Talk:Alternative successions to the English and British Crown/Archive 1

The Clarence line
As it makes more sense to put the counter-arguments to the claim that Edward IV was illegitimate directly after the argument for that claim, I've moved them to Edward IV of England. The points about attainders passed by Henry VII and Henry VIII are irrelevant, as had the Clarence line occupied the throne, H7 and H8 would never have been kings and so couldn't have attainted Edward of Warwick and his sister and nephew. Jess Cully 06:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I included the attainders in the original entry since Henry VII deposed Richard III and took the crown by force of arms (it seems someone edited out my link to the entry about the hierarchy of claims to the crown), justly and by "right of conquest" making him King. As rightful King, all Parliaments he called and all laws to which he gave his royal assent were both de facto and de jure laws, thus any attainders passed by Parliament were legal. Remember, right to the crown by force of arms means everything. It's why Elizabeth currently sits on the throne. Had William III not conquered England and deposed James II, Elizabeth wouldn't be there. Right of Conquest is and always will be kind of a reset button on crown descent, the right to call Parliament, and the right to assent to the laws; all subsequent acts have the full force of law, except for those who contest the claim but have no recourse to try it, nor force to retake the crown. --Dave  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.35.100 (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The point of the article isn't to argue that the Clarence, Stanley or Jacobite claimant IS rightful king, just to trace the descent of their claims to the throne. A Yorkist legitimist would have rejected H7 and H8's claim to the throne and regarded their attainders as invalid, so would have accepted Edward Warwick and Henry Pole as his rightful sovereign, just as Jacobites rejected William III despite his conquest of James II. Jess Cully 22:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Third Succession Act
Although it is true that the Second Succession Act (28 Hen VIII c. 7) authorized Henry VIII to set the succession by his Last Will and Testament, it would be most germaine to list the Third Succession Act (35 Hen. VIII, c. 1) instead. The text of the Third Succession Act supports the argument:

“Be it enacted by the authority of this present Parliament, that the King’s Highness shall have full power and authority to give, dispose, appoint, assign, declare and limit, by his gracious Letters Patent under his Great Seal, or else by His Highness’ last Will made in writing and signed by his most gracious hand, at his only pleasure from time to time hereafter, the Imperial Crown of this Realm...to such person or persons in remainder as shall please His Highness, anything contained in the said former Act [28 Hen VIII c 7] in any wise notwithstanding.”

Additionally:

(1) It was under the terms of the Third Succession Act (35 Hen. VIII, c. 1) that Mary I and Elizabeth I succeeded to the Crown of England. This was acknowledged in 1 Elizabethae c. 3 (1559), also called “The Act of Recognition of the Queen’s Title to the Crown According to ''35 Hen. VIII, c. 1."''

(2) Mary I, in 1 Mariae, St. 2, c.1 (1553) altered and repealed ''25 Hen. VIII c. 22 and much of 28 Hen.VIII, c. 7''. The Third Succession Act remained unaltered, as it would be illegal to do so: “The doing of any thing for the interruption, repeal, or annulment of this Act, of what estate, dignity, degree or condition soever they be, under this Act, is declared high treason.” (35 Hen VIII c. 1)

Consequently, Tudor Legitimists hold that the Third Succession Act and the last Will of Henry VIII remain the law governing English succession to the current day.

--Ribicswerdna 19:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Did the Third Succession Act specify that the heirs of Mary Tudor Queen of France would succeed in the event of Henry's issue failing? Jess Cully 13:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * According to 35 Hen. VIII, c. 1 (1544), the succession was to be determined by the last Will of King Henry VIII. His last Will (30 December 1546) settled the Crown of England upon his children, and failing their issue, first upon the heirs of the body of his youngest sister, Mary Tudor Queen of France. After the extinction of her legitimate descendants (of whom there are very many today), then the succession "shall wholly remain and come to the next rightful heirs." --Ribicswerdna 23:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarence line again
The article says:

"This line’s claim to the Crown is based squarely upon the argument that Edward IV was not sired by Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York, and thus had no legitimate claim to the Crown. [1] Therefore, when Richard was killed at the Battle of Wakefield, his claim passed to his eldest legitimate son, Edmund, Earl of Rutland. Unfortunately, Edmund was captured at the same battle and executed either the same or next day. Edmund’s claim then passed to his eldest "legitimate" brother and heir presumptive, George, Duke of Clarence. Supporters of the Clarence claim also draw on the debated validity of Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, which allows them to argue that, even if Edward was legitimate, his children were not."

I don't see that the claim of Edward IV's or Edward V's illegitimacy are necessarily part of this line. Even if both Edward's were legitimate, Clarence as the third son would have been the legal successor to them had he lived at the time, preceding the youngest son Richard III. After the death of Richard, the descendants of Clarence would still be the first in line. Str1977 (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Henricians
I am dubious that there are any actual Henricians, much less ones who demand that the 9th Earl of Jersey's divorce was illegitimate and refuse to recognize his son as rightful heir. The source given is from William Addams Reitwiesner, a genealogist, and his reference to "Henricians" is almost certainly tongue-in-cheek and referring to other armchair genealogists, not to an actual political movement that supports the claims of Lady Caroline. john k (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

a%20conference%20about%20the%20next%20succession%20to%20the%20crown%20of%20england
http://books.google.com/books?rlz=1C1CHMA_enUS313US313&sourceid=chrome&q=a%20conference%20about%20the%20next%20succession%20to%20the%20crown%20of%20england&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Another claimant?
Certainly Richard Scott, 10th Duke of Buccleuch also has a claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Cheeseman (talk • contribs) 07:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

George III's first marriage?
Another interesting fact is what if George III's first marriage was true? If then, the heir of George Rex would have a rightful claim. But what if George III was married, but had no children by this marriage? Apparently, Hubertus Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha would be the heir general. Very interesting! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Cheeseman (talk • contribs) 17:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Princess Felicitas of Prussia
Is there room in this article (indeed is this the right place) to mention Princess Felicitas of Prussia (b. 1934), granddaughter of William, German Crown Prince through his son Prince Wilhelm of Prussia. She is 334th in line to the throne. But the succession is determined by male-preference primogeniture, religion, and legitimate birth. In this modern age, one wonders whether the sexist approach will continue. It is not currently controvesial because the first in line is both the oldest and male (Charles) and indeed his first child is also male. The question whether the "male" requirement will be removed (as it has in other systems) will remain theoretical for many many years. - The last time a younger male took over the throne was in 1901 when Edward VII took ahead of his elder sister Victoria (The Princess Royal). She had been first in line the the throne until Edward was born. My point is that had the sexist rule not applied, Princess Felicitas of Prussia would be Queen today as the descendant from Victoria the Princess Royal. Of course, there are many factors - such as the fact that she would not have been married off to the German family Willhelm. Is it worth a mention in the article? Alan Davidson (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In the absence of an objection I would like to insert such a provision - but I would prefer a comment from others. Alan Davidson (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No makes no sense why do you choose Victoria's eldest daughter why not any of the elder daughters of earlier Monarchs of Britain?--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Exclusion of females in the Clarence line
A note at the end of this section presently reads: "Note: This list excludes females from the crown. The precedent for female inheritance of the Crown would not have been set had George, Duke of Clarence inherited the crown. The principle that a woman could reign was only laid down by Henry VIII when he named Mary I as heir to the throne in 1525, and approved by Parliament by the First Succession Act which appointed Elizabeth I as heir."

This is nonsense. The principle that a woman could reign was equally laid down by Henry I, who named his daughter Matilda as his heir in 1127. This was agreed by the Barons, the nearest contemporary equivalent of Parliament. The fact that most of them went back on their word and supported the usurpation of Stephen in 1135 doesn't invalidate the principle. Opera hat (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Large portions of this article are nonsense. john k (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The entire article is nonsense. 86.183.197.74 (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Which?--Streona (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There was never Salic Law in England; had there been, Henry II could never have acceeded to the throne, seeing as his claim was derived from his mother, Matilda. In point of fact, Henry VIII's father, Henry VII claimed the throne through his mother.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And Stephen inherited through his mother. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The new laws of succession(post-Henry I) were set down in 1153. These were neither the modern English/UK laws, nor the Salic Law. A woman could not reign in her own right prior to Henry VIII's naming Mary as his heir, but women most definitely could transmit their claims to their sons, as Lionel's claim passed through Philippa, through Roger, through Anne to the Duke of York. Likewise Henry Tudor bases his claim on his mother's descent from John of Gaunt. However, none of Princess Philippa, Anne Mortimer or Margaret Beaufort would have been able to reign in their own right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick T (talk • contribs) 16:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Bastardy & the Duke of Monmouth
Where is the source of the principle that the monarch of England cannot be illegitimate? There have been three self-confessed illegitimate Kings (not including the Tudors who claimed each other were) - Athelstan (the first King of England), Hardicanute nad William I. The Synod of Chelsea in the 8th century established that the King must not be "born in adultery" which is not quite the same thing. Most royal bastards were born to mistresses after the king had married, but the Duke of Monmouth was not born in adultery since neither his father Charles II nor his mother Lucy Walters were married to anybody. The rumour was put about that there was actually a "black box" containing their marriage certificate although Charles always denied this, possibly because he wanted a Roman Catholic successor as agreed in the Secret treaty of Dover. Winston Churchill writes in his History of the English Speaking Peoples that Monmouth's descendents - the Dukes of Buccleuch burnt the papers.--Streona (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hardecanute was legitimate, I thought - it was Harold Harefoot who was a bastard. My understanding is that the conventional understanding of why Charles denied that he married Lucy Walters was because he did not marry Lucy Walters. john k (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If Charles Stuart and Lucy Walters had been married to other people then Monmouth was born in adultery, but if they were not he was merely born as a result of fornication & yes it was Harefoot.--Streona (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Charles II was aware that his brother James, Duke of York was unpopular with the people, yet he made no effort to legitimise any of his offspring. He also made no attempt to divorce Catherine of Bragnza and sire legitimate children.I think this was done to guarantee his life; as Fraser says in her bio of Charles II, the latter would often remark to James: "Nobody would assassinate me to make you king".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Descendants of Mary Tudor
I was wondering something. Catherine Grey's line is excluded on the grounds that Elizabeth I ruled that her marriage was not valid. But certainly one could argue that Elizabeth herself was illegitimate, therefore she had no right to invalidate Catherine's marriage, and in fact Catherine was the rightful Queen! Who then is the direct heir to Catherine Grey? Henry F. Albert (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually the Third act of succession stated that the descendants of mary tudor would ascend the throne only after Henry's line became extinct. Sorry for being a pedant. 86.173.26.13 (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I gather, this question was another "alternate line", asking "what if...?" in this case, considering Elizabeth as being illegitimate. In this case however, it would probably be more likely that Mary Queen of Scots would have been next, as the Third Succession Act would therfore be regarded as invalid. 06:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Mary Tudor
This article states matter of factly that Lady Caroline Ogilvy is the heir-general to Mary Tudor. However, one could just as easily state that it is in fact Mary Freeman-Grenville, 12th Lady Kinloss, as Anne Stanley's claim rests solely on the idea that Catherine Grey's marriage was not recognized by Elizabeth I. yet one could argue that Anne Boleyn's marriage was invalid(as the Jacobites do), meaning that Catherine Grey had a greater claim than Elizabeth in the first place, meaning that Lady Kinloss has a far superior claim to Elizabeth II.

Also, http://www.wargs.com/essays/succession/henrician.html states that the heir-general of Mary Tudor(through Anne Stanley, as is the case with Lady Caroline Ogilvy) is in fact William Villiers, 10th Earl of Jersey. Whatever the reasoning, simply stating "for legitimists the current holder...is...Lady Caroline Ogilvy" is somewhat OR. Charlie Cheeseman (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The third act of succession counted Elizabeth I as a legitemate heir to the throne, though. 86.173.26.13 (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems scenario as the one posted above, resting on the assumption that Henry VIII's marriage to Anne Boleyn was null and void, thus making Elizabeth ineligible. On these grounds however, the Third Succession Act itself would be considered highly doubtful as it names Elizabeth as Edward's heir. Frederick T (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If Elizabeth is not the rightful heir, then you have to go to Mary Stuart after Mary Tudor, I think. john k (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Descendants of Stephen of England
Why isn't his descendants considered an alternative line? Without the Treaty of Wallingford Empress Matilda's descendnat wouldn't have ruled at all.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 09:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok since nobody seems to be responding, I helped myself and researched it myself and got this. I think this succession would have been contraditctory to why Stephen of England was even put on the throne in the first place there is a succession of five women in a role after William I, Count of Boulogne.  I'm not sure if I did this right; I assumed the English practiced the semi-salic law during this time, excluding all females until the last male of the royal house has died out, so that why it goes from Victor Emmanuel I of Sardinia to his brother Charles Felix of Sardinia instead to his daughter Maria Beatrice of Savoy.  Could someone check this?


 * 1) Stephen of England
 * 2) William I, Count of Boulogne, second son of Stephen
 * 3) Marie I, Countess of Boulogne, youngest daughter of Stephen
 * 4) Ida, Countess of Boulogne, eldest daughter of Marie I
 * 5) Matilda II, Countess of Boulogne, only child of Ida
 * 6) Marie of Brabant, Holy Roman Empress (it isn't clear if Matilda II died before or after Marie), cousin of Matilda II and granddaughter of Marie I
 * 7) Adelaide, Countess of Boulogne, sister of Empress Marie
 * 8) Robert V, Count of Auvergne, first son of Adelaide
 * 9) William XI, Count of Auvergne, first son of Robert V
 * 10) Robert VI, Count of Auvergne, second son of Robert V
 * 11) Robert VII, Count of Auvergne, only son of Robert VI
 * 12) William XII, Count of Auvergne, first son of Robert VII
 * 13) Joan I, Countess of Auvergne, only daughter of William XII
 * 14) Philip I, Duke of Burgundy, only son of Joan I
 * 15) John I, Count of Auvergne, great-uncle of Philip I and second son of Robert VII
 * 16) John II, Count of Auvergne, only son of John I
 * 17) Joan II, Countess of Auvergne, only child of John II
 * 18) Marie I, Countess of Auvergne, granddaughter of Robert VII
 * 19) Bertrand V de La Tour d'Auvergne, only son of Marie I
 * 20) Bertrand VI de La Tour d'Auvergne, first son of Bertrand V
 * 21) John IV de La Tour d'Auvergne, only son of Bertrand VI
 * 22) Anne de La Tour d'Auvergne, eldest daughter of John IV
 * 23) Catherine de' Medici, niece of Anne and daughter of Madeleine de La Tour d'Auvergne
 * 24) Henry III of France, fourth son of Catherine
 * 25) Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia of Spain, niece of Henry III and daughter of Elisabeth of France
 * 26) Victor Amadeus I, Duke of Savoy, nephew of Isabella
 * 27) Francis Hyacinth, Duke of Savoy, eldest son of Victor Amadeus I
 * 28) Charles Emmanuel II, Duke of Savoy, younger son of Victor Amadeus I
 * 29) Victor Amadeus II of Sardinia, only son of Charles Emmanuel II
 * 30) Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia, second son of Victor Amadeus II
 * 31) Victor Amadeus III of Sardinia, eldest son of Charles Emmanuel III
 * 32) Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia, eldest son of Victor Amadeus III
 * 33) Victor Emmanuel I of Sardinia, second son of Victor Amadeus III
 * 34) Charles Felix of Sardinia, fifth son of Charles Felix of Sardinia
 * 35) Charles Albert of Sardinia, descendant of Infanta Catherine Michelle of Spain
 * 36) Victor Emmanuel II of Italy, first son of Charles Albert
 * 37) Umberto I of Italy, first son of Victor Emmanuel II
 * 38) Victor Emmanuel III of Italy, only son of Umberto I
 * 39) Umberto II of Italy, only son of Victor Emmanuel III
 * 40) Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples, only son of Umberto II
 * Wow! Talk about alternative history! Imagine how the history of England would have been irrevocably altered under the de jure reign of Catherine de Medici, and what fun to have such a good dancer as Emanuele Filiberto as heir to the British throne. You did a good job with the research, QEIILS!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

While this is certainly very interesting, and you no doubt put very much effort into it, it would probably be worth pointing out that there were no set rules of succession about the eldest son being Heir. William Rufus was William The Conqueror's second son, Stephen was Adela's third son, and Stephen himself named his own younger son as his successor.

Likewise one of the links asks the hypothetical "What if?" question as to the heirs of Harold II and Edgar II. Again, Anglo-Saxon succession did not automatically make the late King's eldest son his heir, and the crown frequently passed to a brother or cousin, even when the late King had left legitimate sons. Frederick T (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It's very much foolish this line anyway. Because when I was creating it because from 3 to 7 it was all females with no males descendants. This would go against the point why Stephen was put on the throne in the first place which was to keep a male on the throne. I think in the end Stephen female descendants would have been overthrown by the English barons and nobles just like Queen Matilda.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Plantagenet heir....
According to the one reliable source, the true Plantagenet heir is Sir Filmer Courtenay William Honywood, 11th Baronet of Evington. Charlie Cheeseman (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I found this too but I'm afraid Sir Honywood is a descendant of a previous heir's non-dynastic cousin. (see thepeerage) 86.173.26.13 (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, didn't Richard III kill his sister's husband? It seems unlikely he would name their descendants as heirs in that case. Anyway, Richard III named first Warwick, and then De La Pole as his successor. In 1487 during the Stoke rising, De La Pole recognised Warwick as the Rightful king. Although Edmund and especially Richard De La Pole both claimed to be the King, with their deaths, and that of William in 1539, Richard III's claim would then move to the previously named heir's successors, it. Warwick's. After the death of Richard De La Pole, his supporters all shifted their attention to the Pole family anyway. Again, the heir to the will of Richard III is Michael Abney-Hastings. Frederick T (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Lancastrian heir
As Henry VII's claim to the throne was through an illegitimate son of John of Gaunt, upon the death of Henry VI, the Lancastrian legitimate claim passed through John of Gaunt's eldest daughter Philippa of Lancaster. Thus Prince Louis, Duke of Anjou would be the legitimate heir of Henry VI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Cheeseman (talk • contribs) 18:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

there is a mention somewhere of an act of Parliament forbidding foreign title-holders from being the king of england. Therefore the present heir would probably be Peter Maxwell, 28th Baron de Ros 86.173.26.13 (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

1.Edward III

2.John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster

3.Elizabeth Plantagenet, Duchess of Exeter(barring the Beauforts and members of the spanish royal family)

4.John Holland, 2nd Duke of Exeter

5.Henry Holland, 3rd Duke of Exeter (Henry VI's rightful heir as "Henry VII")

6.Ralph Neville, 3rd Earl of Westmorland (cousin of "Henry VII", "Ralph I")

7.Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland ("Ralph II")

8.Henry Neville, 5th Earl of Westmorland ("Henry VIII")

9.Charles Neville, 6th Earl of Westmorland ("Charles I") Charles's sister married William Pelham (lord justice) but I have been unable to find any further descendants after her grandson. Henry's sisters have remaining desendants:

10.Edward Manners, 3rd Earl of Rutland ("Edward IV") His daughter Elizabeth Cecil, 16th Baroness de Ros ("Elizabeth I") had one childless son William Cecil, 17th Baron de Ros ("William III")

11.John Manners, 4th Earl of Rutland ("John II")

12.Roger Manners, 5th Earl of Rutland ("Roger I")

13.Francis Manners, 6th Earl of Rutland ("Francis I")

14.Katherine Villiers, Duchess of Buckingham ("Katherine I")

15.George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham ("George I")

16.Elizabeth Willoughby, daughter of Francis Willoughby, 5th Baron Willoughby of Parham Great-granddaughter of "John II", "Elizabeth II"

17.Frances Jones, daughter of Richard Jones, 1st Earl of Ranelagh ("Frances I")

18.Frances, daughter of Thomas Coningsby, 1st Earl Coningsby ("Frances II")

19.Charlotte, daughter of Sir Charles Hanbury Williams ("Charlotte I")

20.Charlotte FitzGerald-de Ros, 21st Baroness de Ros ("Charlotte II")

21.Henry FitzGerald-de Ros, 22nd Baron de Ros ("Henry IX")

22.William FitzGerald-de Ros, 23rd Baron de Ros ("William IV")

23.Dudley FitzGerald-de Ros, 24th Baron de Ros ("Dudley I")

24.Mary Dawson, Countess of Dartrey ("Mary I")

25.Una Ross, 26th Baroness de Ros ("Una I")

26.Georgiana Maxwell, 27th Baroness de Ros ("Georgina I")

27.Peter Maxwell, 28th Baron de Ros ("Peter I")

What do you think? 86.173.26.13 (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the modern Lancastrian heir is the same Michael Abney-Hastings, Earl of Loudon, Baron Botreaux, Baron Hastings, Baron Stanley. You are right in that the Iberian line would be excluded as foreigners. However, in 1470, Henry VI and his parliament passed an act naming his Legal and Rightful heir (in the case that Henry and his son both died without further legitimate issue) as being, George Duke of Clarence. Henry also attainted Edward IV and his descendants. Both Clarence and his wife were descendants of a daughter of John of Gaunt, and thus when Henry was killed by Edward IV in 1471(after his son had already died) the Legal Lancastrian King should have been Clarence, whose descendants are thus both the Rightful Yorkist and Lancastrian heirs/claimants. Frederick T (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see how Clarence's descendants are the rightful Yorkist claimants. There is an argument for this, but Elizabeth of York has just as good a claim.  To say nothing of the de la Poles. john k (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The one thing the author of the "Regnal Chronologies" site fails to take into account is that prior to Henry VIII naming Mary as his heir, there would not have been a Queen Regnant. A woman COULD pass her claim to her son, however at the time of Richard III's death, Elizabeth was not yet married. And the reason Richard III became King in the first place, was because of Edward IV"s children being illegitimate(which obviously included Elizabeth). After Richard III's own son died, he and his wife formally adopted Warwick and Richard named him as hir heir. When Henry Tudor's army landed, Richard instead named John De La Pole as his heir. This was most likely because De La Pole was an adult man with military experience, and Warwick was just a boy. However, during the rising of 1486-1487 De La Pole swore an oath to the Rightful King Edward (Warwick) and died fighting under Warwick's banner. Even if we accept the De la Poles as Richard III's heirs, with the detah of the last De La Pole in 1539, Clarence's line would become the next York line anyway.

Likewise, male-line descent was regarded as more significant. As the son of Clarence, Warwick would be viewed as senior to the De La Poles, whose claim came through their mother. Likewise, the children of Elizabeth would have been viewed far more as being the children of Henry Tudor than as the grandchildren of Edward IV. It was only when the male-line heirs were gone that Yorkist sympathies really turned towards Margaret and her children/grandchildren. Frederick T (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If foreign monarchs can't inherit, why does the Norwegian royal family always appear in the Line of Succession? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

They do so today. However in the 14th century things were very different. Certainly today there would be no problem with the Crown passing to a "foreigner"(and the Windsors are really far more German than British), back in c1400 or so things were very different. Just like attitudes to having a Queen Regnant would have been totally different than then they are today. It is a serious mistake to apply modern sensibilities and social norms to people six hundred years ago. Frederick T (talk) 07:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

a) Succession through a female line was permitted during and after the anarchy of the 1100s.

b) Richard III's succession was accepted by the english nobles because of the probable illegitemacy of Edward IV and his children and the execution of the Duke of Clarence for treason. Therefore the De La Poles (if we go by Richard III's wishes) or the descendants of Anne of York, Duchess of Exeter (by primogeniture) would be the Yorkist heirs. The De La Pole family became extinct by the 1540s and the Anne of York's second daughter married George Manners, 12th Baron de Ros from whom descends the present Baron de Ros who has been mentioned previously. Therefore, even after the Act of Parliament mentioned by Frederick T the line above would still be the Yorkist heirs (assuming the illegitemacy of Edward IV). 81.159.71.195 (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

a)Succession through a female line and a female becoming Queen Regnant are two completely different things. No one(excluding John of Gaunt and Henry IV of course) would argue that England ever practised strict Salic Law, but again having Adele's son or Matilda's son becoming King is very very different to Adela or Matilda becoming Queen Regnant. Likewise having Margaret Beaufort's son becoming King is entirely different from Margaret Beaufort becoming Queen Regnant.

b)Richard III's succession was accepted because of the illegitimacy of Edward IV's children, not Edward himself. Had Edward himself been found to be illegitimate then Warwick would have succeeded him rather than Richard. However, Richard and his wife adopted Warwick(after Warwick's own parents were dead of course), and Richard named him as his heir. This would be proof of an attainder being removed as Richard could not name an attainted person as heir. At the time of Richard's succession Warwick(and Margaret Countess of Salisbury's future line) were still attainted. When Richard died they were not. Richard did kill Anne's husband, and possibly attainted her line to boot. At that time she had only a daughter however. Yet againb, while it is true that Richard named De La Pole as his heir, he never removed Warwick from the line of succession. And yet again, after Richard's death De La Pole himself recognised Warwick as the true Yorkist heir/claimant/etc The reason for Simnel being used was because Henry VII was holding the real Warwick in the Tower, and many people needed a visible leader/figurehead. Also, it was feared that Tudor had killed Warwick, so when they paraded Simnel as "Warwick", Tudor was forced to show that the real Warwick was still alive in order to debunk the idea that Simnel was Warwick. Again, with the death of the De La Poles, the Staffords, the Courtenays, Richard III himself we are left with the disinherited line of Anne and Clarence/Isabelle's line. Henry VII had Warwick killed. Henry VIII killed Margaret, her son and grandson, and imprisoned Cardinal Reginald Pole. Elizabeth I kept Henry Hastings under strict watch. It was obvious then who the true heirs of York were. No such action followed Anne's line.

Lastly, even pointing to attainders is meaningless. Henry VI placed an attainder on Edward IV, who responded by claiming the throne and killing Henry VI. Edward IV placed an attainder on George Duke of Clarence, yet over a decade later people went to their deaths fighting for his son's right to reign as King. Richard III placed an attainder on Henry Tudor and had Parliament pass an Act recognising Edward IV's and Elizabeth Woodville's "marriage" as non-existent. Shortly afterwards Richard III was dead and Henry and Elizabeth were King and Queen of England. William III placed an attainder on "James III and VIII" yet that didn't stop the risings of 1715, 1719 and 1745.

Getting back to earlier mentions of French Royalty, it's not what the de facto situation is/was, it's what the true believer believes. In 1814 France crowned a Louis XVIII despite the last reigning King being Louis XVI. France's two Emperors were Napoleon I and Napoleon III despite the lack of a reigning Napoleon II. Should the current (British) Jacobite claimant somehow find his way to the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland, he would reign as Francis II despite the fact that Francis I never reigned in any legal/de facto way shape or form.

This also goes against the people who can't get their heads around why Lady Caroline Ogilvy rather than anyone else is the ONLY heir to the Third Succession Act and Last Will and Testament of King Henry VIII. Namely, that de facto rules do not apply as far as the Divine Right of Kings is concerned. The TRUE Line(whichever of the various that there are) continues regardless of who the de facto Monarch is, and ONLY the TRUE Monarch/TRUE Monarchs' Parliament can make legally binding laws. Frederick T (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you concerning regnal numbering and the Lady Cariline Ogilvy situation but in point a I was trying to get across the point of female line succession. not female succession.

I was not aware of the attainder being removed during the reign of Richard III but he obviously didn't consider Warwick and his family as being truly unattainted. If I may make another point, there has been a tradition of succession by public acclamation or conquest: William I, Henery IV, Richard III, Henry VII and James I. Therefore upon the accession of Richard III the entire succession was 'reset' and he could choose whoevever he liked as his successor. He ultimately chose the De La Poles over Warwick and thus Anne of york's was the surviving line. This is rendered moot by the Battle of Bosworth Field, of course.* 81.159.71.195 (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, shouldn't we just agree that the heir to the House of Lancaster is Either the Earl of Loudon or the Baron de Ros and that the only claim to the throne that Henry Tudor had was through conquest? 81.159.71.195 (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is however that in the cases of Henry IV, Richard III, Henry VII and James I each believed that he was the Rightful king as well. Not sure if William I truly believed he was the rightful King after Edward the Confessor's death, but the Tapestry would seem to say that he did(did Harold really swear an oath to him?).

The central problem is that (after Stephen) the next legitimate male should succeed. The Henry IV situation was he believed that as the next male-line male he should have precedence over Edmund Mortimer. Henry also "justified" his takeover by propaganda, especially viciously espoused by Rowse.

Richard III again truly believed that he was the Rightful King, and he never "usurped" anything, as a)Edward IV's children were illegitimate and b)Clarence's line had been attainted.

Henry VII truly believed that He was the Head of Lancaster and thus the true heir to Henry IV and ultimately Edward III.

James I truly believed that genealogy should take precedence over Acts of Succession(same as the Jacobites then). This again goes with the idea of the Crown being something b Divine Birthright, and to "skip over" legitimate Royals for a minor Royal that you may prefer, like say the descendants of a late King's younger sister or say the Elector of Hanover, is essentially blasphemy.

Again, after his own son's death, Richard III and his wife formally adopted Warwick, and Richard named him as his heir. After Tudor's forces landed, Richard instead named the 20-something man De la Pole as his heir. Richard knew that if he were to die in battle his family's cause would be better suited in Lincoln's than Warwick's hands. However, even when Richard did die it was Warwick who became the figurehead of Yorkist aspirations. Had Bosworth Field gone the other way, and Henry tudor had been defeated and killed, it is likely that Richard would have once again made Warwick his heir.

As you say, however, Succession by Conquest "resets" succession laws, as happened in 1066. However, by the Plantagenet succession laws, the line leading to the Earl of Loudon would be the Royal Line. Frederick T (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

England never had an explicit succession law until Henry VIII, and that succession law was discarded as soon as it was inconvenient. Pretending that there was some kind of clear law of succession in Plantagenet England is completely ahistorical. Also, what is the source for the claim that Richard named Warwick as his heir immediately after his son's death, and then named Lincoln right before Bosworth? Here's what the ODNB has to say. In the article on Lincoln, it say: "When Richard's only son, Edward, died in April 1484 no heir was formally designated, but the appointment of Lincoln to the lieutenantship of Ireland on 21 August may have been intended to signal that he, rather than Clarence's son Edward, earl of Warwick, was regarded as the heir apparent." In the article on Warwick, it says: [Warwick] may even have been heir apparent to the throne for a while on the prince's death in 1484. Richard is said eventually to have named John de la Pole, earl of Lincoln, as heir, and, whether formally named or not, he was undoubtedly preferred over Warwick." You similarly assert that in 1470 Henry VI recognized Clarence's reversionary interest should he and his son die.  Here, again, is the ODNB's article on Clarence: "Clarence had to abandon his immediate title to the throne, though a reversionary right on the death of Henry VI and his son may have been accepted."  You say that Edward IV's children were illegitimate.  The ODNB article on Eleanor Butler: "[Eleanor's husband] died in 1461, and it may be that Eleanor's claims for dower brought her to the attention of the young king, a notorious womanizer and a bachelor at that time. But it is equally possible that the allegation derived from knowledge of discussions between Shrewsbury and York concerning a family alliance. In any case, the tendentious nature of the evidence makes it impossible to regard either the fact or the nature of the liaison as established." You take things where responsible historians say "may" or "perhaps" or even "probably not" and assert them as definitive truths.  This is really problematic.  Succession rules in medieval and early modern times were almost always unwritten customs, not well-defined laws, and when the king had neither sons nor brothers (or when he had daughters and brothers) there was always room for dispute.  In a situation like 1485, where there had been no fewer than three usurpations and several attainders, as well as a number of lines of dubious legitimacy, and a lot of violent deaths to end various direct lines, there is simply no way to say that any specific individual was the true heir.  The only thing that was clear was that Henry VII was king by right of conquest. All else was confusion. Warwick was certainly the most plausible alternative candidate, but that is all. Even at the time, there were no well-defined laws of succession to state any definitive heirs, and the nature of the surviving sources means that today we do not even know everything that people at the time did - for example, whether Richard III ever formally named either Warwick or Lincoln as his heir. It is best to acknowledge that uncertainty, and not pretend to a tendentious surety which has no basis in reliable sources. john k (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how much this counts, but wikipedia's own article on Anne Neville mentions Richard and Anne adopting Warwick and naming him as heir. The cpedia article states the same, although this may be a mirror?

Jeremy Potter's books state the adoption and designation as heir, although state that this may have been Richard III's wife's wishes' rather than the King himself. They also states that after Anne's death, Richard switched to his preferred choice, John De La Pole. However, as I think I may have stated before, after Richard III was killed De La Pole himself recognized Warwick as the Rightful Yorkist Claimant, and even died in battle for that cause.

Professor A Rowse, one of the most pro-Tudor historians who ever lived, states in his "Bosworth Field" book that Henry VI DID indeed formally pass an Act of Parliament naming Clarence as the Rightful Lancastrian heir if both Henry VI and his son prince Edward were to die without further legitimate issue. It should be noted that later on, as far as 1483 goes, Henry Tudor is referred as the "undoubted Lancastrian claimant". Which may seem to back up the "confusion" argument.

Likewise, there are several books which state that Edward IV most likely DID have a precontract prior to his "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville. Taking one source as definitive is perhaps not the best idea.

However, as every King had been succeeded by his oldest living male heir through the firstborn line, and the first problems only really arose c1399 as to whether the Mortimer and Lancastrian male was the "Firstborn line" (one passed through the elder son's daughter to HER son), or one was direct male-line descent, to say that "England never had an explicit succession law until Henry VIII..." is not really true. Clearly the next male in the senior legitimate line of succession would be the heir apparent. The only problems was exactly WHO was the senior male in the senior legitimate line.

However, under the law in 1485 at the time of Richard III's death, Edward IV"s descendants were all illegitimate. Clarence's were not. The De La Poles were not. And Buckingham's line had been attainted by Richard III. Likewise at the time of Henry VI"s death in 1471 Edward IV had been attainted, and Clarence formally recognized as his heir. Certainly then we enter the same argument as the Caroline Ogilvy vs. Earl of jersey argument. By recognizing later Acts or Decrees made by de facto Monarchs runs contrary to the "true" line. Frederick T (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Frederick, I know you are not making up your factual assertions, and that, so far as I can tell, all of the claims you are making are ones that have been made by reputable historians. Obviously there are some historians who think that Edward IV didhave a pre-contract, or that Richard III named Warwick as his heir or that Henry VI awarded Clarence reversionary rights.  What I think the ODNB does a good job of showing, those, is that the evidence for all of these things is somewhat tenuous.  There aren't any documents which lay out any of these things clearly; they are informed speculations by historians who are trying to interpret what are often fragmentary and unreliable sources.  I study the nineteenth century, when we have much, much better archival and primary sources, and even there it's easy to come upon situations where the information is just missing and you have to speculate based on what is available to fill in gaps.  That problem is much, much more significant for the 15th century, and so we see that on these questions what we have are a variety of historians making a variety of plausible guesses.  The ODNB articles are generally attempts at synthetic summaries of what the specialist work says, and so are much more cautious about their claims.  As you say, taking one source as definitive is probably not the best idea, which is why we should probably follow the ODNB's example and be cautious about such things.  Did Edward IV have a precontract with Eleanor Butler?  I think that most historians who've studied the period would have their guesses and favorite theories about these things, but would also admit that it is speculative, and that there's ultimately no way to know for certain.  As to the law at the time of Richard III's death, Richard III on taking the throne had said that Clarence's children were ineligible because of their father's attainder.  So far as I'm aware, that attainder had not been removed by 1485, so I'm not sure how that all works out.  I still hold to the contention that England had no clearly written out succession law prior to Henry VIII, and really prior to 1689, since Henry's will was mostly honored in the breach.  Prior to 1689 the only times when the successn was clear were either when the late king had a son, a son of a deceased eldest son, or when a childless king had a brother.  This was the situation in 1189, 1216, 1272, 1307, 1327, 1377, 1413, 1422, 1509, 1547, 1625, 1649, and 1685.  Every other succession provided some possibility of dispute: Arthur contested with John in 1199; Henry IV usurped the throne in 1399; 1461, 1483, and 1485 were all usurpations as well; Lady Jane Grey was proposed in 1553; Mary Stuart claimed the throne in 1558; there were several potential contenders in 1603.  There are simply no grounds for saying that there were well-established precedents for who should succeed to the throne in all but the most obvious cases.  George VI was the first king since Henry I to die leaving daughters and no sons, so there is no real way to know whether it was viewed as possible for a woman to succeed to the throne in the Middle Ages; certainly Matilda did her best to claim the throne.  At any rate, once again, where are you getting your idea of the "true" succession?  What reliable sources support such a notion?  It's our job to follow reliable sources, not to extrapolate from them to produce original ideas, or to reproduce the writings of amateur internet genealogists.  This whole article is pretty close to a violation of that idea. john k (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, as stated elsewhere(and in various historical books), attainders are only as good as who is on the throne. Edward IV and Henry VII were both attainted when they seized the throne. Richard III ascended the throne because Warwick was attainted, but after Richard died, Yorkist loyalties went to Warwick, attainder or not. Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury was attainted, yet Henry VIII still found the need to execute her, her son and grandson, and imprison another family member. James Stuart was attainted, yet the various Jacobite risings happened anyway.

As for the succession laws from 1153-1485. Well this is just something we(by which I mean me and my then-classmates) were taught as fact by our teachers years ago. As a boy I never thought to ask the History Masters what reliable sources they were using. It was just taken as fact the same way that Tuesday follows Monday or 1+1=2. It was accepted that the next legitimate male in the senior legitimate line would succeed the late King, unless he had been attainted. I've searched for "Plantagenet succession laws" on google, and am yet to find anything, but maybe that's because it's one of those "no-brainer" things? Frederick T (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Er, yes, Yorkist loyalties went to Warwick. Just as Lancastrian loyalties went to Richmond.  And yet you insist that Warwick was the Lancastrian heir, as well.  You are basically using whatever standard gives you the results you want here.  Obviously attainders can and are ignored when people want to support who they want to support.  But you are the one insisting on finding the legal heir to Richard III.  The difference with Henry VII or Edward IV or the Old Pretender's attainders is that they were attaindered by kings whose claim to the throne the attaindered claimant denied.  You, on the other hand, are arguing that Warwick was the legal heir to Richard III, whose own claim to the throne was based on the validity of that attainder and Warwick's exclusion.  As far as the succession laws, you've gone to "I learned it in school, it's so obvious I don't even need sources"?  Seriously?  The only way we would know if females were excluded were if there were an obvious female who was excluded.  There was not.  That an adult son would take up his mother's rights even if his mother was still alive seems reasonably clear.  That a childless woman would be skipped is much less clear.  BTW, found a useful article on succession law in 15th century England at JSTOR, if you can access it.  Michael Bennett, the author, discusses Richard of York's claims to the throne in 1460, and the counter-arguments to them by the Lords, and then goes back and discusses the supposed entail of Edward III of 1376, by which he apparently gave the succession to his heirs-male.  The discussion of all this shows pretty clearly the lack of clarity to medieval succession laws - the possibility that John of Gaunt might take the throne rather than his nephew is brought up, as is the possibility of Philippa herself, as well as her son Roger Mortimer, as next heir after Richard of Bordeaux.  It also notes a statement on the succession made by Edward I in 1290 by which the throne would passed first to his son, then to any future sons, then to his eldest daughter and her heirs, then to his next daughter and her heirs, and so forth.  No mention is made of daughters not being allowed to succeed, and in fact, this is explicitly denied.  Bennett writes: "Edward I certainly believed that, in the event of his sons' dying without male issue, they could be succeeded by their daughters, and, in the event of their dying without any issue, by Edward's own daughters." Later, in discussing Philippa's claims, Bennett notes that it was "a moot question" (i.e., an open question, a debatable question) whether a woman could succeed to the throne, but notes that her claims could obviously be transmitted to her son.  Your definitive statements about a clear royal law of succession after 1153 find no support in this article. john k (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This article from Google Books also has some useful material - it goes into more detail about Edward I's testament, which pretty clearly envisioned his daughters as having rights ahead of his brother, even if those daughters were unmarried and had no children. Your claim that it was well-established that women could not succeed to the throne has no merit, I think. john k (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The case of loyalties going to Warwick was just to emphasize a point, not the pint itself. In 1483 Clarence's line had been attainted by Edward IV. However, by 1485, most historians agree(as does wikipedia!) on the fact that Richard III had formally adopted his nephew and had, albeit temporarily, named him as his heir apparent. Even if we take into account that the De La Poles were the legal heirs to Richard III, when Richard lay dead at Bosworth, Clarence's line was at least no longer barred, while as of August 22 1485, Edward IV's children and descendants were legally and lawfully regarded as illegitimate. Even taking into account that the De La Poles were the lawful Yorkist/Ricardian claimants, when that line ended, the next Yorkist line that was the genealogically senior unattainted one under strict Yorkist or if you prefer "Ricardian" law, was Clarence's line. It is certainly possible that Richard III may have intended for some other branch to inherit his claim in the event of the De La Pole line ending, but legally and lawfully with the death of William De La Pole, the legally(by Yorkist Law) senior legitimate and eligible family line was that of Clarence.

Likewise, while some Lancastrian loyalties may have gone to Richmond, under strict Lancastrian Law Henry Tudor had no claim whatsoever, as Henry IV had barred the Beaufort line from succession, and Henry VI had formally and legally named Clarence and his descendants as his heirs in the event of Henry's own line becoming extinct(which in the event it did). Furthermore, Henry VI had attainted Edward IV and his line, long before Richard III and Titulus Regius. Thus, even if female succession were possible, under strict Lancastrian Law. Elizabeth of York would have been barred from the throne in her own right anyway. Since Henry VII never removed the attainder placed by Henry VI(who he claimed to be the successor to), Edward IV"s line were not in the line of succession, and under strict Lancastrian Law, guess who the senior Yorkists in line would then be? Frederick T (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're treating this like it's a legal argument rather than a historical one. We are not lawyers arguing the case on behalf of our clients.  We are looking back at history and trying to understand what happened and why.  You keep insisting that Elizabeth of York had no legal claim, in spite of the fact that people at the time, in fact, clearly perceived that she did have a claim as the heir-general of Edward III, assuming her parents' marriage was valid, as it had been assumed to be for almost twenty years.  As for Henry VII, his genealogical claim was indeed weak, but he was the heir-general of John of Gaunt if you assume the Beauforts to be legitimized by their father's marriage to their mother.  This was good enough for most Lancastrians, as the alternatives were unappealing (Clarence/Warwick, the king of Portugal) or had even weaker genealogical claims (Buckingham).  The upshot of all my readings on this subject is that succession law was unsettled and unclear.  It was widely seen that a king might have a right to determine who his own successor was (in the absence of an obvious candidate like an eldest son), but that whatever rules he might set up could not bind his successors (this is more or less Bennett's argument).  That makes any attempt to find the "true legal heir" to any medieval king at the present time a hopeless exercise, and I don't see why it's one we'd want to undertake, anyway.  Who was the legal successor to Richard III?  In the only sense that matters, it was Henry VII.  Any discussion of alternatives has to be in the light of their political significance, not some abstract conception of their legal rights that we are imposing on them from the twenty-first century.  As the last male Plantagenet, Warwick was obviously an important potential rival to Henry VII, which is why he imprisoned and eventually executed him.  But of course so was Elizabeth of York, which is why he married her.  And so were various de la Poles, and Buckingham, and whoever else you like.  So, indeed, were Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck, even though they were not members of the House of York at all.  On the other hand, despite his impeccable genealogical credentials, the first marquess of Hastings, say, was not a rival to anybody.  To bring it back to the "Henricians", the most dubious list by far, Anne Stanley does not seem to have been regarded as an important rival to James I even in 1603, when she was arguably the legal heiress; Beauchamp was much more important, whether he was officially illegitimate or not (just as Elizabeth of York's putative illegitimacy was not a barrier to her being seen as having a real claim).  This article gives entirely false notions of certainty about complicated, confusing situations.  It ought to be gone. john k (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the introduction itself states "it is of scholarly interest to trace what the succession to the Crown would have been". I agree wholeheartedly with that, whereas you strongly disagree.

The reason for the "legal argument" bit was simply meant to show that the "Various claimants" idea is seriously flawed. Under the strict laws of 1471(when Henry VI the last Lancastrian King of England died with no surviving legitimate issue) the Beaufort line was legally regarded as illegitimate, Edward IV was attainted, and Clarence and his heirs had been recognized as Henry VI's heir apparent. In 1485(when Richard III the last Yorkist King died with no surviving legitimate issue), the Beaufort line was legally regarded as illegitimate(and Henry Tudor had been attainted by Richard III anyway), Edward IV's children were legally regarded as illegitimate, and Richard had formally Warwick nephew and had (albeit temporarily) named him as his heir apparent. In the event he named John De La Pole as his heir apparent. The point about De La Pole recognizing Warwick as the true claimant was just to emphasize that even though Richard III designated De La Pole, John himself recognized Warwick. When William De La Pole died in 1539, the senior genealogical branch of the House of York that was eligible for a claim under the laws of the last Yorkist King was Clarence's line. Henry VIII killed Margaret, her son and grandson, and imprisoned Cardinal Pole all between 1538 and 1541. Thus there can be no doubt under both Lancastrian and Yorkist law who the sole Plantagenet--claim line was.

However, Henry Tudor's victories at Bosworth and Stoke make this whole thing simply "of scholarly interest". Likewise Henry Tudor(as Henry VII) overturned Titulus Regius, legitimizing Elizabeth and marrying her. However by the Laws of both the last Lancastrian as well as the last Yorkist King of England, neither Henry nor Elizabeth had any claim whatsoever. But victory in battle can be a good way to simply ignore laws. There can't be many people today calling for Michael Abney-Hastings to be placed on the throne, however, at least as late the 1540's the Tudors felt a real and immediate threat by people like Henry Pole just being alive. The Simnel and Warbeck risings show that there was pro-Plantagent sympathies post-Bosworth, and the extirpation of the De La Poles shows that it survived well into the reign of Henry VIII. Thus I would say that it is indeed "of scholarly interest" to see where this line(and there is only one clear line) leads.

Likewise, the "Henrician" line is also noteworhty as "Scholarly interest". Unlike the support for Warwick, and continued perceived threat by the Tudor Monarchs, there couldn't have been too many Stanleyite risings. However, it is widely stated(indeed by people on this page) that when Henry VII took the throne, the old ways were wiped clean, and Tudor laws replaced them. Thus these Tudor laws should be ironclad. And since no one ever legally overturned the Third Succession Act or the Last Will of King Henry VIII, it is indeed "of scholarly interest" to see where the line of the legal heirs to Elizabeth I leads. Note also that an Act was passed making it treason to attempt to alter the Line of Succession as set out by Henry VIII. Likewise, James Stuart succeeded to the throne, not by Conquest of Arms as Henry Tudor did, but through his claim as the senior legitimate descendant of Margaret Tudor. Unlike Henry VII who stated that he was King through force of arms, James I stated that he was king by Birthright. Thus, he and all those who supported him are guilty of High Treason. It is thus certainly "Scholarly interest" to trace where the true legal Tudor line would lead. Frederick T (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I could continue to argue with your characterizations of things here, but really, and basically, what is lacking are reliable sources. We can certainly find sources which discuss these genealogical lines, but I'm not sure they meet our normal standards for article inclusion.  And why these three successions only, when there's plenty of others that have had comparable amounts written about them?  Why is the discussion of Warwick's claim focused around ("based squarely on," even!) the dubious idea that Edward IV himself was illegitimate, rather than the more plausible Ricardian claim that his children were?  If we're going to go with that, why not Henry IV's silly claim that Edmund Crouchback was the elder son of Henry III?  What about Edward III's 1376 entail to heirs male, for example?  Numerous significant alternative claims aren't mentioned here.  Most of them, I guess, die out and don't have a current claimant, but why should the politically insignificant Eleanor Brandon claim be discussed at length here, but not for example, the Beauchamp claim, de la Pole claim, the Portuguese claim (which was raised by Philip II in 1588, notably), the potential Yorkist claim through Richard III's elder sister Anne, the claims through Margaret Douglas, hell, even the claims of Edgar Atheling, Robert Curthose, Empress Matilda, and Arthur and Eleanor of Brittany?  Instead, the only alternative successions presented are 1) a modified Yorkist claim based on the dubious claim that Edward IV was illegitimate; 2) a claim based on the descendants of Eleanor Brandon, who, except briefly in 1593, appear never to have been taken seriously by anyone; and 3) the well-known Jacobite line.  I don't see any basis for such a selection, and we ought to have sources to indicate why we think these particular lines are so important. john k (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be my fault. I was new to Wikipedia when I initially carved out this article. However, my source was the website Peerage. I didn't know how to use citation at the time, although I don't think Wikipedia had yet set and promulgated their policy on reliable sources and citation (I might be mistaken on that, however).


 * Anyway, my thinking when I wrote the initial article reflects much of what Frederick has written. I took a very strict approach to following the lines of succession, using the idea of "what were the laws and customs were at the time of the last legal monarch's death?"--sort of like a snapshot of the law at that point. I then used those rules to proceed down the genealogy to arrive at the present living "claimant." This snapshot idea parallels what Frederick has called using the laws of the "true" monarch--that is, after the so-called usurper took the throne, any subsequent acts of Parliament were null and void as they did not receive the rightful monarch's royal assent.


 * Then again, I'm a yank, so take much of my thought process with a grain of salt. ;) -- Foofighter20x (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere, Edgar Atheling was King by election not primogeniture, thus there can be no clear heir, as his claim did not rest on genealogy. Matilda's line DID inherit the throne in the person of her son. Again, Beauchamp could inherit the throne only through the Third Succession Act, which placed the legitimate descendants of Mary Tudor immediately after Elizabeth(should she die childless, which she did). But under strict Tudor law, Beauchamp was illegitimate. The De La Poles were killed off by Henry VII and Henry VIII. The Crouchback as elder claim was indeed silly, but even taken seriously, that leads directly into the Lancastrian claim. Again, the Portuguese line was barred, as at the time of the marriage foreigners could not inherit the English throne(though that was changed).

I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea that Warwick's (and Margaret's descendants') claim is based sqaurely on Edward IV being illegitimate. As noted, there are various other scenarios that all lead to Michael Abney-Hastings. However the "Edward IV is illegitimate" is probably today the best-known, due to Baldrick's tv show. And again, a movement to place Clarence's line on the throne existed from Clarence himself in the 1470's(as the Lancastrian heir), through attainders and executions at least until the 1540's therefore it is noteworthy. Likewise, the Jacobite movement has never really died, although it is nowehere near the level it was in the 1700's.

The Mary Tudor line, while never having had the same sort of support as the Clarence or Stuart line, is nonetheless noteworthy. I once brought up the point of Henry VII's and Elizabeth's marriage not receiving the papal dispensation(due to their blood relation), and was rudely snubbed by someone whose response was "Well, the Tudors were a new Dynasty through Right of Conquest, therefore they could make their own new laws". Well, were that true, then the Mary Tudor succession, as well as the illegitimizing of Catherine Grey's descendants is the same Tudor Law. Remember that people were executed in 1554, for attempting to alter this Law. And no Tudor Monarch up to the death of Elizabeth I ever formally changed or even mentioned changing Mary Tudor's legitimate heirs succeeding after Henry VIII's own line had become extinct. While this has never had the historical or social significance of a Battle of Stoke or a Battle of Culloden, and there have been no Lambert Simnels or Count Michael of Albanys it is still significant and worth mentioning. All the other lines fail due to their own laws, yet these three are the ones that came to an unnatural end, and whose laws were subsequently altered by someone other than the Rightful Monarch under those same laws.

However, more reliable sources are indeed needed.

Frederick T (talk) 06:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "The De La Poles were killed off by Henry VII and Henry VIII." Not even close. Reginald died hours after Mary I, and Ursula Pole married Henry Stafford. As John Kenney has stated, nothing has been presented to indicate why only certain lines are being entertained within this article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Kansas Bear, you are confusing the de la Poles (descendants of Richard III's sister Elizabeth's marriage to the duke of Suffolk) with the Poles (descendants of Richard III's niece Margaret's marriage to Sir Richard Pole). john k (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

And those Poles were the legitimate descendants of George, Duke of Clarence. Frederick T (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again, you are making legalistic arguments, not historical ones. Was Beauchamp illegitimate?  His parents' marriage had never been proven, but it had never been disproven, either.  If people in 1603 had wanted to make him king, it would have been perfectly easy for them to rule that his parents had in fact been married, and that this might happen was always far more likely than that Anne Stanley would take the throne.  More broadly - the fact that you don't think a claim has legal merit is not important.  What is important is whether a claim was considered important by people at the time, and has been written about by historians.  The Jacobite claim certainly was.  Both the Clarence and de la Pole claims also get considerable attention, the former down to at least Elizabeth I's bout with smallpox, the latter until its extinction.  As for the claims of Mary Tudor's descendants, I don't see how these deserve any more mention than the claims of the Margaret Douglas line, nor do I see why the Eleanor Brandon line should get more mention than the Frances Brandon one.  None of these claims is discussed very much, but the Eleanor Brandon one is clearly the least important, from a historical perspective.  It's not our job to judge for ourselves the legitimacy of these claims.  It's to look at their historical importance.  Completely factually and legally dubious claims, like the Crouchback legend or Philip II's claims based on descent from John of Gaunt, were at least asserted by important political actors and played a part in how English history played out.  The Jacobite line since 1807 is barely relevant to anything; the Clarence line since 1570 is of even more questionable significance; the Eleanor Brandon line is of such little importance that we don't even actually know its genealogy for certain, given the obscurity of Anne Stanley's descendants.  How on earth is it more important that this article treat with Michael Abney-Hastings or Lady Caroline Ogilvy (who might not even be the heir under Henry VIII's will even if you accept her father's second marriage as illegal) or even Franz of Bavaria than that it mention actual historical claimants whose claims had historical importance?  Also, please change the intro to the Clarence text if you disagree with it. john k (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had thought(and I may very well be wrong on this one), that the point of the article was to trace the descendants of claimants, and legal Acts to the present day, using the Laws in use at the time that the "wrong" person became Monarch. Where a claim became dormant, then one must trace the senior genealogical heir.

As far as Clarence, the claim survived until c.1570, having basically existed since Henry VI's death in 1471(and according to the article, owing to Edward IV's possible illegitimacy to 1460). While nobody would be willing to die fighting for the Earl of Loudon the way people died fighting for Clarence's line at Stoke, it is certainly notable.

Likewise, Jacobitism lasted as a real force from the Glorious Revolution(1688) at least until Cardinal York's death in 1807. There are still Jacobite societies today, although of course it's unlikely there'll ever be another Battle of the Boyne of Culloden. Still it is certainly noteworthy.

The "Henrician" one does seem to be a bit fishy as there were no "Stanleyite" uprisings. However, since James VI/I took the throne through legal rather than conquest means, it must follow that his succession was following Tudor Law? However, under Tudor Law Anne Stanley was the Rightful Queen. Again, more people may have written of Beauchamp, but under strict Elizabethan/Tudor Law, he was illegitimate. Even if he had succeeded, the Stanley line would still have been a notable "Alternative line". Things get fishier with the numerous Acts passed to recognize the Senior Genealogical Heir's Right, and then the aforemenetioned Glorious Revolution and the Act of 1701. In fact, William III also took the Throne by using Parliament as his tool. This then causes the dilemma of how Jame Stuart became King James I due to genealogy always taking preference over Succession Acts, whereas George I took the throne over Succession Acts being able to take precedence over genealogy. Thus any previous(before 1701) legally-binding Succession Act(especially one that was never overturned, simply ignored), given with the Treason Act becomes very notable indeed. Frederick T (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That does seem to be the purpose of the article as presently conceived; I am taking issue with that purpose, and suggesting it is not a valid purpose for an encyclopedia article. As to the specific claims: 1) I perfectly agree that the first century of the Clarence line is notable and worth discussing; 2) that does not mean that the later heirs to that claim are notable, unless sources can be found discussing them; 3) I think the Savoyard, Habsburg, and Wittelsbach Jacobite claimants are perhaps borderline, but have certainly been discussed enough to warrant discussion in wikipedia; I am not, however, convinced that an article called "Alternate successions of the English crown" should give them attention while giving none to actual practical claimants; 4) I agree that the Tudor succession law is significant, and deserves discussion on Wikipedia, including the fact of the incompatibility of James I's claim with that of his great-grandson and daughter.  I don't think that, in the absence of sources, we should rule definitively on the validity of Catherine Grey's marriage, nor do I think that there's any good reason for attempting to trace this obscure line down to the present.  Since I've said that the article should not exist in its present form, I tend to think that it should be organized based around different moments when the succession was disputed, with a discussion of all relevant candidates.  That would allow us to discuss alternate successions that arise in 1100, 1135, 1199, 1399, 1471, 1483, 1485, 1553, 1558, 1603, 1688, and any other years where we could find reliable sources discussing the same (including, of course, claims that later merge back with the throne), without either fetishizing the continuation of these lines down to the present or emphasizing a few claims that happen to have current claimants.  For example, our discussion of 1471 could mention Clarence's claim to the Lancastrian succession; the two Beaufort-derived claims via Henry Tudor and Henry Stafford; the Portuguese Lancastrian claim asserted by Philip II; and any other claims for which we can find sources as to the existence of.  Our discussion of 1603 could discuss the claims of Arabella Stewart, Beauchamp, and Anne Stanley.  There could perhaps be in text discussion of the later continuation of each of these lines, if any, but there is no need to trace anything out generation by generation to the present day. john k (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As for

There were no legitimate male De La Pole descendants at the time of William De la Pole's death, just like Elizabeth of York's first sone wasn't born until after Richard III had died, just as Anne had no male descendants at the time. The only way that people can recognise the Tudors as the legitimate heirs is to recognise Perkin warwbeck as having been Richard Duke of York. Thus we get:

Edward IV (1461-1483)

Edward V' (1483-1483)

Richard IV (1483-1499)

Arthur   (1499-1502)

Henry VII (1502-1547)

This would require both Edward IV and his children being legitimate, Elizabeth's marriage to Henry Tudor being valid, Richard III having killed "Edward V" but not his brother, who survived as "Perkin Warbeck", and the "Henry VII" here being the person we know as Henry VIII. It is astounding that people continue to apply modern succession laws to the Medieval era. It is equivalent to depicting the Battle of Bosworths as having been fought with tanks, fighter planes, and machine guns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.213 (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no grounds for treating it as an established rule that childless women could not succeed to the throne. It was obviously not established that they could, but neither was it established to the contrary that they could not.  In 1290, Edward I had clearly envisioned that a daughter could succeed him.  In 1376 Edward III had felt the need to write out a specific document denying the rights of females to inherit.  And as soon as an actual situation arose where the only close relative of a dead king was a childless woman, that woman became queen (in 1553).  Peerage titles could be inherited by women, as could many other European polities at the time; Castile, in fact, had a reigning queen in 1483, the Burgundian lands had been ruled by a woman the year before, and Navarre within a couple of years before that.  Margaret Beaufort, I suppose, did not become queen, but her son's claim was barely hereditary anyway; I guess Richard III overlooked his niece Anne St. Leger, and sister Elizabeth in favor of his nephew Lincoln, but that's about the best that can be done as far as finding a precedent, and it's a precedent asserted by a usurper that never went into effect.  There is precisely no case in English history when a childless woman was barred from succeeding on the basis of her sex.  john k (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Peerage titles are not Crowns. Also, The Kingmakers's Earldom of warwick went to his daughter's grandson, not his daughter herself(to name just one of several hundred examples). Likewise, what happened in Burgundy, Castile or Navarre is not really relevant to English Laws. At the time of Elizabeth I's reign, the male line of Valois became extinct, so the Last King's ninth cousin once removed became King, despite various women being far closer to Henri III. Would it be relevant to say that the senior female member of Valois should have taken the French throne, because England had a Queen Regnant at the time?

No childless woman was ever barred, but no childless woman had ever been barred, but in Matilda's case a woman with a son had been. However, it was plainly clear that the next senior legitimate male heir would inherit. Mary I only became Queen regnant as after Edward VI's death, there were no male Tudors left. When Richard III died there was Warwick as well as the De La Poles. And again why was John rather than his mother designated heir? Why was Henry Tudor rather than his mother recognized as head of his House? You claim Richard III to be a usurper. Regardless, he was the last Yorkist king of England, and at the time of his death, Edward IV's line was legally and lawfully illegitimate(and accepting the standard tale, the male line of Edward Iv was at an end). Thus the Yorkist heir is Richard III's heir. Likewise, had Elizabeth been head of her House, there never would have been a Battle of Stoke, a Lovell rising, and people like Simnel and Warbeck would have had no reason to impersonate others. Frederick T (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If this was "plainly clear", you ought to be able to present a source. As I noted before, in the two articles I cited above, Bennett states that in 1376 it was an open question whether women could succeed; Given-Wilson (the second source) says that Edward I specifically envisioned the possibility of his daughters or granddaughters inheriting the throne.  I was looking at Alison Weir's Wars of the Roses, and she notes that some time around 1460 Chief Justice Fortescue presenting a hypothetical case of a king with a daughter, the daughter's son, and brother, and asking which of the three should succeed.  As a Lancastrian, his determination was that the brother should, but that he includes the daughter as a possibility at all shows that the question was not seen as settled.  For Fortescue, at least, the question of whether the daughter should succeed or her son should is irrelevant; in both cases he thinks the brother has the better claim, and makes no distinction between a woman making a claim and transmitting one.  You need to put up or shut up here - find an actual source talking about English succession laws and customs here that says that it was viewed as clear that women could not succeed.  Many Yorkists obviously did not accept Elizabeth's claim; that is neither here nor there.  On the one hand, Elizabeth cannot possibly be the Yorkist claimant because, whatever her genealogical rights, some Yorkists didn't accept her; on the other hand, Henry VII cannot possibly be the Lancastrian claim, even though virtually all Lancastrians did accept him, because his genealogical rights were, in your view, poor.  This is trying to have your cake and eat it too.  Anyway, it's not worth discussing this further until you have some actual sources.  john k (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether a woman could or could not succeed to the throne, under 1485 law Elizabeth(and all Edward IV's children) were illegitimate, thus barred from the Yorkist claim. Likewise your claims about "virtually all Lancastrians supporting Henry Tudor" are both inaccurate as well as not really relevant to the fact that the legal heir of Lancaster was the Clarence line. The Clarence line rests not on the claims of "Britain's Real Monarch" tv show, but on the fact that under both Lancastrian and Yorkist Law, Clarence's descendants were the de jure monarchs, and under both Lancastrian and Yorkist Law both Elizabeth and Henry Tudor were entirely removed from the Line of Succession. And people were still losing their lives a hundred years later because of this. Everything else is just clouding the issue. Frederick T (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There were many Yorkists who did not recognize Richard III's usurpation and illegitimization of Edward IV's children as legitimate or legal. Thus the large number of erstwhile Yorkists who opposed Richard III and ended up supporting Henry VII.  Beyond that, the Courtenays lost their lives fifty years later because of this, even though they, too, were descended from a daughter of Edward IV.  The third duke of Buckingham lost his life 35 years later, even though he was not the heir under either Lancastrian or Yorkist law.  What does the one have to do with the other?  And, again, when I point out that there's a plausible legal claim for Elizabeth of York, you go to a pragmatic claim that (some) Yorkists didn't accept it.  When I make the pragmatic argument that Lancastrians supported Henry Tudor, you go to a legalistic argument that Clarence was Henry VI's heir.  So here is the basis for Elizabeth's claim: Richard III was a usurper, who illegally excluded the legitimate claims of his nephews and nieces in order to claim the throne.  Though recognized by parliament, that usurpation was an illegal violation of the laws of England, and Edward V remained de jure king in spite of it.  After his and his brother's likely deaths some months later, his eldest sister, Elizabeth, became rightful heir to his claims.  This is not a claim I am making up now; it is a claim many important people made at the time and have made ever afterwards. Are you, BTW, admitting defeat on the claim that it was well-established that women could not succeed to the throne? And see my response above, where I suggested an alternative set-up for this article. john k (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No one ever denied the scenario you laid out here. The whole point is that the "multiple heirs" idea is nonsense. Under the Tudor reasoning/logic/law Henry Tudor was the Lancastrian heir and Elizabeth the Yorkist heir. Under the various scenarios and laws having been passed laid out by myself and others Clarence's line were both the Yorkist and Lancastrian heirs, at least by either 1539(with William De La Pole's death) or 1556(with Edward Courtenay's death). The central points are that a)the idea that the St Leger/Manners family was the "other" Yorkist claimant line or the Portuguese Royal family being the "other" Lancastrian claimant line is false. Depending on your take, either the Henry VII/Elizabeth line OR the Clarence line are the Rightful heirs to both York and Lancaster. There is no third line, at least not one with any serious claim of seniority. b)Under the Laws of both the final De Facto Lancastrian King and the final De facto Yorkist King, it is the Clarence line that is the Rightful one. However, Henry Tudor's military victories, and Right of Conquest altered that succession. However, under the last Plantagenet laws the only "rival claimant" line was the Clarence line, not the St legers, or the Portuguese Royal Family or anyone else. Hence the notability of this Clarence line. Frederick T (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm glad to hear it. I'm not sure I agree that other claims actually made (like Philip II's claim via the Portuguese line) should be ignored because we find them to be defective.  The St. Leger/Manners line I'm less sure of, because, like the Anne Stanley claim, I've never heard that it had any actual supporters in the real world, but certainly there's an argument to be made there, at least as much as the argument for Anne Stanley and her descendants.  The Portuguese line, on the other hand, ought to be taken somewhat seriously.  In the 1580s and 90s English Catholics were writing pamphlets in support of Infanta Isabella's claim on this very basis.  Which is more than anyone was doing at that point about the earl of Huntingdon, no?  Basically, my point is that this article ought not be a list of three genealogies, selected on whatever basis, but should endeavor to give a good written summary of all the different alternative successions which have been proposed throughout English history, and for which we can find reliable sources. john k (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. How would you structure the article? I think it would still be a good idea to to state who presently is at the end of each claim's genealogical line, even if the claim itself has long since died. Frederick T (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's fine, if we can find reliable sources. There's certainly reliable sources about the Clarence and Jacobite lines.  The Eleanor Brandon line seems a lot more questionable.  The one source we have (Reitwiesner), is arguably a self-published internet source and thus not appropriate for use here, and at any rate acknowledges that it's not completely clear that there are no surviving descendants of Anne Stanley, and also equivocates as to whether Caroline Ogilvy or her nephew should be considered the heir, mentioning both.  The Grey/Seymour line is fairly clear genealogically, but I'm not sure if there's too many reliable sources discussing it specifically.  For many of the other claims, I think it can be problematic to trace them beyond the point where they had political relevance.  For example, after the extinction of the de la Poles in 1539, where does their claim go?  It's certainly arguable that William de la Pole's heir was his first cousin the Countess of Salisbury or her son Lord Montagu.  It is just as arguable that they were excluded by Clarence's attainder and that the claim passes back to Anne St. Leger's son, the earl of Rutland.  So far as I'm aware, nobody ever really viewed Rutland as a potential Yorkist claimant; indeed, he was one of the few (the only?) Plantagenet descendants Henry VIII never managed to persecute.  But that's not really the point.  The point is that after William de la Pole's death, it's not completely clear what happens to his claim.  We shouldn't draw any definitive conclusions unless reliable sources do.  The Portuguese claims would be a similar case.  After the death of King Henry in 1580, the heir-general to Philippa of Lancaster was Ranuccio Farnese, son of the prince of Parma.  However, Farnese never made any claims that I'm aware of.  We shouldn't list his descendants or his heir of the line, because that would be OR.  His cousin, Philip II of Spain, on the other hand, did make such claims, even though his genealogical claim was weaker.  He made those claims largely on behalf of his elder daughter, Isabella - presumably Philip himself and his son the prince of Asturias were ready to renounce their rights.  But then Isabella died childless in 1633.  Who inherited her claims?  The erstwhile Prince of Asturias' son, Philip IV of Spain, or her sister's son, the duke of Savoy?  (The Savoyard claim, of course, would eventually meet up with the Jacobite claim; the Spanish line goes down to Alicia of Bourbon-Parma)  I don't think we should discuss this at all.  By 1633, this claim to the English throne was entirely moribund; neither the duke of Savoy nor the king of Spain had any interest in claiming the English throne at that point, and they had no supporters in England to assert that claim for them.  As such, we shouldn't touch it.  We should mention Philip II's claim and its basis, but decline to discuss its continuation beyond the death of his daughter.  john k (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As for organization, I would say that we should do it chronologically based on the time that the claim derives from the de facto succession. Start in 1066, then go 1) Robert Curthose's claim in 1100; 2) Matilda in 1135; 3) Arthur of Brittany in 1199; 4) Edmund Mortimer in 1399, continue with Richard and Edward of York's claims until he took the throne in 1461, with perhaps a brief mention of Edward IV's possible illegitimacy; 5) the alternate possible Lancastrian claims after 1471, specifically Clarence's claim, Richmond's, Buckingham's, and the Portuguese claim - we should draw the Buckingham claim down to 1521 and the Portuguese claim down to Philip II; 6) alternate Yorkist successions in 1483-1485; here we can discuss the de la Poles and the Courtenays, and give the full discussion of Clarence's line, with Warwick, Margaret Pole, and the earl of Huntingdon; 7) the claim based on Edward VI's will in 1553, Jane Grey and the like; 8) the actual claims of Mary Stuart and the potential ones of the countess of Lennox and her son Darnley, in 1558; 9) the claims of Arabella Stewart (descended, obviously, from the countess of Lennox's), Lord Beauchamp, and Anne Stanley in 1603; 10) the Jacobite line after 1688.  I'd think main sections should have titles like "Alternative successors to Richard II"; "Alternative successors to Elizabeth I"; "Alternative successors to Henry VI", and so forth.  When there are multiple lines for a single time, they can be discussed in separate sub-headers. john k (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

King James I
Apparently he was a changeling. Thus Arbella Stewart should have been Queen, and then after her, either William Seymour or Anne Stanley. Meanwhile the Scottish monarch would have been someone different entirely! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick T (talk • contribs) 10:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no concrete proof. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Historian Antonia Fraser completely dismisses the story in her 1969 biography of Mary, Queen of Scots. The story was not even a contemporary one; it began in the 18th century when the skeleton of a baby was discovered by workmen at Edinburgh Castle.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Mis-leading title
This article has a misleading title, as it's including the British succession. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ENGLISH crown???? James VI was a SCOTTISH/BRITISH king, and NOT an ENGLISH king...Get it right, sassenachs!!82.6.1.85 (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Continuation of the House of Lancaster
Although somewhat redundant to the article itself, is the question "Who was the legal heir to Henry VI?" The answer was none other than George, Duke of Clarence. In 1470 King Henry VI and His son Prince Edward were the last 2 descendants of Henry IV. By Legal Act of Parliament Henry VI made it Law that should both He and His son Prince Edward die without further legitimate issue, the Crown was to pass to George, Duke of Clarence and his heirs. In fact, both George and his wife Isabella Neville were descended from John of Gaunt, albeit via an illegitimate line. In any case the closest supporters of The House of Lancaster were the Neville family, And George's mother was one Cecily Neville. Edward IV was passed over, both for having committed High Treason against Henry VI(which earned him an attainder), as well as the issue of his illegitimacy, which has never been satisfactorily proved or disproved. Thus with the death of Henry VI in 1471(by order of Edward IV), and with His son having died in battle shortly before, the Head of the House of Lancaster was none other than George, Duke of Clarence. Rebellions in His name by devoted Lancastrian supporters erupted and resulted in his execution and attainder. Again after Henry Tudor usurped the throne, the first rebellion against him was in the name of Lancaster, and the Lancastrian heir Edward, Earl of Warwick! Then in 1487 Yorkists rose in the name of the Rightful Yorkist heir, Edward Earl of Warwick(Edward IV and his children believed to have been illegitimate, Richard III having named Warwick as His heir, and the fact that there were no male descendants of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville anyway at the time of Richard III's death)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick T (talk • contribs) 09:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that Richard III had named his nephew the earl of Lincoln as his heir after his own son's death. john k (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

He first named Warwick as his heir. After the Tudor army landed, Richard named Lincoln as his heir. After Richard III died, Lincoln actually recognised Warwick as the Rightful king, and swore an oath to him, dying on the battlefield in the name of Warwick. Even taking Lincoln as the Rightful Yorkist claimant, John died in 1487, Edmund in 1513, Richard in 1525, and William in 1539. Thus the De La Pole claimants became extinct. We must then to the last person Richard III formally recognised as his heir, who was Warwick and his(or more pedantically his sister's) descendants.

The only difference here is WHEN(not IF) Clarence's line became the Rightful Yorkist or Lancastrian claimant. Under different scenarios it was either 1460(death of the Earl of Rutland), 1471(death of Henry VI), 1483(death of Edward IV), 1485(death of Richard III), or 1539(death of William De La Pole). However by the 1540's all roads lead to one line. Frederick T (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I tend to think you're being far too definitive about what was, in fact, a very murky and unclear situation. Considering the number of usurpations, attainders, and so forth in the fifteenth century, I don't think there are any clear answers to the question of who was the heir to any of the different lines by 1485.  And I don't think it was at all clear that women couldn't inherit, given that the question never arose in practice - Henry VII claimed the throne by right of conquest as much as by right of descent, and both Philippa and Anne Mortimer were long dead by the time the Yorkists were making their claim.  The only possible example is that Matilda allowed her son to succeed after Stephen's death, rather than claiming the throne herself, but Henry II's succession was anomalous anyway, since Stephen recognized him as his heir, in spite of the fact that Stephen had a living son.  Certainly one questionable case is not enough to erect a general rule out of. john k (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, after 1153 it was(or rather should have been) a clear-cut case. The Anglo-Saxons and early Normans never used primogeniture. However, the agreement of 1153 between Stephen, Henry and Matilda set out clear succession laws. These were that beginning after Stephen's death with Henry as his successor the next legitimate male in the line of descent from Henry would be King. Excluding John's usurpation and killing of his nephew, things were clear-cut up until Richard II's successor. The next male in the line of descent was Edmund Mortimer, however the next male in the direct male-line was Henry Bolingbroke, as Edmund's claim was through his grandmother. However, HER claim came through her father who was the older brother of John of Gaunt, Henry's father. So it is still undoubtedly male-based. Henry IV did indeed "succeed" Richard, whereupon Edmund's nephew became the "Rightful" king. And thus the whole basis of the "Wars Of The Roses". What is without doubt though is that Henry VI named Clarence and Clarence's descendants as his heirs if Henry VI's own line became extinct(which in the event it did), and that Henry VI attainted Edward IV and HIS line. Clarence(and his siblings were all descended from john of Gaunt as well as Edmund Duke of York and Lionel Duke of Clarence)Likewise, Richard III named Warwick as HIS heir. He also named John De La Pole(his sister's son) as his heir, but after Richard III's death De La Pole swore an oath to Warwick. Also note that Richard III named his sister's son, NOT his sister as his successor. Any attainder placed upon Clarence by Edward IV became null and void when Richard III formally adopted Warwick and recognised him as his heir. Likewise, it is often overlooked that Clarence's wife was also descended from Edmund Duke of York AND John of Gaunt, and had a claim to pass to her children quite apart from her husband. Further, the recent uncovering of evidence that Edward IV was himself illegitimate(and his mother would have testified to that in court had she had the chance) makes any attainders placed upon Clarence null and void. Richard III only became king due to Edward IV's offspring being illegitimate, barring them and their successors from the throne. As a female(and had she been legitimate), Elizabeth could transmit a claim to a son. Accepting that her brothers were dead, and even if they were in the legitimate line, she would have had to have been amrried with a son for HER SON to be next in line. However at the time she was not yet even engaged, therefore the claim must move on to the next legitimate male heir, quite apart from any other factors. Lastly, Henry Tudor was barred from the line of succession as he descended from an illegitimate son of John Of Gaunt. Again, while his mother was still alive it was he, not her, who became the claimant.

The only thing that enabled Henry Tudor to become Henry VII was his(or rather the French army) winning the Battle of Bosworth. That's it. By descent he had no claim whatsoever. This is a repeat of 1066 where a foreign bastard uses an invading army from France to establish him and his descendants as the Royal Family. Who he married was irrelevant. In fact under the strict law of the time, Henry Tudor and Elizabeth "of York" needed a papal dispensation to get married, and they never waited for one. In fact, all their descendants are illegitimate(as were both of them in their own right), and under the Succession Laws of 1153 would have no claim whatsoever. However, those laws no longer exist, as Tudor's descendants remain on the throne today, and even THAT is iffy, as Lady Caroline Ogilvy's and Franz Duke of Bavaria's supporters would state.

However, as per the succession laws set down in 1153, there is only one man today who is the Rightful claimant to Lancaster and York, and also to Stephen and Matilda, and that is Michael Abney-Hastings. However those laws were thrown out the window in August 1485. Frederick T (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any source for the claim that there was a clear and definitive succession law agreed to in 1153? I have never heard anything of the sort. In general, your discussion here is long on extravagant claims and short on any references to back them up. The fact that you are advocating the incredibly dubious claim that Edward IV was not Richard of York's biological son (which is, in any event, legally irrelevant) does not help me find your more extravagant claims more convincing. The basic fact is that medieval and even early modern succession laws were normally unclear, and, in general, backwards-derived by whoever the present king happened to be. So suddenly England was under Salic law when Henry IV usurped the throne. England's succession was governed by Henry VIII's will until 1603, when that will was completely ignored. Trying to determine definitively, from the vantage point of 2010, who was the rightful heir to the English throne in 1485 is hopeless. Elizabeth of York, Warwick, and Lincoln all had claims to a "Yorkist" succession. Henry VII, Warwick, the king of Portugal and perhaps others had claims to a "Lancastrian" succession. The only thing that makes any sense is to work out who contemporaries thought had the best argument - what we think now is pretty irrelevant, and certainly it isn't our job as wikipedia editors to come up with our own theories that haven't been published by any reliable sources. This whole article is a morass of dubious nonsense, though, so I suppose this fits right in. john k (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the King of Portugal was out due to the Law forbidding foreigners that was in effect at the time of Gaunt's daughter's marriage. Tudor had no RIGHTFUL claim due to his descent from gaunt being through an illegitimate line. At the time of Richard III's death, Parliament recognised Edward IV"s and Elizabeth Woodville's "marriage" to have been null and void, thus in 1485 even if female succession were possible, Elizabeth of York would have had no claim, being illegitimate in the eyes of the law. Richard III had named both Warwick and Lincoln as his heir(after his own son had died), thus both could have said to have a claim. However, Lincoln recognised Warwick as the "Rightful" King. And anyway, when the De La Pole line became extinct, Warwick's heirs became also the De la Pole heirs.

Yoour own argument states that succession law changed with every usurpation. What is noteworthy is that if Richard III "usurped" the throne, his heir using his succession laws is Michael Abney-Hatings. When Henry IV "usurped" the throne, his legitimate descendant was Henry VI who attainted Edward IV, and named Clarence as the next-after-Henry-and-his-son heir. Thus the heir to Henry IV is Michael Abney-Hastings. Under NO succession laws up until 1485 did Henry Tudor have ANY claim whatsoever. His becoming King rests solely on victory in battle. Under these circumstances, it matters not whether he had any "Lancastrian" blood, just as it matters not whether his wife-to-be had any "Yorkist" blood. Under both Yorkist and Lancastrian reasoning Clarence's descendants and heirs (leading to Michael Abney-Hastings) should be the Royal Family. However, Bosworth(as well as Tewkesbury in 1471) changed the true line of succession. The point of this article is not to state that Michael Abney-Hastings should be the King of England, it's that he would be had either Yorkist or Lancastrian legitimate succession been followed. Likewise neither Lady Caroline Ogilvy or Franz, Duke of Bavaria should be the Rightful monarch. However, one of them would be the Rightful Monarch had Tudor succession laws, or strict primogeniture after the Restoration been maintained, respectively. Frederick T (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's at all clear who would be Richard III's heir using his own succession laws - he recognized Lincoln as his heir, and that line died out without descendants. It is your innovation that we must then go back to Clarence's descendants because Richard III had previously decided that Warwick would be his heir.  At any rate, for a "true" Yorkist succession one can just as easily argue that the "true" Yorkist succession was violated by Richard III's usurpation and that Elizabeth of York was her brothers' rightful heir.  The Beauforts' illegitimate status was somewhat unclear - John of Gaunt had married their mother, and they had been legitimized.  It is true that they were legally excluded from the succession but the idea that a Beaufort might succeed had certainly been a serious one during Henry VI's reign.  I'm sure plenty of Tudor hacks could have written up an argument for why Henry VII was the rightful Lancastrian claimant.  Once we get past that - yes, Clarence's line were obviously seen as significant, which is why Henry VIII killed so many of them, and why Huntingdon was considered as a possible successor to Elizabeth.  Can we say, though, that they were definitively the heirs under the old rules?  I don't think so, especially given the matter of Clarence's attainder.  To take this back to wikipedia, I'm not really sure that this article should exist at all - it's all incredibly speculative, and mostly based on the work of amateur genealogists on the internet.  The Jacobite line is well-documented; the descendants of Margaret Pole and Eleanor Brandon are not.  In the case of the latter, you insist that Lady Caroline Ogilvy is indisputably the heir when, in fact, the only source we have on the subject, Reitwiesner, specifically notes that this is a position only held by "some Henricians" (and, of course, there's no such thing as a Henrician - WAR's reference to them is tongue-in-cheek).  An article that talked about alternative or potential alternative claimants during times when they were politically relevant would be one thing.  In that case, the de la Poles, the earlier portion of Clarence's line (down to 1603 or so), the various descendants of Margaret and Mary Tudor around from 1553 to 1603, and the Jacobites down to Cardinal York's death could be discussed.  This article is just an abstruse genealogical exercise, and does not really belong on wikipedia. john k (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is noteworthy to take note of who the English monarch may be today if earlier succession laws and Acts had been followed. These three scenarios oin the article point out the most prominent and clear-cut cases. As far as Elizabeth becoming Queen Regnant, well it is a matter of common sense that she could not have. Now, yes Richard named Lincoln as his heir, but after Richard's death, all Yorkist loyalists(including Lincoln) recognised Warwick as Richard's true and Rightful successor. I'm quite sure that's been mentioned already. And Henry VII held both Edmund and William De La Pole, yet chose only to execute Warwick as the real threat. Henry VIII eliminated various descendants of Edward III, both legitimate and illegitimate. However, in the aftermath of Bosworth everyone recognised who the true Plantagenet claimant was, and it wasn't Lincoln.

The idea that a Beaufort may succeed being considered in Henry VI's time? This is Shakespearean nonsense. Henry had his own son, and as noted various times listed Clarence as second-in-line after Henry's own son, not a Beaufort. It should be noted that Richard II made Beaufort succession a possibility, but Henry IV(the first Lancastrian King) was the one who made it legally impossible. As for "Henricians", well obviously that is not really a movement such as Jacobitism. However, anyone who follows the laws exactly would and could only arrive at one legal and Rightful heir to the Third Succession Act and the Will of Henry VIII and that is Lady Caroline. Any source listing any other potential claimant can not be seen as reliable.

Lastly, as far as being noteworthy? I would say it is. There are articles about Carlism, French Legitimism, Orleanism, and various strands of Napoleonic claims. I'm sure there are other similar articles too. Again, for encyclopedic purposes, one small article stating who would today be Monarch of England if the succession had not been altered is perfectly acceptable. Frederick T (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Frederick - you are cherry-picking whatever argument you find useful to get to your preferred outcome. If it is not relevant that after Bosworth virtually all Lancastrians recognized Henry VII as the rightful Lancastrian heir, or that many erstwhile Yorkists were willing to accept Elizabeth as the Yorkist heiress, whatever "common sense" might say*, then why is it relevant that Yorkists recognized Warwick after Bosworth? (Oh, and BTW, the "rightful Yorkist heir" that Lincoln died fighting for was Lambert Simnel, not the actual earl of Warwick; if Lincoln had won, who knows who would have actually taken the throne; and that doesn't even get into the fact that many Yorkists supported Perkin Warbeck, who was pretending to be the Duke of York). My understanding was that Somerset was quite interested in the idea that he might inherit the throne before 1453. It was never legally enacted, but the idea was certainly in the air. As far as the "Henrician" succession, you aren't even making an argument here - you're just asserting that you are right. If Henry's will had ever been put into operation in 1603, instead of simply ignored, you can bet that Beauchamp would have claimed that he was the rightful king because his parents' marriage was valid, and there is absolutely no way to know what the legal finding on such a thing would have been - except that when it was put to a decision in the next reign, it was found to be valid. The question of Lady Caroline or her nephew is even sillier because neither of them is making any claims at all. Under the de facto laws of the United Kingdom at the time, the 9th earl's later marriages were legal, and you and Reitwiesner are simply inventing out of whole cloth the idea that no laws passed since 1603 can be seen to have any validity for this purpose. Which comes back to the basic problem that this whole article is basically invented out of whole cloth - it's a genealogical parlor game, not an actual subject of scholarly inquiry. We have articles about Carlism, French legitimism, Jacobitism, and so forth because those were, or in some cases still are, real political movements that had real supporters. We know that the comte de Chambord was the legitimist claimant from 1844 to 1883 not because of some objective analysis of the laws of the old kingdom of France, but because actual legitimists recognized him as such. We can't say with certainly who the legitimist claimant from 1830 to 1844 was, because legitimists themselves disagreed. As far as the Yorkist and Lancastrian lines in the early Tudor period go, we are in a situation like that of 1830 to 1844, not like 1844 to 1883 - there were various different plausible claimants, without any real agreement as to whose claim was best. The situation on Yorkist and Lancastrian heirs since about 1550 or so is even more nebulous, because by that point there weren't any Yorkists or Lancastrians left, although I guess Huntingdon was still seen as a potential candidate for the throne based on his descent from Clarence during Elizabeth's reign. The status of "Henricians" is even more dubious, because they never existed. To the extent that there was any organized support for any potential rival to James I, it was Arabella Stewart, not the descendants of Mary Tudor, who had it. After her death, there was never any support for the claims of those lines. It makes sense to talk about disputes among Carlists after 1936 over who the rightful king was, because there were actual Carlists who were arguing about these things and playing a real role in Spanish political life. This is absolutely not true for the vast majority of the "Yorkist" and "Henrician" lines presented here, which is why this whole thing is ridiculous. Even beyond all this, and the fact that most of these arguments are completely moot and certainly unresolvable by modern people, you continue to make very strong factual claims without providing any source for any of them. john k (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * * And common sense says nothing of the sort - both British peerage titles and continental monarchies were inherited by women all the time in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries - sometimes they weren't allowed to exercise the responsibilities of such office, but their inheritance rights were usually recognized. john k (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you on the subject of "Henriciams", however I do disagree with you on the subject of "not being relevant".

The Wars Of The Roses were undoubtedly one of the most significant sagas in not just English, but world history. To say that they ended in 1485 and that the marriage of Henry Tudor and Elizabeth ended this war is nonsense. (I am not saying that YOU said that, merely that this is trotted out all the time). The fact that Lambert Simnel could receive such support, not to mention The Battle of Stoke, the Warbeck saga, and Henry VII's and VIII's extreme amount of killings and imprisonments on trumped-up charges of "treason" shows that the popular support for the "true legitimate" Monarch did not end in 1485 or even 1499. While there were multiple other people who may have claimed the throne(the Courtenays, Staffords etc) by 1556 and the death of Edward Courtenay(who himself was still widely hailed by many as the True King), thanks to the killings of Henry VII and VIII there was really only one senior line left(apart from the Tudors). And in the 1560's many still looked to Henry Hastings as the "Real" King, though there would never be another Stoke. So 70 years or so after Bosworth people were still recognizing someone other than the Tudor monarch as being the true, legitimate monarch. While there isn't such support today, the fact that generations after Bosworth people still looked to Clarence's descendants as having more claim, and Elizabeth seriously considering Hastings as her heir is notable and significant. And that the Roses, and descent continue to inspire movies, tv shows, books, articles etc. keeps the idea of a Plantagenet heir alive.

Oh, and going by Beaufort law, the Staffords had a legitimate claim, which is why Henry VIII extirpated the line. After he had named the senior member of the family as his heir.

Jacobitism did not die in 1807. It still lives, albeit in smaller numbers.

As far as "Henrician" descent and claims, well that is purely of scholarly interest. Again, the idea of laws post-1603 is just common sense. Only the true monarch can call a Parliament and give the Royal Assent, thus the obvious about laws passed since then.

Another interesting point is that people who frown upon these sort of articles are usually hardline Windsor-supporters who seek to either a)completely bury Henry VIII's Will and the Treason Act b)say "Oh that was then, it's irrelevant to modern people) or c)cause confusion by throwing up rival claimants such Princess Alicia or The Earl of Jersey Baronet Honywood and stating "well, no one can even agree on who the claimant would be!"

In fact in each of the three scenarios or "Alternate Successions" only one modern claimant emerges. I feel that this is "of scholarly interest" as the creator of the article states. You however do not.

Again, with the possible exception of Henricians, there WERE strong movements backing these claimants for many years. Jacobitism still exists today, albeit in reduced form. To simply state that something has died out and is therefore ireelevant from a modern perspective, would be to remove all knowledge of the Roman Empire or the Age of Exploration. Frederick T (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem discussing the continuing potential (and actual) claimants after 1485; an article on that subject would actually be really interesting, and there doesn't seem to be a general article on this subject on wikipedia. That is not what this article is, however.  As to the idea of how many modern claimants arise, I don't find this convincing.  Are there reliable sources that state such?  The only source we have for the "Henrician" line, Reitwiesner, specifically notes that there are two possible claimants.  Anyway, should we have articles talking about the history of these movements when they were politically relevant?  Of course we should.  But extending these movements to the present is really problematic - even the Jacobites have barely existed for the past 200 years; the Henricians never existed, and dissenters from the Tudor succession have been gone for 400 or so.  The Earl of Loudoun and his descent were talked about on that silly television program, but it is already discussed at Britain's Real Monarch.  And declaring, on the basis of no sources that I am aware of, that these lines are the only possible ones is also very questionable.  Basically, I don't get what this article is supposed to do.  It'd be good, as I said, to have articles about latter day Yorkism, and to discuss the descendants of Mary Tudor in the context of the succession in 1603.  Having these lines set out here is just silly, and insisting, without any sources, that they are absolutely correct and indisputable is also silly.  (The Henrician claim might not even be correct on its own terms, as there might be living descendants of Anne Stanley, given how obscure her line gets at points). john k (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ernst August, Prince of Hanover (b. 1954)
Recent evidence suggests that Victoria was not the daughter of Prince Edward. In this case Ernst August of Hanover should be The King! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Cheeseman (talk • contribs) 11:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Heir of Lady Anne Stanley and the Will of Henry VIII/Third Succession Act
I notice that somebody changed Lady Caroline Ogilvy to William Child Villiers. While this may make sense from a modern perspective, the legitimate heir to Lady Anne is Lady Caroline, and the Earl of Jersey has NO claim whatsoever.

The reason, as stated in the article, is that following the line up to 1998, we come to the present Earl's grandfather. Upon his death, his grandson inherited his earldom, the late Earl's son having predeceased his father. However, the laws of 1603 would have made the late Earl of Jersey's remarriage invalid. Since this is supposed to be following a strictly legitimist line, any law passed since the death of Elizabeth I is invalid. It wasn't until 1836 that the conditions allowing for the late earl's remarriage were made possible by an Act of Parliament. However, following the above reasoning, this Parliament was, itself, illegitimate as only the Legitimate Monarch can call a Parliament, and give their Royal consent. While William IV's Parliament and consent are perfectly legitimate as regards Elizabeth II being Queen, and William Child Villiers being regarded as legitimate, and thus inheriting the earldom, by 1603 reasoning, William IV and Elizabeth II are both usurpers, and William Child Villiers' father was a bastard, thus making him and all his own descendants ineligible. By strictly legitimist reasoning, the previous Earl of Jersey had only one legitimate child, his daughter Lady Caroline. It is obvious however, that there is no such thing as a "Henrician", which the author on the linked site, admits that he made that term up himself.

The reason that Catherine Grey's descendants are invalid follows a similar line of reasoning. While she did get married and have legitimate offspring, the then Queen Elizabeth I annulled her marriage, and bastardised her children, removing her and her descendants from the line of succession. Queen Elizabeth I was head of both Church and State and thus her Acts were law. While it is true that the Stuart monarchs reversed this Act and placed the Seymours back in the line of succession, behind the Stuarts and ahead of the Stanleys, we encounter the same problem as above. By the strict reading of the Third Succession Act, and the will of Henry VIII, in 1603 the Seymours were illegitimate and thus had no claim. Any law passed, or attainder lifted after 1603 is invalid as the Monarch was not the Rightful Monarch, and the Parliament was an illegitimate one. While the Grey/Seymour marriage is TODAY considered valid, by 1603 laws, and by the Act of Elizabeth I it was not. Just like by the strict Tudor laws of 1603, the late Earl of Jersey was only ever married once, and had only one legitimate child. Frederick T (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that the present Earl's father(and the late Earl's son) ALSO remarried during his ex-wife's lifetime and had a son by this remarriage(invalid by strict legitimist reasoning). This son is the present Earl himself! Thus the "King William Child Villiers" reasoning encounters a Catch-22 situation. The very thing that would may appear to give him a claim to the throne, itself bastardizes him, thus giving him no claim at all. Frederick T (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember the will of Henry VIII also debarred the Scottish Stuarts from the throne, yet they succeeded. We will never know how the Seymours would have reacted had the Stanleys made a bid for the throne. Primogeniture usually wins out in th end; anyway, there would likely have been a civil war.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Stuarts were indeed the genealogical heirs to Elizabeth I, but the article(as far as I interpret it anyway) gives the hypothetical "What if" if the Third Succession Act/Will of Henry VIII had been followed exactly, and to the strictest letter of Tudor Law. Under this hypothetical scenario, the ONLY legitimate heir-general to Elizabeth I (through this hypothesis) was Lady Anne Stanley, and her ONLY heir-general is Lady Caroline Ogilvy (although some of Lady Anne's family tree is sketchy, there may yet be a legitimate descendant of Lady Anne out there somewhere).

On the same tack, A most joyful and just recognition of the immediate, lawful and undoubted Succession, Descent and Right of the Crown would have to be invalid. In fact, there is a sense of overdoing it with that title. Had Lady Anne been a man with control of an army, and not a young woman, things may have been very different. Frederick T (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarence line confusion
I am confused as to where Richard III and Edmund II are coming from in the map of succession for the Clarence line. According to the text in the article the claim to the crown passes from Edward III to Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York, to his son Edmund, Earl of Rutland, to his elder brother George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence. The maximal possible list of monarchs according to this would therefore be Edward III -> Richard II -> Edmund I -> George I.

However, the map of succession and attached tree have the claim passing from Edward III to Richard II to Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March to Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York. Which is inaccurate here - the text for omitting necessary monarchs, or the tree for including people who in practice would not assume the monarchy? Either way, some cleanup for clarity would be ideal, but I don't have the necessary knowledge available to me to do so myself. 86.8.136.75 (talk) 10:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There shouldn't really be any confusion. The "line of descent" is just that. The "alternate monarchs" the same. The one table shows the people who should have been King, the others shows the direct line of descent from Edward III to Michael Abney-Hastings.

As an example, Edward III was succeeded by his grandson Richard II(the son of Edward III's eldest son). However Richard II had no children, therefore the line of descent must pass through Edward III's second son, Lionel of Antwerp, although Lionel would never have been King himself. Likewise, George, Duke of Clarence, would have been succeeded as King by his son Edward, Earl of Warwick. However Warwick was murdered by the actual King Henry VII, without having children. Therefore the line of descent passes through Warwick's sister(Clarence's daughter) Margaret to her son Henry Pole. Under Plantagenet law women couldn't be Queen themselves, however their sons would inherit their claim. Thus there are cases where the Crown would pass from a man to his sister's son, if the first man never had sons of his own.

Likewise, Elizabeth II's line of descent passes through younger sons)such as Victoria's father Edward Duke of Kent) or daughters(James I's daughter Elizabeth of Bohemia), and nearly bypassing an entire house(from Henry VII through his daughter Margaret, missing out on Henry VIII and all his children).

To give an example of the Clarence line, when Charles Clifton died, he had had no children. However his brother Paulyn had. This Paulyn had died before Charles however. Paulyn's did have a daughter(but she was female), but she had a son Ian who thus would have become King when Charles died. Ian died childless, but his sister Barbara had a son, Michael. Thus the alternate Kings will show Charles and Ian, however the direct line of descent from Edward III to Michael misses them, as they had no children, and instead passes through Michael's mother. Frederick T (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Using your example, when Richard Duke of York died, his claim passed to Edmund Earl of Rutland. When Edmund died, having never had children, his claim passed to his younger brother George Duke of Clarence. Thus both men would have been King in this scenario. However, since Edmund had no children of his own, his own bloodline died out. George DID have children, thus the line of descent passes through him, not Edmund. Frederick T (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Another Alternate Line Of Monarchs......
One interesting point is that Edward VI of England named as his heir Lady Jane Grey. In the event, Jane was Queen for a very short period of time, before Mary I of England claimed the throne and had Jane executed. However, it could be argued that Jane's reign was valid. This then is the Line of Monarchs(NOT the Line of Succession)...


 * 1) Edward VI of England


 * 1) 1. Lady Jane Grey 1553-1554
 * 2) 2. Lady Catherine Grey 1554-1568

At this point there is some confusion. According to Elizabeth I of England Catherine was never legally married to Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset. Were this true, the line then becomes...


 * 1) 3. Lady Mary Grey 1568-1578
 * 2) 4. Lady Margaret Clifford 1578-1596
 * 3) 5. Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven 1596-1647

and the standard Stanley succession thereafter. However, Catherine Grey swore to her death that she had married Seymour, and this was later acknowledged by letters patent during the Stuart era. Accepting this, the line would then run...


 * 1) 3. Edward Seymour, Viscount Beauchamp 1568-1612
 * 2) 4. Edward Seymour, Baron Beauchamp 1612-1618
 * 3) 5. William Seymour, 2nd Duke of Somerset 1618-1660
 * 4) 6. William Seymour, 3rd Duke of Somerset 1660-1671
 * 5) 7. Lady Elizabeth Seymour 1671-1697
 * 6) 8. Robert Bruce, Lord Bruce 1697-1741
 * 7) 9. Charles Bruce, 4th Earl of Elgin 1741-1747
 * 8) 10. James Brydges, 3rd Duke of Chandos 1747-1789
 * 9) 11. Lady Anne Elizabeth Brydges 1789-1836
 * 10) 12. Richard Temple-Grenville, 2nd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos 1836-1861
 * 11) 13. Richard Temple-Grenville, 3rd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos 1861-1889
 * 12) 14. Mary Morgan-Grenville, 11th Lady Kinloss 1889-1944
 * 13) 15. Mary Freeman-Grenville, 12th Lady Kinloss 1944-

This would however all be dependant upon a)recognizing Edward VI"s naming of Jane as legally valid(without an Act of parliament to have passed it), and b)recognizing the marriage of Catherine Grey and the Duke of Somerset as legally valid... Hugh Edgeford (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't necessarily need to do a). Under Henry VIII's will, Frances Brandon's descendants were next after Elizabeth in the succession. john k (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Nitpick
This line does, however, maintain the precedent of the right of a male to inherit via female line set by the succession of Henry II after he reclaimed the usurped crown from his cousin Stephen.. But Stephen also inherited through his mother, so the precedent was set earlier. Following the death of Henry I of England, there were no longer any heirs through male lines. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon alternate successions
If we throw out the William the Conqueror signario and considered what if the Anglo-Saxon line of descent had been upheld insteads. I heard in a documentary that the Kings of Scots considered themselves the rightful heirs of the House of Wessex being descendants of Edgar the Ætheling. Also it gets more fun if you considered who are the actual rightful heirs of Harold Godwinson.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sir, again the author of the "Regnal Chronologies" website misses the one crucial point. That Anglo-Saxon succession was very much different to modern Hanoverian succession. The true heir of Harold was Edgar int he strictest sense of Anglo-Saxon law. Anglo-Saxon monarchs were all male members of the same family, and upon one King's death his successor was elected by the council. The King could nominate his successor, and it was by no means his own son. When Edgar died, the council was gone, and to the best of people's knowledge he never nominated his heir. Thus when Edgar dies the true heirs of both Harold and Edgar(Harold's true successor). Maybe Edgar DID nominate the King of Scotland as his heir. But it is just supposition. In any case, such questions about the Anglo-Saxon claimant are equivalent to making a genealogical tree of George Washington's descendants and claiming that his senior living descendant is the true President of the USA. Frederick T (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

George, Duke of Kent
What about the line descending from George, Duke of Kent?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1101786/King-George-VII-Palace-plotters-plan-kept-Queen-throne.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.213 (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What about it? Swanny18 (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, apparently, the Crown may just as easily be today sitting atop the head of the present Duke of Kent. Hence, there may have been another "Alternate Succession of the English crown". However, the issue of who would succeed George VII would be far trickier, with all the Catholic marriages and confirmations and all. 41.132.229.132 (talk) 09:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

John Kenney's suggestions as to the restructuring of this article
I am simply creating this discussion paragraph for any specific suggestions/recommendations regarding the possible restructuring of this article. As noted under the "Lancastrian Heir" section on this discussion page, an editor has found issue with the way the article is currently structured. Personally, I do not feel there is anything wrong with the way the creators of this article(which does not include me by the way) made it. What is perhaps missing is that there are not enough reliable sources. Perhaps. I have explained in other paragraphs here why I feel the lines leading to the "Duke of Anjou", Baronet Honywood, Baroness Kinloss and Dr Habsburg are irrelevant as far as this article is regarded. The case of the Earl of jersey is noteworthy, but it seems clear that Lady Caroline, rather than her nephew, is the only heir general to that particular claim.

What do other editors feel? I have posted notes on some other people's discussion pages, people who were instrumental in the creation of this article. Should other lines be mentioned? Is it necessary to note every generation of the "Big 3"? Frederick T (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm still unclear on why Lady Kinloss is less notable than Lady Caroline. As I've noted before, Beauchamp's claim was taken much more seriously than Anne Stanley's both in 1603 and later.  (There's also a claim to be made for Lady Kinloss on the basis of Edward VI's will, since by that logic Catherine Grey was the rightful queen at the time of her marriage and obviously her claims to be married to Hertford should be accepted.  At any rate, I'll note that I'm uninterested in the lines leading to any of these people.  What is interesting, and should be discussed, are the politically significant alternative successions to the throne in the middle ages and early modern period, not their modern representatives.  That the duke of Anjou is the heir-general to John of Gaunt is meaningless.  That Philip II actively claimed the throne (for himself or his daughter) on the basis of his descent from John of Gaunt (despite the fact that Ranuccio Farnese was the actual heir-general of John of Gaunt at the time) is significant and is precisely an "alternate succession [to] the English throne".  The same applies to the lines here; nobody cares about the earl of Loudoun; but Warwick and his sister were obviously potential rivals for the throne, and the earl of Huntingdon was seriously considered when Elizabeth I was sick with smallpox.  Basically, this article should be about alternate successions that are discussed in books of history, and not merely by genealogists. john k (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If we're going to restrict the article to people who actually claimed the Crown or were discussed as possible heirs in their time, the article would be better renamed "Pretenders to the English Crown" or something similar. The identity of the modern-day holders of alternative claims to the throne such as Michael Abney-Hastings and Lady Caroline Ogilvy is of interest to many enthusiasts of royal history and genealogy. If the full rolls of descent currently on this page are removed and this page turned into one about active pretenders and claimants of their time, the current holders should be added to the international list on the Pretender page - many of the claimants from other countries on this list do not press their claims either. Jess Cully (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As I explained above, my source was the website Peerage (with respect to tracing the genealogy to the present heirs). I was a very, very green wiki-editor at the time, and can't remember whether or not WP had their citiations policy in place at the time. As for how the article was structured, I focused solely on those instances where the crown had been transmitted as follows:
 * a) the crown had been usurped from the legally rightful heirs, whether based upon claims of illegitimacy or by force of arms,
 * b) that rightful line had not been restored, and
 * c) where that line survives to this day.

I may have been mistaken, but I only saw three such instances where this had occurred: the War of the Roses and the mess it created; the Tudor conquest and the changes to succession laws, followed by James I's ascension; and the Glorious Revolution. I admit I may have been incorrect, and that there certainly could be more instances I did not know about. I just did the ones that were most apparent to me. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as we are making suggestions. . . . This article runs the risk of significant WP:NOR problems. It is not for editors to make the decisions of whose claims are more valid, or what the primary sources say about Richard III picking an heir or what the 15th century criteria of succession would have been. We certainly should not be asking our own 'What if' scenarios. The only criteria for inclusion should be how notable the claim is. What makes the Abney-Hastings line notable is not the soundness of the argument, it is the broadcast of Baldrick's show. What makes the Jacobin line notable is that most compilations that mention Mary II's and the Hanoverian successions include a note about the exclusion of the Jacobin line and the fact that the descendants of Henrietta 'should have' inherited the throne, and frequently they indicate who the current 'king' would then be. It shouldn't be a question of which claim represents the more valid 'what if' scenario, and which scenarios are worthy of WP:SYNTHing what the line of succession would then be. It shouldn't even matter if the claim is based on flawed logic or a misunderstanding of Anglo-Saxon succession practice. Which claims have acquired some degree of notability through their appearance in scholarly literature or the popular press (lineages appearing in something with more production value that a one-time throw-away article by a journalist on a slow news day, or somebody's personal web site)? That is the question. Agricolae (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Jacobins were French revolutionaries. I believe you mean the Jacobites. Anyway, as the creator of this article noted, these three lines were the ones where a clear and unambiguous successor was deprived of their Royal inheritance by outside forces, and where a clear and unambiguous Line descends to the present day. Attempting to work out who the heir to Edgar is is ridiculous. However all three of these are clear, and likewise, the person who succeeded instead of them did so completely contrary to the Lws of the time. With the possible exception og the Will of Henry VIII, all three also have widespread recognition. Roibert Hulph III (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was thinking Jacobite but typed Jacobin for some reason. Anyhow, determining which cases are 'clear and unambiguous' is not our job, nor to make legal determinations as to the nature of succession laws at any given time and whether a succession event conformed to them or not. Our job is to reflect the weight and notability given these claims/lines by scholars, authors and popular culture. An ambiguity in the title of this page perhaps inadvertently causes confusion between two concepts: disputed successions and alternate lines of succession. As to disputed successions, just starting with the Normans, a lot has been written about the successions from the reign of William I to Henry II, that of Henry IV, those from Henry VI to Henry VII, from Edward VI to James I, that of Charles II, and from James II to George I (and somewhat less on a few others: John, Edward III), and most of these involve notable alternate successions.  Alternatively, if as would appear to be the case, the page is about alternate lines of alternate succession, that is a different animal. That there was a Jacobite claimant over numerous generations has received a lot of ink, and thanks to Channel 4 the 'Real Monarch' has now gained a certain notability.  Which other ones merit inclusion should not be a decision based on whether the succession was disputed, or how legitimate the alternative claims were, or how much has been written about the claimant or claim at the time of the disputed succession, but rather on whether the line of descent and/or the modern claim made by or for the person so descending is itself sufficiently notable. Anything else leaves editors doing our own synthesis or relying on non-notable and non-reliable sources, making POV arguments about the validity of specific marriages, none of which are approved Wikipedia practices. Such arguments of legal right sort of miss the point anyhow. A disputed claim such as that of Lambert Simnel can be completely bogus but still notable, and if his descendants had continued to claim the throne over the intervening centuries, (isn't there a Stuart scion that does this, pro forma, at every coronation?) it might merit inclusion anyhow. Agricolae (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Lambert Simnel was pretending to be Edward, Earl of Warwick, who had a legitimate claim as per the criteria listed. When Simnel was "Exposed", there obviously would not be any "Simnelites". However, Warwick was executed by Henry VII's orders and his claim passed to his sister's line...to the person of Michael Abney-Hastings. Likewise, every false Jacobite claimant has been just that...false. However, what these fraudsters illustrate is that there remains an interest in, and to a lesser degree, remaining support for the Jacobite heir. However, since the Glorious Revolution there has always only been on authentic Jacobite claimant. And there remain jacobite societies to this day. Likewise movies continue to depict events from 1688, 1746 etc. Roibert Hulph III (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * False or true, legitimate or illegitimate, authentic or bogus. The point is, it doesn't matter. All that matters is notability. A few years ago a charlatan calling herself Princess Yasmine von Hohenstaufen Anjou Plantagenet made claim to the so-called Principality of Seborga. It doesn't matter that her pedigree was bogus. It doesn't matter that she was basing it on a theory of succession and legitimacy that did not apply. All that matters for Wikipedia purposes is that she managed to have her claim reported in the international media. If that qualifies as notability, then her claim would merit mention even though it is utter nonsense. Likewise, the supposed descent of the Merovingians as heirs of Jesus merits mention in spite of the fact that historians find it to be patently ridiculous. As to England, then, as of a decade ago, only the Jacobite lineage met the notability bar, but now the supposed Abney-Hastings claim has been given significant airing as well. I am not sure there are any others. However one might view the legitimacy of any particular incident of succession, whether it has acquired the sort of notability that would merit mention is the question that should be asked. We certainly shouldn't be composing our own line (or following a line just found on one person's web page) based on POV decisions such as whether the marriage of Catherine Grey was valid, or whether a 20th century divorce would have invalidated the succession of a son because 13th century law prohibited divorce, if that line has received no coverage in the media or scholarly world. Agricolae (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, others would disagree and not just because it's a 17th century law that was in effect until 1836. But,a again, the central point is that having people like the "Sobieski Stuarts" or the like is as you say patently ridiculous. What sets the three "alternate successions" listed here apart from any others in English history, is that each was a clear and unmistakable succession, where the wrong person succeeded, contrary to the laws at the time, where this was recognised at the time, and where a line of descent continues to the present day. This is why the Anglo-Saxon idea falls flat, as that was elective. Likewise any bogus claimant can be dismissed. I will concede that the Will of Henry VIII is not as widely-recognised as the Clarence and Jacobite lines, however, to state that the Clarence line was not well-known until the "Britain's Real Monarch" tv show is also patently ridiculous. As someone else stated, there was numerous uprisings(most notably Stoke), as well as the Tudors' insane obsession with killing numerous legitimate(and illegitimate) Plantagenets. AS late as at least the 1560's(more than a century after Edward IV succeeded) Elizabeth I knew exactly what Henry Hastings, Earl of Huntingdon represented. Likewise, while there has never been another rising ala '45, Jacobitism lives on. The central problems are that bogus claimants may be noteworthy, but their ancestors never held the throne, and likewise, they are not "robbed" of their Royal inheritance, the way that Michael Abney-Hastings, Caroline Ogilvy, and Franz Bayern can all legitimately claim to be. Roibert Hulph III (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with virtually everything Agricolae has said here. There seems to be some idea that this article is "supposed" to be about "rightful" claimants. This is nonsense. There's no such thing as a "rightful" claimant. This article should, as Agricolae says, deal with disputed successions that have received coverage in reliable sources. Where Foofighter above describes how he created the article, I notice that he doesn't explain why he thought that that particular way of looking at things was deserving of a wikipedia article. I am unimpressed by Roibert's arguments above. The "laws at the time" were frequently totally unclear about who should succeed. Can anyone provide a single source on late Tudor/Early Stuart England which suggests that Lady Anne Stanley was ever considered a plausible candidate for the throne? That we ignore Beauchamp and Arbella Stuart, who actually were considered as potential alternatives to James I, and instead focus on Anne Stanley, who was never seriously considered, is ridiculous. As for the Clarence claim, it was of course important in the 16th century. The idea that it has had any political importance since, say, 1603, is highly dubious. I'm not even really convinced that the "Britain's Real Monarch" show has any credibility. It is notable enough to have its own article, but I don't think it should be considered a reliable source on anything about English history. As I said before, this page should discuss alternate claims to the British throne that have been discussed in reliable sources. john k (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just want to get one question out: you did read both comments I made on 06 Aug, yes? I thought that answered the question of why...
 * To be more explicit: I was stationed in Germany had just vacationed to London in mid-2005 (when I started the article; again, I want to say this was before WP had started most of the policies we are discussion now, though I could be mistaken on that matter), and I found the lineage of the monarchs interesting (who wouldn't?). Whenever I hit what I'll call for our purposes "speedbumps" in the transmission of the crown, the question naturally occurred to me of "who was the heir at the point where the crown was usurped, and if that line continued to today, where does it lead?" So, I looked at websites to ascertain what the succession laws and customs were, and looked for places to find the genealogy (primarily thepeerage.com) and figured out most of the contents of the article from there. After that, I moved onto other topics and really have let other editors "take over" the upkeep of the article and its content. I get the criticism aimed at the potential for violation of content policies we have now that may or may not have existed at the time of the article's creation, but it was all done in good faith... I'll go with the flow over whatever you guys decide to do with the page. Essentially, I thought it was interesting and created it so that others who might ask the same question I had could get an answer without duplicating the legwork I did. Cheers! -- Foofighter20x (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Foofighter - Perhaps I phrased my comment above badly. I understand why you were interested in the topic.  What I'm not sure is why that topic is worthy of a wikipedia article, and how it complies with our content policies, especially the one on original research (which absolutely existed in 2007).  I wasn't accusing you of bad faith, I just don't think that the article in its current form complies with content policies, and I didn't think that your explanation of how you came to create the article jumped the hurdle from "I think this was an interesting topic that I did some research on" to "This interesting topic I did some research on ought to have a wikipedia article." I know you weren't intentionally creating an article that violated policy, but I think the article does, nonetheless, violate our content policy.  john k (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

New-ish book with good sources
Has anyone here read the book Last White Rose by Desmond Seward? It's a cracking good read, and contains information about the Yorkist line during the Tudor Era. Clearly this line is noteworthy. Perhaps some stuff from it could be included in this article? Arthur Figgis (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Article seems to be almost entirely original research
Most of the article is original research -- anything that starts "Her succession, under this theory, " is WP:OR. All of Descendants of Mary Tudor, Queen of France is OR (and has one source which I think can't be considered a reliable source, see WP:RS, None of the genealogies has a reliable source, all seem to have been constructed by editors of this article. Dougweller (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The phrase "under this theory" recognizes the existence of competing theories; how is that OR? Does the word theory bug you? Is there another wording that would smell better to you? —Tamfang (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I mean that it appears that a 'theory' has been used to compile that section, not a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. Each basic premise is sourced (at least for the first two alternatives), but the presentation of how each premise would play out is entirely WP:OR. I'm also confused as to how the line in the second alternative jumps from Henry VII to (his daughter) Mary Tudor, missing out his son (Henry VIII), grandson (Edward IV) & grandaughter Mary Tudor. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * See, I'm not the only one unhappy with the list format. —Tamfang (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm saying that each of the lists is entirely WP:OR -- 'formatting' is the least of their worries. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven is completely unsourced. The first list can be sourced, but it may be copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, 1) the Jacobite line is not OR, having been traced repeatedly by numerous reliable sources. That Franz Herzog von Bayern is the Jacobite heir can easily be sourced to reliable sources, as can the succession of all his predecessors. 2) the Clarence line is arguably not OR, having been the subject of a TV special - they interviewed Loudoun, so it's not entirely OR how that premise plays out. I don't think a family tree can be a copyright violation, and, at any rate, there are plenty of genealogical sources that can be used to trace the descent here.  3) The Tudor thing is probably OR, but I don't think it's because the genealogy itself is OR, so much as because it is full of questionable premises (that Catherine Grey's children should be considered illegitimate; that children from the union of a divorced person should not be considered legitimate) that cannot be substantiated. What is wrong with all of this is not, so much, OR, as notability - these lines can be substantiated through use of reliable genealogies and application of simple rules of primogeniture (which is not a novel synthesis), but they aren't really notable, especially the particular formulations found here. john k (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If these sources exist for these lists (and are reliable), then CITE THE LISTS TO THEM (easiest done by putting the citation after the colon that introduces the list). I would however question whether a "TV special", especially one that isn't fronted by a prominent historian, is reliable. Please read WP:BURDEN. This material has been challenged. It is now up to the supporters of this material to provide inline citations for them. Simply stating that references exist somewhere for them isn't sufficient. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Addington's Royal House of Stuart ought to work for the Jacobite line. For other sources, if you go through thePeerage.com, starting with Clarence, you can trace the descent, and sources are provided for each generation - for example Burke's Peerage and Cokayne's Complete Peerage - down through the 10th Countess of Loudoun.  After that, the most recent peerage editions of the peerage guides ought to work.  The genealogies themselves can be figured out pretty easily.  The real issue is why we are giving these particular genealogies.  Worrying about sourcing the genealogies is a red herring, and sourcing them won't actually deal with any of the very real problems of this article. john k (talk) 08:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "trac[ing] the descent" through thePeerage.com would be WP:OR (for instance you would have to work out why the descent goes through Clarence's younger daughter Margeret, not his elder son Edward). The article should have a single source for each entire list (anything less is WP:SYNTH). "Worrying about sourcing the genealogies is a red herring..." READ WP:V! "Worrying about sourcing" is at the very core of Wikipedia. If you don't want to worry about it, then you're welcome to find some other encyclopedia to edit. Either find & include citations, or expect the material to be removed. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Original synthesis only applies when you are using the synthesis to advance a novel position. Given that the position in question (that the present Earl of Loudoun is the heir-general of the Duke of Clarence) is not a novel one, but was, in fact, the subject of a Channel 4 TV special, among other things, combining multiple sources to put together the line of descent is not an original synthesis.  I suppose that is a somewhat narrow construction of what is original synthesis, but I think a somewhat narrow construction is necessary or else the work of creating an encyclopedia becomes virtually impossible - a broad construction would pretty much forbid any synthesis whatever.  As to why the descent goes through Clarence's elder daughter, Margaret, and not his younger son, Edward, Edward died unmarried at 25, and left no issue.  One can certainly find plenty of sources that trace the Clarence descent from Clarence himself to the 3rd Earl of Huntingdon and explicitly link that to the succession in order to explain Huntingdon's status as a possible successor to Elizabeth I when she nearly died of smallpox.  At any rate, the Channel 4 site Doug linked to above explicitly gives the lineage as an alternate royal succession; using reliable genealogical sources to fill it out is pretty clearly not original synthesis.  Beyond that, it is a WP:POINT violation to remove material which could be sourced, but is not.  And my point about sourcing wasn't that I don't want the lists removed.  I think that, with the exception of the Jacobite one (are you still claiming that's OR?), they don't really belong here.  Demanding sources is a red herring because the article needs a massive overhaul even if sources can be found.  Pinning demands for change to this article on questions of OR just creates an opportunity to save what is a terrible article regardless of sourcing.  If you read through the whole history of this talk page, you can see my criticisms of the article in some detail. john k (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Given that the position in question (that the present Earl of Loudoun is the heir-general of the Duke of Clarence) is not a novel one..." Then cite a WP:RS that takes "the position in question"! "As to why the descent goes through Clarence's elder daughter, Margaret, and not his younger son, Edward, Edward died unmarried at 25, and left no issue." Wrong! Margaret was the younger daughter by three years, Edward the elder by two. He may have died without issue, but survived his father by 11 years (so would presumably have inherited). In any case, such analysis is WP:OR. "Beyond that, it is a WP:POINT violation to remove material which could be sourced, but is not." You still haven't read WP:V yet have you? It clearly states that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." (Emphasis in the original.) "Demanding sources is a red herring because the article needs a massive overhaul even if sources can be found." Then stop defending the existing, unsourced material and write new, better, sourced material. Defending poorly written, unsourced material is the very epitome of WP:POINT. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It was the subject of a television documentary. That seems close enough to a reliable source.  There are numerous reliable sources discussing the earlier portion of the line (up through the 3rd Earl of Huntingdon, at least), although I don't have any at hand (The ODNB article about Huntingdon talks about his claim to the throne, though).  2) Edward was born in 1475, and Margaret was born in 1473; at any rate, Edward would indeed have succeeded, but I think the list is the line of descent from Clarence to Loudoun, not the list of monarchs.  That could perhaps be changed.  3) Disrupting wikipedia to make a point is disrupting wikipedia to make a point.  If there's a statement you believe to be true, but that is not sourced, it is a POINT violation to remove it just because it's not sourced, unless it's a BLP issue.  I think removing the Jacobite material as being unsourced would clearly be a POINT violation; a quick google search easily reveals numerous sources - Here's an article from a few years ago in the Daily Record, which mentions the Duke of Bavaria's claim; Here and Here is the 1911 Britannica article on the Jacobites, which traces their succession down to Queen Marie Thérèse of Bavaria, showing also her eldest son Ruprecht and his sons, the second of whom, Albert, was the father of the current claimant (it does skip over Charles Emmanuel IV and Francis V of Modena, but other sources could be found on them, too).  Simply going into wikipedia with the attitude that you're going to remove any unsourced material is not helpful.  4) I am not defending the current material, so much as defending against an interpretation of OR and Verifiability that I find distasteful.  5) I have laid out what I think is wrong with the article; I am under no obligation to write new, better, sourced material.  We're all working on wikipedia for no money, and I'm not in any position to be writing full, well-researched articles at the moment.  It is unfair to demand such a thing of other volunteers you know nothing about.  6) As it stands, the article is terrible. john k (talk)


 * "If there's a statement you believe to be true, but that is not sourced, it is a POINT violation to remove it just because it's not sourced, unless it's a BLP issue." "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." Nothing about an exception if "you believe [it] to be true" -- and I have no particular reason to believe this steaming pile of apparent WP:OR to be true in any case. The alternatives are citations for existing material, deletion of existing material, or new, cited, material. That you find the explicit text of WP:V "distasteful" is your problem. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to ignore the Anne Stanley line, which I agree is indefensible. The Jacobite line is easily documentable - there are tons of press clippings talking about the present Duke of Bavaria being the Jacobite heir; there were tons of press clippings before 1996 saying the same thing about his father Albrecht; there's the Britannica article from 1911 that traces the line down to Albrecht's father Rupprecht.  I've seen records of parliamentary debates in the nineteenth century in which the fact that the Duke of Modena was the Jacobite heir was mentioned.  I've already pointed you to the Channel 4 material that makes the case for Loudoun's claim to the British throne, and to the fact that this is supported by reliable genealogical sources.  I don't think there's any reasonable case that either of these lines is "OR," and I think synthesizing material that makes explicit, but general, claims about Jacobite (or "Yorkist") claimants with material that explicitly details the genealogy is appropriate, because no novel claim is being made.  As for verifiability, there is tons and tons of material on wikipedia that is not cited yet.  The proper thing to do, unless one has reason to believe the material is incorrect, is to add citation needed tags where appropriate, or to add a notice about the lack of sourcing at the top of the article, not to just remove information wholesale.  john k (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * John K: you keep waffling on vaguely about "tons of press clippings", and the like, ad infinitum. I really don't care. Unless somebody (you, another editor, the Easter Bunny) is willing to either cite the existing material, or replace it with cited material, then this material will, eventually, be deleted. Before you demand that I do so myself: (i) I have no background in geneology (I only came here in response to a post on WP:FTN) & (ii) I've already got my hands full trying to plan out a major rewrite of History of Creationism. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Waffling vaguely? I have given specific sources on the Jacobite line above. Here is an article from the Telegraph yesterday which refers to Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria as the former Jacobite claimant. Here are some people writing letters to a British periodical in 1854 to correct an error it had made, apparently in its obituary of Charles III of Parma, and note that the then present Duke of Modena was the Jacobite claimant.  Here is the Illustrated American, tracing the Jacobite line, and mentioning a bit in Disraeli's Endymion where some of the characters discuss the Duke of Modena being the rightful king.  john k (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, here's WP:V: How quickly [removal of uncited material] should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them. john k (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Odd, I don't remember ever making a deadline for citing/deleting/replacing the material. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

clarify the lists
In the Tudor list, I can't tell whether the numbers mean generations, or position in the order of succession, or a mix of the two, or something else again. Is Elizabeth Brownlow a daughter of Margaret Brydges? If her number means anything, shouldn't Henry VIII and his issue be listed before Mary, and every elder sibling in their appropriate place even if they never would have inherited? Tree format would make this clearer.

Also, the phrase "nth line" could stand to be explained somewhere. —Tamfang (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The numbers 1. 2. etc show the direct bloodline/descent from the last "proper", "legitimate" de facto monarch through to the current claimant. From parent-child-child etc. This does NOT necessarily contain all the de jure monarchs, as the claim often passed through a sibling(if the de jure monarch had no children), or passed directly to a grandchild(if the child of the de jure monarch predeceased their parent). The information in the boxes shows the people who were the de jure monarchs in order with what should have been their titles.

The numbering does however pass to siblings, when a particular line reaches its end. Also, in the Jacobite claim, listing the de jure Henry IX, which some people may take to mean he was the de jure Charles III's son, unless of course they actually read the article, and the notes, which are of course, precisely why they are there. That was also the reason for the inclusion of the phrase "as such", which someone has deemed inappropriate, although it did clarify things somewhat. 137.158.152.209 (talk) 09:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So if I understand you right, the numbered persons are anyone who would have inherited according to the theory under consideration plus their intervening ancestors if any. Okay. The text could say so explicitly, rather than mislabeling the entire list as "the succession" and relying on the reader to have found the note elsewhere that says what the italics mean. Removing the numbers, or numbering only the hypothetical successors (and perhaps indenting the non-inheriting parent), would improve clarity far more than the mysterious phrase "as such". —Tamfang (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Any claims of succession, etc need reliable sources making those claims. We can't point to any theories, laws, etc as references as that is WP:Original researchDougweller (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh? Are you saying that as such means 'according to a reliable source', or that changing or removing the numbers would be OR, or what? —Tamfang (talk) 07:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No he isn't from what I can gather. a) The boxes on the right are the lists of would-have-been or "de jure" Monarchs had that particular succession resulted at the time. b) The lists which follow (as such) are the direct bloodline from the last "Legitimate" Monarch to the present "de jure" Monarch. This does not necessarily include all the Monarchs, as many (such as the Jacobite Francis I) left no issue. Likewise not all the people in these lists would have been "de jure" Monarchs, as they may have predeceased their parent or elder sibling, who was the "De jure" Monarch at the time.

Using actual "de facto" Monarchs as an example, and starting with the "de facto" George I as an example .The box on the right would include George I, George II, George III, George IV, William IV, Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI, and Elizabeth II. These were the Monarchs.

However, the succession following (as such) would go... George I, George II, Frederick Prince of Wales, George III, Edward Duke of Kent, Victoria, Edward VII, George V, George VI, Elizabeth II. This is the direct bloodline from George I to Elizabeth II. Neither Prince Frederick nor Edward Duke of Kent were ever King, but it is their direct bloodline that leads from George I to Elizabeth II. Likewise, George IV, William IV, and Edward VIII WERE all Monarchs but are not in the direct bloodline from George I to Elizabeth II. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

From George Duke Of Clarence to Michael Abney-Hastings
The article apparently uses the "Britain's Real Monarch" programme/website and the "Regnal Chronologies" website as sources for this succession. However, both of those have a different actual succession, recognising everyone(excluding the bogus "Edward V") up to Richard III as Rightful Monarchs. The succession then begins with The Earl of Warwick as "Edward V" and follows, including female succession, up to the present de jure King Michael I. However, the wikipedia article begins with Henry IV usurping Richard II's crown, acknowledging the Legitimist "Edmund I" instead. While under a strictly Legitimist and Monarchist position, not recognising the Lancastrians would be correct, neither of the sources use this method, and only begin 86 years later with the assassination of Richard III, and his proper Legitimist successor Edward Earl of Warwick. Likewise, people such as Blessed Margaret Pole and Catherine Hastings ARE recognised as de jure Monarchs, unlike in the article. In addition, referring to people such as Edmund Mortimer and Richard Duke of York as "descendants" of The Duke of Clarence is not entirely accurate.

The problem is that the article follows a strict Legitimist position, but neither of the sources do. I realise that there are numerous factual errors on the "Regnal Chronologies" site. However still using the "Britain's real Monarch" show/website, as well as records of the time, it would appear that people DID recognise Margaret Pole as being a Rightful Queen Regnant. However, people also DID recognise Edmund Mortimer and Richard Duke of York as Rightful Kings too. Perhaps the problem is that this is conflating two separate "alternate successions", although this single (conflated) succession IS the strictly Legitimist one... 41.133.47.252 (talk) 10:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would concur, largely. It should perhaps be noted that Edmund Mortimer and Richard, Duke of York, were descendants of a different Duke of Clarence, Lionel. john k (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You are aware that the "Regnal Chronologies" website is simply the self-published website of some random SCA guy? It is nowhere close to being a WP:RS. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Regnal Chronologies is definitely not a reliable source. john k (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Anne Stanley or Edward Seymour
Having read the actual sources, it appears that when Elizabeth I lay on her deathbed, the only possible heir to the Last Will og Henry VIII considered was Edward Seymour. While, apparent logic dictates that Anne Stanley was the heir of the Will, let's not forget that Elizabeth herself was regarded as illegitimate, yet succeeded, thanks to the Third Succession Act and Will of Henry VIII. Besides any OR and something similar, is there a Reliable Source which states that indeed Lady Anne Stanley, rather than Edward Seymour would have been the heir of the Last Will of Henry VIII? 41.133.47.252 (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, had Elizabeth named Anne her successor, Seymour being descended from the eldest daughter of Mary Tudor would have contested it and emerged the victor. Catherine Grey's sons were both born to her after she had married William Seymour.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Seymour's were not legit at the time of Elizabeth's death though. It was only after she died that they were proclaimed legit. Catherine Grey got married in secret. The only witness was Jane Seymour. They also did not have the Queen's permission. In 1606, three years after Elizabeth's death, the clergyman was found - and a common law court legitimized the marriage and their sons. Under the will of King Henry though, Anne Stanley was the rightful heir, but James was chosen instead as being the descendant of the older sister of Henry. -- Lady Meg (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, as the anon says, it was Seymour, not Stanley, who was actually considered as a potential successor by the men in power in 1603. Elizabeth herself, saying that "no rascal" should succeed her, was obviously referring to Seymour, not Stanley, as the alternative to James. john k (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing for 'Continuation of the House of Stuart' section
The sole citation for this section, is to The Jacobite Heritage a WP:SELFPUBlished site, maintained by:

...in other words an amateur with no particular expertise in genealogy, history or historical laws of inheritance. I would suggest that this is not a WP:RS. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that Hrafn is very familiar with Jacobite publications, organisations, or current activities. If he were, my name would be familiar to him.  He describes me as "in other words an amateur", when in fact those are his words, and not the words of others.  My website is widely regarded as the largest and most reliable source of information about Jacobitism on the internet (I have multiple emails from university faculty as evidence).  The fact that I work at Canada's largest university, and that I have permanent status (the librarian equivalent of tenure at the University of Toronto) should count for something.  My research has even been funded by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Canadian funding organisation for academics. Noel S McFerran (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Are these "Jacobite publications" peer reviewed (other than by fellow Jacobites), or published by recognised, scholarly publishers? Do these Jacobite organisations have any official status as learned genealogical societies? What evidence do you present that either is a WP:RS? What evidence do we have that Jacobitism is anything other than a "tiny minority" view, per WP:WEIGHT? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not claim that Jacobitism is anything other than a tiny minority view. It is that tiny minority view which is the topic (in part) of this particular article. WP:RS does not require that reliable publications be peer reviewed; if it did, most books could not be listed since it is usually only journal articles which are peer reviewed.  The vast majority of sources cited on Wikipedia are not from peer reviewed articles or from books published by scholarly publishers; that does not mean that they are not "reliable". I'm not sure who Hrafn thinks grants organisations "official status as learned genealogical societies". The Royal Stuart Society is widely acknowledged as a learned organisation; it has existed for over eighty years and has had an extensive publications programme, most recently overseen by the acknowledged doyenne of Jacobite studies Eveline Cruickshanks formerly of the University of London. Authors have included Roy Porter, Richard Sharpe, Lady Antonia Fraser and Ronald Hutton, as well as other names which are well-known in academic circles even if not having a Wikipedia article.  For someone to question the scholarly merit of the society merely shows that the individual is totally unfamiliar with publications in that area. Noel S McFerran (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * (i) Wikipedia does however have a policy against use of WP:SELFPUB sources (no matter how "extensive"), except under very restrictive conditions. (ii) I don't particularly care who "grants organisations 'official status'", as long as the group isn't essentially self-appointed (which self-appointment greatly reduces their credibility, outside their tiny minority circle). (iii) As a tiny minority viewpoint, WP:WEIGHT & WP:FRINGE apply. (iv) If you want to cite material from published experts (the rugby union player doesn't count, I'm afraid), then you're welcome to -- however neither you, nor the Jacobite organisations or publications, count as WP:RS. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There is an official Society which has http://www.royalstuartsociety.com/succession.html

or this(from a reliable source)... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1584184/Act-repeal-could-make-Franz-Herzog-von-Bayern-new-King-of-England-and-Scotland.html

That's just for starters. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

In addition, while the Jacobite Heritage, could in itself possibly be viewed as "amateur", it is full of sources that ARE reliable, and some pages such as http://www.jacobite.ca/essays/ruvigny.htm and http://www.jacobite.ca/documents/18610307a.htm (just two out of numerous) are taken verbatim from reliable sources. These clearly state the order of succession, not as McFerren's POV or OR, but merely as information from reliable Sources that he has gathered together in one place. I do not consider the Jacobite Heritage unreliable, as it is basically more a collection of documents and sources than anything else. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * (i) The self-appointed 'official' society would hardly count as a scholarly source. (ii) The Telegraph article only verifies the 12th element on the list, not the 10 members on it before him (assuming Chuck I doesn't need a citation). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Melville Henry Massue probably counts as a reliable (if potentially outdated) source on genealogy. I would question however if Constantine Phipps, 1st Marquess of Normanby does. If you can rewrite & resource the section to the former, then you're welcome to do so. But on a quick reading it would not appear to "state the [full] order of succession". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are more than sufficient sources detailing the Jacobite claim up until 1807. Clearly a line runs from "Mary IV and III" to "Francis II". And http://www.jacobite.ca/documents/1701savoy.htm (with listed reliable source) begins the chain. I will like to leave things for Mr Mcferren himself to step in, citing published books etc, before any further decision is taken, but clearly there ARE reliable sources. I must also state that I get the feeling that you may hold some personal prejudice against either Jacobitism or Mr McFerren personally. I apologise if this is untrue, but one does get that feeling. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If these sources exist, and are reliable -- then cite the relevant portions of the section to them. I am sick and tired of people harping on here on talk that 'sources exist' over and over, but never introducing them into the article. What I am "prejudiced" against is (i) badly cited Wikipedia articles & (ii) pointless blather. "Jacobitism" died two centuries ago at Culloden, and McFerren is no more a reliable source than you or I. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (Oh, and I own 3 kilts, and can hear a pipe band practicing from my home some evenings -- is that Scots enough for ye, laddie? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC) )


 * And please read WP:AGF, just because someone is dubious about the sources is no reason to suggest they have a bias about the subject matter. If you (the IP, not Hrafn) think this is a reliable source, I believe that you know (I'm assuming from your other edits you've got more experience than your IP edit history suggests)Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there you go. Talk of "pointless blather". And the quote '"Jacobitism" died two centuries ago at Culloden'. Certainly the Society listed by me, was derided as "Self-appointed". And the fact that Mr McFerren's website exists at all, would seem to contradict your statement. While it is true that there has been no UPRISING since 1746(though not no sentiment), that is not proof of an end. Does Jeremy Potter's "Pretenders To The English Throne" (ISBN-0-389-20703-9) (p. 1986) meet with your approval?some quotes from the Final Chapter...."When King Victor of Savoy, the then heir to Stuart claims died in 1824 Lord Liverpool, the then prime minister, ordered public mourning on the grounds that many people in Britain regarded him as their rightful king."...."In 1886 the Order of the White Rose was revived." "White Rose Day was celebrated on the anniversary of James III's birth". "...they recognised Mary IV and III." "Today(ie 1986) the Stuart claim to the crowns of England and Scotland rests with Duke Albrecht of Bavaria (b. 1905) and his son Prince Franz (b. 1933)" "...wear kilts and white roses and lay wreaths at the foot of a statue of James VI and I in Munich on appropriate anniversaries." The book also mentions, as other have here REPEATEDLY, that if Jacobitism had indeed died at Culloden, or in 1807, whither then the "Sobieski Stuarts" or "Michael Lafosse"? 41.133.47.252 (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Read WP:SOAPBOX, have a WP:TROUT and get a clue. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks such as "get a clue". For what it is worth I am not a Jacobite. However to dismiss it as having died in 1746 and writing it in scare quotes, does not make it go away. Is it as prevalent as it was in the 1740's? Absolutely not. Does that mean it can be dismissed out of hand as "pointless blather"? No. Like I said, Mr McFerren(and others) who are more knowledgeable, and can provide far more sources from published books and articles should be allowed to cite THEIR reliable references before any definite conclusion is made. I have never got on a soapbox, and I am merely stating that there ARE reliable sources for this sentiment existing to this day, as well as reliable sources listing the various "Jacobite Monarchs". There is no need for talk such as "get a clue". 41.133.47.252 (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "I am merely stating that there ARE reliable sources" -- and I am merely stating that I am SICK TO DEATH of people on this talk page pointlessly blathering talking on and on and on and on about what sources they think exist -- instead of proving their existence and relevance BY CITING THEM IN THE ARTICLE, thus verifying the article's contents. And if the Royal Stuart Society is not "self appointed", then by all means tell me by what genealogical authority they were appointed. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are repeatedly saying here that there are no reliable sources. When those sources are pointed out to you here, you complain that people aren't putting them in the article.  As long as you continue to deny that there are any reliable sources, as you have done repeatedly, I don't see any reason why anyone should go through the drudgery of adding citations.  The Jacobite line can very easily be sourced.  A number of sources have already been pointed out.  If you are unwilling to concede the point on the talk page, why should any of us try to document it in the article? john k (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Line of descent of current heir versus line of succession
Currently, the article contains two lists for each theory of succession: It generally takes quite a bit of thought to work out how these two lists relate to each other.
 * 1) A line of descent of the current heir -- which generally appears would be citable to some family tree (not always reliable) cited in the article. Unfortunately the lists heavily truncate the trees (as well as introducing "Xth line of" terminology that is likely to confuse the reader), so that it gives very limited understanding of the succession.
 * 2) A list of succession, that appears to be largely OR.

My thought is that:
 * 1) We need a reliable source that explicitly details the succession (so that we aren't geting it as WP:Synthesis of the family trees).
 * 2) We should integrate the two lists together, bolding the reigning monarchs, e.g.:

... ...
 * Henry VII
 * Henry VIII, second son of Henry VII
 * Edward VI, son of Henry VIII
 * Mary, first daughter of Henry VIII
 * Elizabeth I, second daughter of Henry VIII
 * Mary Tudor, second daughter of Henry VII
 * Lady Eleanor Brandon, second daughter of Mary
 * Lady Margaret Clifford, only daughter of Eleanor
 * Ferdinando Stanley, 5th Earl of Derby, first son of Margaret
 * Anne, Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven, first daughter of Ferdinando
 * Lady Frances Stanley, second daughter of Ferdinando

(Essentially indenting the lines that died out.)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, only you and one other person have had difficulty understanding the way the article is presented. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Really? And what survey of the articles readers (as opposed to editors) do you base this profound determination upon? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

In the years-plus this article has existed, only two people have mentioned this problem. One had it explained to him/her and then seemed to disappear. Having checked your edits, it does now appear that you are indeed being critical for the sake of being critical. Your previous comments would seem to imply that your issue is not so much with the article itself, but rather with the fact that '"Jacobitism" died at Culloden', and the fact that it still exists(though admittedly not to the same degree" at all, and has supporters in the Royal Stuart Society or Noel McFerren alone is what irks you. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Aw, miss me? Sorry I didn't do more to keep up my end of the conversation. —Tamfang (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) And how many readers simply scratched their heads and went on to an article that was comprehensible? That two editors bothered to comment on it in talk probably means that it isn't particularly clear.
 * 2) It was you who raised the subject of "Jacobitism". And if you think the movement had any genuine political life in it post-Culloden (as opposed to being merely a armchair geneologist's 'what if'), then you are welcome to cite WP:RSs to support your contention. I have no more reason to take Jacobitism seriously than I do the Flat Earth society -- but that doesn't mean I am personally prejudiced against either.
 * 3) My problem is with this being a badly cited, badly written article.

How did I raise the subject of Jacobitism (without scare quotes)? I raised the subject of the Third Succession Act and Last Will of Henry VIII, which is something completely unrelated. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "...you may hold some personal prejudice against either Jacobitism...". <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That was an observation(which i was warned for a personal attack), made after your talk about "pointless blather", and using Jacobitism in scare quotes. And after you seem to have tagged seemingly every second word in the article. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No. My comment about "pointless blather" was made in response to your questioning me what I am prejudiced against. Get a clue. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what order things were stated, please do not make comments such as "get a clue". In any case, since you appear to disagree with the article, what suggestions would you make ? 41.133.47.252 (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Further, I would point out that talking about such things as "House of Clifton", "House of Huddleston" & "House of Lord", when none of those family names are mentioned in the list of descent (and two of the three 'Reigning Monarchs' of those houses aren't mentioned there either), cannot help but be confusing. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I would further point out that, whilst I myself know that the Wittelsbachs have ruled Bavaria for centuries (as well as all sort of other parts of Germany & the Low Countries at various times), the average reader should not be expected to draw this connection. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That connection is not really the point. Whether it's the House of Savoy(they ruled Italy), the House of Habsburg(Austria) or the House of Wittelsbach(Bavaria), the point is that this is the Jacobite line of inheritance. What other titles the relevant people may or may not have held(or had claim to) is really not of primary importance to the article. Every individual that has a Wikipedia article can have their article read with one click of a mouse. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * (i) It most emphatically is the point! Lacking this context, the succession table is simply a seemingly-random list of names & numbers and houses, incomprehensible to the average reader. (ii) Who these people were in real life is most certainly relevant. It provides context. (iii) Given this 'line' (a) isn't Scottish (b) isn't Stuart (and the current direct line hasn't been since before the Act of Settlement), (c) the current line has not ever had a claimant named James(=Jacob), & (d) the current line does not claim descent from those involved in the Jacobite Risings, I find the use of the term 'Jacobite' in this context to be tenuous at best, and undue emphasis on it more than a little annoying. (Parenthetically, I would point out that (b) also makes the name of the Royal Stuart Society more than a little of a misnomer.) <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You've changed your argument again. It's not a "Random list of names & numbers", as the article, calls each person by their widely-known name. The box on the right shows the people who would have been Monarch, and the list in the main article shows the direct bloodline. Having peoples' recognized names, with links is context enough, unless you are deliberately trying to be difficult. I(and others) have provided links which show that these people, and more significantly large groups of others(including a Prime Minister) have recognized this Line, not "line" as you put it. In addition they are the direct heirs general to the last Legitimate Stuart Monarch, who was James II and VII, hence "Jacobites". That's Use_common_sense. In addition your confusing Jacobitism with Scottish Nationalism shows that you are NOT that well versed on the subject. Strict Jacobitism, as all the reliable sources show, is not merely about being "Scottish". It is the strict belief that the Senior genealogical heir is the Rightful King or Queen, and no Act can divert the Succession Acts of 1603 http://www.constitution.org/sech/sech_090.htm and the Law of Succession (1681). In addition people still refer to the current Carlist claimant as such, although he is not named Carlos OR descended from the original Carlos! That's not tenuous, it's continuation. You are arguing against a strawman, and a rather poor one at that. Jacobitism is not Scottish, nor the claim that the direct blood descendant of James II and VII must be Monarch. It is the belief that the King or Queen of England and/or Scotland must be the senior genealogical heir of the earlier Monarchs. You are putting words in others' mouths, and then tearing apart an argument that no one had ever made! 41.133.47.252 (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Please cease and desist violating WP:TALK by misrepresenting my statements. I did not say "Random list of names & numbers" I said "''SEEMINGLY'-random" (as the article provides little context to demonstrate in what way they are non-random).
 * 2) Please cite sources for your claim that (for example) Charles of the House of Clifton is this individual's "widely-known name" (ditto Ian of the House of Huddleston).
 * 3) You have not demonstrated that "significantly large groups of others ... have recognized this Line", and Lord Liverpool died not recognize it, he merely acknowledged that others did.
 * 4) I did not "confus[e] Jacobitism with Scottish Nationalism", I merely making note of the fact that the Jacobite Risings, were predominantly Scottish. Hence the relevant OED definition: Jacobite: "An adherent of James II of England after his abdication, or of his son the Pretender; a partisan or supporter of the Stuarts after the Revolution of 1688."
 * 5) The OED does not support your claimed definition of Jacobitism as "the strict belief that the Senior genealogical heir is the Rightful King or Queen, and no Act can divert the Succession Acts of 1603 http://www.constitution.org/sech/sech_090.htm and the Law of Succession (1681)."
 * 6) "In addition people still refer to the current Carlist claimant as such, although he is not named Carlos OR descended from the original Carlos!" The distinguishing difference being that Carlism has had a long-lasting significant influence on Spanish politics. I can see no evidence that Jacobitism has had a similar influence -- particularly given the assimilation of the Scots nobility into mainstream London society under the Hanovers (a trend that led to the Highland clearances).
 * 7) "The belief that the King or Queen of England and/or Scotland must be the senior genealogical heir" is a pipedream, and one that ignores the historical reality that politics generally played a far larger part than genealogy on succession. This has been true of pretty much every change-in-dynasty/branch-of-dynasty since Saxon times.

You have spoken about "bagpipes" "kilts" and how "none of them have been Scottish". It is easy to draw that conclusion. Likewise, I never created any of those individuals' Wikipedia articles. I notice you haven't gone tagging articles, stating that "please cite a source that this individual was known by this name" or anything to that effect. All your energy seems to be focused on very minor quibbles and nitpicking on one article. The OED definition you provide makes no mention of anything being "predominantly Scottish". For all your outrage over others' sources, your own source does not back up your won claims! Likewise, my definition of Jacobitism is again COMMON SENSE. Does Wikipedia need a citation that 1+1=2? Likewise, you are yourself SOAPBOXING about "pipedreams". Yes, it is obvious (as was my definition listed above) that politics has played the major role(ORIGINAL RESEARCH? NO SOURCE?) but that does not remove the fact that there still ARE many people(far more than you seem willing to accept) who DO subscribe to the idea of the Senior Genealogical heir as Monarch, and have Societies for that precise purpose, even if they are "amateurs" or "self-appointed". 41.133.47.252 (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) ROFLMAO! Three kilts and the sound of bagpipes doesn't make me any more of a Scottish nationalist than George IV, Victoria or Prince Charles. Jacobitism, as that term is defined by the OED, were (centuries-old past tense) the (mainly Scottish) adherents of the (Scottish) Stuart claimant for the crown -- so it is unsurprising that I looked for some form of Scottish connection.
 * 2) "...on one article"? You really are clueless. I've done cleanup detail on dozens of articles, and have a handful under active maintenance even as we speak.
 * 3) Jacobite Risings supports my contention that the "adherent[s] of James II of England after his abdication" were predominantly Socittish.
 * 4) The OED definition supports my contention that 'Jacobistism' is purely the term for the historical movement associated with James VII. It does not support any "common sense" basis for extending it over two centuries to a tiny minority viewpoint, with unclear connection to England or Scotland, supporting a claimant who (unlike those of Carlism) don't even claim descent from the James in question.
 * 5) So when you do OR, it is "common sense", when I do it to refute your claims it's OR? Inconsistent, much?
 * No, it is not a "fact that there still ARE many people(far more than you seem willing to accept) who DO subscribe to the idea of the Senior Genealogical heir as Monarch" -- it is a bald, unsubstantiated assertion.
 * 1) The fact that they are (i) a tiny minority, (ii) amateurs & (iii) self-appointed, means that Wikipedia should neither consider them WP:RS or give them any WP:WEIGHT.

1)And I was the one warned for personal attacks and incivility. Yet you say things like "ROFLMAO" and "You really are clueless". In case you hadn't realized James I, Charles I, Charles II and James II (as well as Mary II and Queen Anne) were all Monarchs of England, as well as Scotland. In fact, may Scots criticized their pro-England leanings. Likewise, do you refer to Elizabeth II as the German Queen, or Prince Charles as The Greco-Danish Prince of Wales? Or are they "predominated by Socittish" as well? 2)If you do wish to clean up, rather than just being critical, why not also search for sources? And how interesting that your demand for reliable sources only begins when someone other than the Present Queen is mentioned as having a possible claim. Why not ask for reliable sources saying that if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated, She would be Queen anyways? 3)I thought other Wikipedia articles can't be used to source this one? or does that rule only work when it backs up your stance, and is disregarded when it debunks what you are saying? 4)It had nothing to do with claiming descent from James II. Or James III. The claimant is the senior genealogical heir to James I ahead of the descendants of the Electress Sophia. And what source do you have for a "tiny minority viewpoint"? And the Carlists do NOT claim they are descended from the original Carlos. The current Carlists are more to do with ideology than descent. And likewise, Carlism carries nowhere near the same significance as it did 220 years ago. Yet there is still a modern claimant AND a Wikipedia article. Likewise, there are articles for the Flat Earth Society, Green party, and Creationism. Just because you disagree with something, or the majority don't hold that viewpoint do not by themselves make something non-notable. And the abundance of sources, even if "Amateur", "personal" or "fan", still debunk your claim that it is nonexistent or "tiny minority". 5)No. Again, there's a double standard. You have made some statements without any sources or references to back them up. Yet you are basing your argument upon these unsubstantiated claims. Yet you insist on reliable(according to you) sources to back up every sentence in the article. You should follow your own advice and find reliable sources for YOUR claims and "facts". Good luck finding a reliable source that says that I am "really clueless"... 6)No more a bald, unsubstantiated assertion than your statement that there are not. 7)Again, what about the people mentioned in 4)? 8)Please stop making personal attacks. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Say ludicrously silly things like that I'm a Scots Nationalist (on ridiculously thin grounds) or that I only focused on one article (which even a cursory look at my edit history would demonstrate this to be patently false), and I will laugh at you. Laughter is only a "personal attack" to the very thin skinned.
 * 2) For the rest, it has little or nothing to do with improving the article -- so, per WP:TALK, I'm refusing to discuss it further with you. That does not mean that I agree with all (or any) of it -- it just means that it's what I previously described as "pointless blather" -- endless discussions (and then meta-discussions on whether the discussions are substantiated, OR or "common sense") that have no likelihood of resulting in improvements to the article.

Nobody ever said that anybody here was a Scots Nationalist. You have a remarkable knack for completely misunderstanding what is being said. Laughter can be seen as a personal attack when combined with comments such as "get a clue" or "you really are clueless". I also notice that you are now "refusing to discuss it further with you" directly after I asked you to make your suggestions. Clearly you have no interest in attempting to improve/restructure this article, as your edit history shows. At no point have you made ANY comment along the lines of "this article needs x or y". All you have done is a)make personal attacks, b)make comments such as "ROFLMAO" and c)tag virtually every sentence in this article(and only this) as being OR or Unreliable except anything in the first paragraph which states how Elizabeth II is Queen by the Act of Settlement 1701, and would be anyway regardless of Edward VIII. ANYTHING which suggests that anyone else may have any sort of claim. contrary to the Act of Settlement is "amateur" "tiny minority" "self appointed" or "clueless". Had you made constructive criticism, you would likely not need to simply "refuse to discuss it further". 41.133.47.252 (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)