin:

The line continues with any eligible issue of Princess Anne now living or after born, followed by the eligible descendants in the nearest collateral line...

Qexigator (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Updated version has removed Note B from those after Mrs T. at (16).[8] Qexigator (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Naming heads of collateral lines only after (16)

+A version of the Tree could be retained with 1-16, and listing only the heads of the collateral lines thus:

• King George V (1865–1936)
  • King George VI (1895–1952)
    • Queen Elizabeth II (born 1926)
      • (1) The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales (b. 1948) ^{B D W}
        • (2) Prince William, Duke of Cambridge (b. 1982) ^{B D W}
          • (3) Prince George of Cambridge (b. 2013) ^{B D}
          • (4) Princess Charlotte of Cambridge (b. 2015) ^B
        • (5) Prince Henry of Wales (Prince Harry) (b. 1984) ^{B D W}
      • (6) The Prince Andrew, Duke of York (b. 1960) ^{B D W}
        • (7) Princess Beatrice of York (b. 1988) ^{B D W}
        • (8) Princess Eugenie of York (b. 1990) ^{B D W}
      • (9) The Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex (b. 1964) ^{B D W}
        • (10) James Mountbatten-Windsor, Viscount Severn (b. 2007) ^{B D W}
        • (11) Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor (b. 2003) ^{B D W}
      • (12) The Princess Anne, Princess Royal (b. 1950) ^{B D W}
        • (13) Peter Phillips (b. 1977) ^{B D W}
          • (14) Savannah Phillips (b. 2010) ^{B D W}
          • (15) Isla Phillips (b. 2012) ^{B D W}
        • (16) Zara Tindall (née Phillips; b. 1981) ^{B D W}
        • Any other eligible issue of Princess Anne now living or after born.
    • Any eligible issue of The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon (1930–2002) ¹⁹⁵²
  • Any eligible issue of The Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (1900–1974) ¹⁹⁵²
  • Any eligible issue of The Prince George, Duke of Kent (1902–1942).

Editors may wish to consider whether this could resolve what some may see as a dilemma. Qexigator (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd cut it off with all of the direct descendants of Queen Elizabeth. It looks odd to leave off Zara Tindall's daughter when you've included the children of her older brother in your list. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If truncated, this article becomes pointless. It would just duplicate the list in the main article. 81.156.202.12 (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Bookworm: It may look odd to anyone who notices, perhaps relatively few of the readers of the article, but if the rationale is 'wot is listed on Monarchy site', that would be that. We may not know the reason why (if not a mistake) but... well, see above. Qexigator (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

No, IP, not at all pointless: it is the best way I have seen of presenting the information, in a way that a simple list and descriptive text does not. And it shows anyone who wishes to use it as a model for constructing a continuation of the list, based on the current list if they wish, or to make stand alone lists for the collaterals, working up and down the lines as far as they like. Wikipedia has no copyright in any of this. Qexigator (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is hardly improved by making it less informative! The anonymous IP's point is that the first 17 are already listed on another article, and so this article only exists because it goes further. We are not obliged to confine our list to whatever happens to be on some other website's list. Anyone who wants to know who is next in line after the 17th would very likely come to Wikipedia, so why disappoint them? This article was accurate in March, and it still is. The source cited went further than 17 when it was retrieved and that is good enough. Richard75 (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is unrivalled by other Wikipedia articles or other websites, such as those linked at B, D or W, in the manner and convenience of the information it presents, whether naming no more than 16 as shown above and heads of collateral lines, or continuing to name more than 50, as in the current version. But, if it is now time to remove the 'B' from all who follow 16, will D and W suffice as sources for 17 onward? Whatever B showed in March is no longer there by the link, but if, as we must, refer to D and W as at latest date of publication, we must not fail to note that at B's latest date of publication it stops at 16. Qexigator (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

+But now see[9], linking Note B to the version current before B dropped the names that are after 16 in the present version. Qexigator (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC) 14:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Updated version has removed Note B from those after Mrs T. at (16).[10] Qexigator (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

After thinking about this, I'm not in favor of truncating the list. Three of the sources (Debrett's, MSN news, and Whitaker's) have a list of around 50. One self-published source (Lewis/Reitwiesner) takes the line further and the remaining reliable source [the official website] is shorter but used to take the line to around 50. Consequently, I think it is reasonable to keep a list here that is as long as most of the reliable sources, which is around the 50 mark. DrKiernan (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the recent revisions have removed such problems as there might have been about sources and presentation of the information. Qexigator (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Section for logging changes

Further to the above, given that the sequence of the collateral lines remains constant, we may surmise that anyone linking to the pre-26 May version and noticing a change in the list number there compared with any later version (whether no more than the line headed by the monarch, or, as now including collaterals) would be aware or able to deduce that the change had resulted from a later event, such as birth or death, or gain or loss of eligibility. Charlotte's birth has been the first event, and is clearly mentioned in the article.

But the purpose of the article could be well served by adding a section logging such events as they occur in the future. This would give the informaton while avoiding SYN and OR. Qexigator (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

+The usefulness of the 'List of changes from and after 26 March 2015' section in the current version[11] would be at least as useful for changes in position of unnumbered persons, if numbers after 16 were removed as suggested in the next section below. Qexigator (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Note 3: a problem of numbers

Note 3 about Albert and Leopold Windsor (and may be Louis) puts their position in some doubt, and therefore the 'Tree list' number of all that follow. Would not the integrity of the information in the article be better served if they stopped at (16)? Numbering stems from as far back as the start of the article in January 2003[12], but currently, the main use for these list numbers is to correlate with other lists, primarily the shorter list at Succession to the British throne. If the numbers stopped at 16, the list's topnote could give a simple explanation, such as:

The numbers in the list are the position of the persons named in the line, as shown by the official website of the British Monarchy."Succession"

Qexigator (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That could be a reason to stop at 23 I suppose. But I don't think there is any need to delete Princess Margaret's descendants too. Richard75 (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Only the unsourced list numbers are here in question, not the names of the persons as listed in the current version. Qexigator (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

To my mind, the topnote as now revised[13] will suffice to resolve the question in respect of both 1-16 and the rest. Qexigator (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)