Talk:Alternative successions to the English and British Crown/Archive 2

Maps of succession
There are currently three boxes in this article outlining alternate successions to the crown. The Jacobite succession is well documented. There are plenty of books which refer to King Francis I (aka Duke Francis V of Modena). The case is not so clear, however, with the other two alternate successions. I know of no book, for example, which refers to "Theophilus II". The fact of a genealogical descent from either the Duke of Clarence or the Duchess of Suffolk is well-documented. But (unlike the Jacobite succession) there are not reliable sources which refer to these individuals by regnal names and titles, or to their families as "houses". The regnal numbers and house names should be removed from the Clarence and Brandon map boxes since they are only found on Wikipedia. Noel S McFerran (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Then kindly cite these books for these boxes' contents, per WP:V. And please do not remove a verify credibility tag from a citation to your own WP:SELFPUBlished website. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If Hrafn wishes to learn about Jacobitism, then he should read a few articles on the topic, rather than just asking questions on talk-pages. But here is a brief sample of books which list the heirs of the Stuarts as outlined in this article:
 * The Stuart Calendar (1888).
 * Alice Shield, Henry Stuart, Cardinal of York and His Times (1908).
 * Grant R. Francis, Scotland's Royal Line (1928).
 * Charles Petrie, The Jacobite Movement (1950).
 * Joe J. Heydecker, Kronprinz Rupprecht von Bayern (1953).
 * Kurt Sendtner,  Rupprecht von Wittelsbach (1954).
 * Theo Aronson, Kings over the Water (1979).
 * As for having a self-published website (www.jacobite.ca), I make no apologies for it. In my opinion it is the best way to provide access to good information to the largest number of people.  WP:SELFPUB specifically says that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."  I have repeatedly been interviewed by newspapers on the topic.  The Telegraph obituary last month for Princess Irmingard was largely cribbed from my website.  I have given public lectures numerous times.  My work has been published in one of the major Modenese history journals (although I prefer not to publish in print sources).  I have received funding support for my research from the University of Toronto and the major academic research funding body in Canada.  But Hrafn thinks that I am an "amateur".  I prefer to listen to the feedback I receive from my academic peers. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

As someone(me?) stated the only source for a tree stating Regnal Titles/Numbers from the Clarence Line is apparently at: http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/i-m/monarchtree.html

The Stanley line (with Titles/Numbers) can apparently be found at

http://www.wargs.com/essays/succession/henrician.html

Both lines can also be found at http://my.raex.com/~obsidian/Britpret.html, which appears to have reached the same conclusions independently. Unfortunately this last site has been deemed to no be a Reliable Source. The Clarence Line source appears to be Reliable, but differs from the Names/Titles mentioned in the article. The "Henrician" article may or may not be Reliable. I don't know enough about Wikipedia Policy to state anything on that one. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Does this really belong on WP?
I can see that a lot of work and interest has gone into this article. However I question if WP is really the place for it. I have sometimes said in AfD discussions that an encyclopedia is for facts, not for speculation about what might have been. Pardon my imperfect understanding of the issues involved since I am an American. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia summarizes what has been published elsewhere. In 2004 Channel 4 televised the documentary Britain's Real Monarch.  It is reasonable for Wikipedia to provide a summary of this and similar topics. Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The WP article encyclopedia starts out: "An encyclopedia (also spelled encyclopaedia or encyclopædia) is a type of reference work, a compendium holding a summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." There is nothing about "what has been published elsewhere." Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To me "reference work", "summary of information", and "branch of knowledge" imply real information about the real world. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How is the list of Jacobite pretenders not real information about the real world? Note that we have lists of kings and stewards of Gondor. The Jacobite line is surely more real than an imaginary kingdom. john k (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Top University mentions "widely recognised among the most important online resources for the topic"
http://www.utoronto.ca/stmikes/kelly/contact/mcferran.html 41.133.47.252 (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Say rather his own university homepage makes that "unduly selfserving" (per WP:SELFPUB) claim about himself. "...a political movement to restore the Stuarts and their heirs to the thrones of England and Scotland"? What candidates did they run in the most recent British and Scottish parliamentary elections? Talk about delusions of grandeur. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem unaware of the fact, Monarchs do not run in parliamentary elections. Certainly Elizabeth II was never elected Queen. And "Delusions of grandeur"? Do you have a Reliable Source for that, or are you just getting personal again. Regardless of your personal feelings(and it is very evident what your feelings are), the fact remains that there is still some sentiment to this very day. Instead of just being critical and making personal attacks, if you truly mean to improve the article, why not make suggestions as to a possible restructuring, or provide reliable sources that back up your bold claims? 41.133.47.252 (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In democracies (such as the UK), if your "political movement" (McFerran's words) wants change (like say, a new Monarch), the obvious way to go about it is to "run in parliamentary elections" -- that or lobby existing MPs (which I've seen no evidence these self-styled Jacobites are doing either). All else is just idle talk. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hrafn seems unwilling or unable to understand the very basis of Jacobitism: that we do not recognise the usurped authority of the very individual who calls those elections. Perhaps he could write about topics of which he has some knowledge. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Mcferran seems unwilling or unable to understand that the recognition of an obscure Canadian librarian, and his mates, is not required. Lacking any evidence whatsoever of political activity in advancement of this cause, calling it a "political movement" is a nonsense, and it is rendered far less relevant than (say) The Monster Raving Loony Party. If you are unwilling to work through Britain's democratic institutions, then your courses of action would seem to be limited to a coup or a revolution. If your group are unwilling to do any of these (or any other form of genuine political activism), then I don't see why anybody should care what you think. The world, and particularly the internet, is filled to the brim with pet theories -- Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for them. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether or not Jacobitism is a viable political movement (obviously it is not), seems irrelevant to anything to do with this article. Jacobitism is a hobby interest, like stamp-collecting, and has organizations devoted to it.  There is, for instance, the Royal Stuart Society, which apparently has the Duke of St Albans as its honorary head, along with a number of other prominent British aristocrats, and which notes the Jacobite succession given here.  Note that the society's journal has published articles by well-known historians like Antonia Fraser, Jeremy Black, Roger Lockyer, and Caroline Bingham.  Obviously such "Jacobites" as exist today have no real political program, but I'm not sure how that is relevant.  The Jacobite succession is, then, a subject which is of interest largely to hobbyists.  But we have tons of articles that are of interest largely to hobbyists.  I'm not sure I understand the source of Hrafn's particular animus for this particular group of hobbyists, whose basic position can be found elaborated upon frequently in reliable sources. john k (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but we do not cite these "hobbyists" as sources, nor give credence to their inflated self-descriptions, even in topics mainly of interest to them -- that was my relevant point. Where information is published by reputable historians, and particularly where is has been published in reputable publications, I have no problem with it. Information sourced from hobbyist publications or websites is, I think, of questionable reliability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that articles on subjects in philately and numismatics, say, do not rely at least in part on information from hobbyist sources? Of course, hobbyists in those fields are perhaps somewhat more likely to get their work published by mainstream publishing companies than genealogical hobbyists.  Nonetheless, as has been repeatedly noted, the Jacobite line is discussed in a wide variety of reputable sources - by Ruvigny, by the 1911 Britannica, by the Royal Stuart Society (which, as I noted above, has published the work of reputable scholars).  Now, when you get into the other lines, I think there's a lot more reason to be doubtful.  But the Jacobite line is about as well known as any genealogical subject, and has been discussed frequently in reputable sources.  I don't really get why you are so hung up on this.  This article isn't even really about the Jacobites - there are already separate articles on Jacobitism that deal with the Jacobite succession after 1807 to various degrees.  What is unique about this article is a rather confusing organization (listing genealogical lines rather than claimants) and inclusion of the much more dubious Clarence and (especially) Eleanor Brandon lines (while ignoring other claims that are just as plausible and often more historically important, like the claims of the descendants of Frances Brandon).  The Jacobites have been the subject of continuous interest since 1688, although obviously much less interest since 1807 than before.  The other lines, or at least their claims to the throne passed into total obscurity after 1603 (or even earlier in the case of the Clarence line), to the extent that we cannot even say for certain who the heir-general of Eleanor Brandon is.  It's that material that is objectionable and needs to be fixed or removed, not what is a very standard account of the Jacobite line. john k (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What I "really think" is that you have failed to note the distinction between articles on subjects "mainly of interest to" hobbyists, and articles about a hobby itself. This makes a significant difference in the relevance of the hobbyists' own opinions. I would also note that philately and numismatics (i) are not nearly such a tiny minority & (ii) do not have such fervency of POV ("we do not recognise the usurped authority") as baggage, combining to place that viewpoint into the further WP:FRINGE. It is all very well claiming that "the Jacobites have been the subject of continuous interest since 1688" -- but I would suggest that the number of those taking an interest in it in the last two centuries has diminished markedly. This is especially true given that the constitutional powers of monarchs has all-but evaporated in that time period, meaning that it is of little practical importance who happens to be the monarch. Whilst the 'Jacobite' line may have more prominence (slim as it may be) than the other lines, it also already has its own article -- so there would appear to be little point in repeating its information here. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and nominated this article for deletion: Articles for deletion/Alternate successions of the English crown. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I find this premature. Certain people who have contributed, and have not contributed for a while should be contacted and asked if they can improve/edit before nomination should have occurred. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Old idea of John K's that was ignored at the time
I have read through the Archives of this discussion page(and since you can't edit/post in there), thought I would bring up his basic idea here again. It was an idea for restructuring the article. The gist(not word-for-word) was more or less to reorganise the article to include the various claimants by time-frame, chronologically. The line would be highlighted by its relevance at the time there were actual claimants, and then possibly(though he seems to think not) link the claim of the day to the modern descendant(or descendants in the case of Anne Stanley :-)). Roughly it would go something like this....

1)Robert Curthose and William Clito

2)Stephen vs. Matilda, and Stephen vs. Henry II

3)Arthur of Brittany

4)Edmund Mortimer, Richard Duke of York, coronation of Edward IV, though he may be illegitimate

5)Death of Henry VI. Clarence legal heir by Act, but Henry Tudor, King of Portugal, and Duke of Buckingham all have claims

6)The end of Yorkist rule. Warwick, Margaret Pole, Earl of Huntingdon(leading to Earl of Loudon), the Courtenays and the De La Poles.

7)Edward VI's Device for the Succession and Lady Jane Grey

8)Death of Mary I. Elizabeth crowned, but Mary Queen of Scots, Countess of Lennox and Lord Darnley all possible senior heirs.

9)Death of Elizabeth I. James I succeeds, but Arbella Stewart and Anne Stanley(or is that Lord Beauchamp?) all possible senior heirs.

10)Glorious Revolution and Act of Settlement take effect but the "tiny fringe self-appointed amateur" Jacobites refuse to go away.

Looking through the archives, there also possible cases to be made for:

a)Monmouth and the Black Box.

b)that the events of 1936 did not go nearly as smoothly as claimed and The Duke of Kent may be King today, with Elizabeth yet another disinherited senior line.

Does anyone have any thoughts? Perhaps someone should begin building such an article in a sandbox? It would also have to be pointed out certain stuff, like the Curthose, De La Pole and Arbella Stewart lines going extinct, also when certain lines stopped actively claiming the throne, and who the modern claimants are/would be. In a couple of cases, different lines actually seem to merge! It would be nice to start work on such an idea in an article immediately but sadly someone like Hrafn will probably jump in and want to delete it before it can be properly assembled. Anyway, I think such an article sounds like a good idea(though I would like to keep the boxes and bloodlines). Does anyone have any thoughts? 41.133.47.252 (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly a good idea, but definitely the boxes and bloodlines should be kept. СЛУЖБА (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Gaps in Clarence Succession
Who ever came up with this line of succession didn't take into account deaths. Baron Montagu is listed as the next would be King after Clarence, which makes a period of 14 years without a king. correct me if I am wrong, but that would mean that someone else would have been made King. First Richard III, and then probably John de la Pole, followed by his brothers. Since the last  de la Pole, William died later the same year as Montagu, he would have never been king. Interestingly though, This line of succession(in part) could also come about if Edward IV's children were declared illegitimate, and the Yorkist claim was favored over the Lancaster/Beaufort/Tudor claim. This is essentially the Yorkist line of succession. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The whole thing is cited to a British Channel 4 webpage -- not exactly the most scholarly of sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite apart from Hrafn's remark, the original poster has posted what amounts to nonsense. The article states nothing of the kind. 137.158.153.203 (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That's the point isn't it? the article has missed out. It seems to me the whole idea of Britain's Real Monarch(the title should give you an idea of their commitment to accuracy), seems based on the idea of a happily ever after ending. The typical summation of the War of the Roses being, Henry Tudor defeating Richard III at Bosworth uniting the Houses of York and Lancaster by marrying Edward's IV daughter and uniting the claims. However, Bosworth was not the last battle in the War of the Roses, and the Yorkist had further claimants. Of course, to the Yorkists Edward IV was legitimate, but his children weren't. The real block to this line of succession was the Duke of Clarence's attainder, which if issued under a illegitimate King was invalid. I have really no idea who the Yorkist successor is, or would be, anyway, some scholarly source would be nice. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I came across this page and wondered exactly the same as the original poster. The panel on the right appears to be correct, with George Duke of Clarence being succeeded by Edward his son before passing to Henry Baron Montagu. But the line of descent in the main text approaches the topic backwards (as I imagine the television programme might have done), showing Michael Abney-Hastings' claim to the throne, not how the crown itself might have been handed down. I propose re-writing the list of successors in the main text to match the panel on the right, and indeed the other sections on the page.

I'll monitor this page for a few weeks and if no adverse comments appear I'll go ahead. I may even have a go at improving the paragraph heading this section - see Richard II and Improvements to the Clarence Succession below. Zipperdeedoodah (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarence Succession confilict
it should be noted that the claim of The clarences is invalid. The descendants of the current royal line are descendants of Henry VII, who's claim derived from his descent from John of Gaunt. Henry was married to Elizabeth of York, Edward's child, but he used his own claim for the throne. Thus, the arguement for the Clarences is void. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.16.140.212 (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.200.13 (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Needs improvement
At the risk of having several heated debates flare up again, I would like to bring to your attention that this page is by no means complete. For instance, Where are the scenarios illustrating the descendants of King Stephen or the putative King Louis? What about the continuations of the Lancastrian claim in the Wars of the Roses? Also worth a mention, I think, are the alternate successions that are now extinct, such as those of Robert Curthose, Arthur of Brittany, the de la Poles and Edward VIII. Once again, I apologise for stirring up partisan feeling.86.180.64.225 (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The Mary Tudor Claim
The article uses what appears to be a homemade website. Interesting, nut hardly WP:RS. But here's a WP:RS:. 41.133.0.18 (talk) 05:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I would be very interested to hear what others think of this. Assuming anyone reads this page. ,. 41.133.0.18 (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What's to say about it? I wouldn't be against adding it. —Tamfang (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Er. The article states "the legitimate and legal heir was Anne Stanley". The source is some fellow's personal website. It is unclear who the current heir-general of Anne Stanley even is. But three WP:RS] mention the late Lady Kinloss as being the Tudor claimant under Henry's will, and her younger sister succeeding her in her claims. So how exactly would this be added? 41.133.0.18 (talk) 09:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * After the Stanley succession, add a subsection to Descendants of Mary Tudor, Queen of France beginning: "If the marriage of Lady Catherine Grey is considered valid, the succession from her is as follows." —Tamfang (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The bloodline, and the List of would-have-been monarchs is done. The only problem is a "map of succession", something I have no idea how to do. If anyone is reading the would-have-been-monarchs(and relationships to the previous one) are as follows:


 * 1) Elizabeth I of England 1558-1603
 * 2) Edward Seymour, Viscount Beauchamp 1603-1612, descendant of Mary Tudor, Queen of France, by Third Succession Act
 * 3) Edward Seymour, Viscount Beauchamp* 1612-1618, son of above
 * 4) William Seymour, 2nd Duke of Somerset 1618-1660, brother of above
 * 5) William Seymour, 3rd Duke of Somerset 1660-1671, grandson of above
 * 6) Lady Elizabeth Seymour 1671-1697, sister of above
 * 7) Charles Bruce, 3rd Earl of Ailesbury 1697-1747, son of above
 * 8) James Brydges, 3rd Duke of Chandos 1747-1789, grandson of above
 * 9) Lady Anne Elizabeth Brydges 1789-1836, daughter of above
 * 10) Richard Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville, 2nd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos 1836-1861, son of above
 * 11) Richard Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville, 3rd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos 1861-1889, son of above
 * 12) Mary Morgan-Grenville, 11th Lady Kinloss 1889-1944, daughter of above
 * 13) Mary Freeman-Grenville, 12th Lady Kinloss 1944-2012, granddaughter of above
 * 14) Teresa Freeman-Grenville, 13th Lady Kinloss 2012-, daughter of above

41.133.0.18 (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Britian's Real Monarch
According to this article, the line of succession given in Britan's Real Monarchs excludes females from the throne, that is not true as you can see here: Of course it is true that at the time females were excluded, and one would think that would be how they would figure out who the heir is, but they didn't. Channel 4 did not do their research well but venerability and truth and all that. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It probably does not matter. I have just gone through the Clarence succession, adding the 'missing' sucessors to the list and using http://www.thepeerage.com to cross-reference, and I did not notice anything which would have had any permenent effect on the succession had women been allowed to inherit. No-one who actually succeeded died without a son but had daughters without a living male descendant, although it is possible that I missed a daughter of a dead elder brother somewhere along the line. Zipperdeedoodah (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Alternative successions of the English crown
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Alternative successions of the English crown's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "burke": From Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany:  From Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Harold Godwinson
Has any work been done on the descendants of Harold Godwinson, say what would have happened had William the Conqueror failed? Who would be king under Godwinson succession? Emperor001 (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Some people(such as Raex Chronologies) claim to have. However, they are missing some key points.

1)Only agnatic memebers of the Saxon Royal Family could become King.

2)The Crown was not heredirary, but elected. Following the death of Harold Godwinson, Edgar The Aethling was elected as King. However within weeks William was in control of London. Edgar made unsuccessful attempts to take the Crown, and was still alive in the 1120's. Following his death(date unknown), Henry I had been the reigning King for approximately 20-30 years. There was no Saxon Council to elect a new Saxon Pretender, and it is unknown who, if anybody, even could have been elected. Just like it is unclear if there even are any agnatic Saxon Royalty descendants today. 137.158.153.203 (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

What About the Conclusive Presumption?
In determining this "alternative" line of succession, what consideration has been given to the rule of English law that the child of a married woman is conclusively presumed to be the child of her husband, and therefore, legitimate? At the time, the rule was well-nigh conclusive, and it could not be rebutted merely by showing contrary facts. It is described as the strongest presumption known to the law. It is also the basis for the English statute which makes the having of sexual intercourse with the Queen or the wife of the heir apparent to the throne, high treason, because, obviously, such activity can force spurious offspring on the King or his heir, and destabilize the succession to the throne.John Paul Parks (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The post above holds two contradictory ideas at the same time. If legal doctrine says that being borne of a man's lawful wife is sufficient to be a man's "real" child even in the face of proof of being sired by some other male, the law cannot (without contradicting itself) turn around and find a need to remedy this doctrine's enabling of inheritance by people who are not sired by the men from whom they are inheriting. The law cannot take alarm at the fact that people who are not their predecessors' "real" children are inherting, because such people ARE inheriting only because the very law itself has decreed that they ARE the "real" children of their mothers' husbands. It defies logic, then, to criminalize adulterous acts that could lead to the Crown being inherited by a son of an adulterious Queen Consort on the grounds that such Heir is not "really" the son of the King, because if he IS the son of the Queen Consort then that fact alone makes him the "real" son of the King whether he was sired by the King or not.69.86.65.186 (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

The Plantagenet Succession
Aetheling1125 has added the Somerset line to the main page which, standing by itself, gives undue prominence to the Somerset 'claim'. Certainly it is of interest as being the senior Plantagenet male line to survive to this day, but I am not sure Charles Somerset could ever have been a claimant to the throne. When was his birth legitimized for a start? I have heard little about him before his marriage to Elizabeth Herbert in 1492 and it seems clear enough that Henry Tudor was regarded at the time as having the superior claim (Somerset's grandfather, Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset, was a younger brother to Henry's grandfather, the 1st Duke).

Should a new heading be created listing the various alternative successions from the time Henry Bolingbroke userped the throne in 1399, placing the Clarence and Somerset successions in context with (perhaps brief) discussion of other possible claimants such as the Kings of Portugal (through Catherine of Lancaster) and the de la Poles. Zipperdeedoodah (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

2014
The Somersets are descended from an illegitimate son of an illegitimate line. As such they have no claim to the throne. What is notable about the Somerset line is that it is the only 100% verifiable line that are male-line descendants of Henry II, with all other male Plantagenet lines, legitimate and illegitimate, believed to be extinct. But as claimants to a Plantagenet throne, the line descends through the senior female line, namely that of Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, ultimately leading to Simon Abney-Hastings. 137.158.153.203 (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The article claims a possible line of succession through Edmund Beaufort. Maybe, but please explain why any line coming down from Edmund Beaufort would be senior to the line coming down from his older brother John Beaufort Jr.. In fact it WAS that line, from John Jr., that prevailed: his succession-spot was passed to his legitimate daughter (no lines from legitimate sons surviving, apparently) Margaret Beaufort, and her succession-rights were passed to her son who became King Henry VII. Why would a line from Edmund have seniority over this line? (I'm not saying it didn't, I'm just saying you haven't included the EXPLANATION of why it didn't.) When John Jr. died the DUKEDOM went to his brother Edmund, not to his daughter Margaret, probably because the Dukedom may have been chartered with inheritance to "heirs male of thy body" or some similar and typical language. But the Monarchy doesn't go by male-only lines, so the passing of the Dukedom to brother Edmund rather than daughter Margaret meaningless. I don't think the article observes rules of fair play when it lists John Beaufort Sr. (1st Earl of Somerset) as bequeathing his place in the succession to Edmund Beaufort without ANY MENTION of the fact that you're leaving out (between John Sr. and Edmund) John Jr., who was Edmund's OLDER brother, so that you don't have to explain why John Jr.'s descendants don't have places in the succession senior to the descendants of Edmund. 69.86.65.186 (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

The Beaufort "claim" was added, totally unsourced, and should seriously be considered to be removed in its entirety. The Beauforts were john of Gaunt's illegitimate children. As such they have no claim whatsoever to the throne. Both Richard II and the Lancastrian Kings made this clear through Laws dictating what a Beaufort could or could not inherit. The Somerset line appears to be an illegitimate line descending from the Beauforts, so illegitimate twice over! The only noteworthy thing about the Somersets are that the male Somersets are the only 100% verifiable male-line Plantagenet descendants. The legitimate male-line Plantagenets died with Warwick in 1499, but there are still male-ling descendants of Henry II alive today. They just have no claim to the throne. As such, this section of the article should probably be removed. After all it is completely unsourced as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.179.212 (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The "Plantagenet" line also ignores the existence of Richard III's nephews Edward Earl of Warwick, John De La Pole, Earl of Lincoln. The whole point of the Yorkist succession was that the rightful succession after Richard II should go to the legitimate descendants of Lionel, Duke of Clarence and not the descendants of John of Gaunt. Certainly not illegitimate offspring. The poster also misunderstands the difference between someone being legitimated and someone being legitimised. This Somerset line in notable for being male-line descendants of Henry II, but they have no claim to the throne whatsoever. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * When John of Gaunt married Catherine Swynford, in the presence of Richard II, the 4 Beaufort offspring participated in a mantle ceremony that legitimized them. There are instances throughout history where marriage of the parents after their children were born served to make their offspring legitimate in the eyes of the Church, most notably of late in the principality of Monaco, which has a Roman Catholic ruler (see Princess Stéphanie of Monaco). Richard II also made the Beauforts legitimate in the eyes of the law and for inheritance purposes, and he put absolutely no restriction on the inheritance of the Crown by Gaunt's descendents. It was Gaunt's son by Blanche of Lancaster, Henry IV, who did that, his reasoning being that while he enjoyed a good relationship with his stepmother (who was even designated "the King's Mother" by him) and his half-siblings, perhaps that would not be the case with future generations. A usurper himself, he was thinking ahead to a possible Beaufort usurpation of his own line.


 * So while the Beauforts were indeed legitimate in both canon and civil law, the sole restriction on their right of inheritance was the right to inherit the Crown, a restriction placed upon them by their half-brother after Richard II was overthrown by him. That's the reason why Henry VII declared himself to be king by right of conquest, choosing not to display the fact that the original Beauforts were dodgy for the 1st 20 yrs or so of their lives, had been removed from the line of succession by his own Lancastrian great-great-uncle, and the lack of proof that Catherine of Valois had ever been married to Owen Tudor. By law, he had no right to claim the throne via descent from Edward III.


 * John Beaufort's was the senior Beaufort line, which does indeed bring it to Margaret Beaufort, who, like Frances Brandon after her, stepped aside in favor of her child. The issue of whether she had the right aside, her claim was really no better than the Yorkists simply because she was a female. She was skipped over for suo jure Duchess of Somerset in favor of the next male Beaufort in queue because females just did not inherit unless there was no alternative male to be found. That's why the likes of Margaret Beaufort, the de Bohun sisters, Blanche of Lancaster, and Anne Mowbray were married off as quickly as possible, to produce male heirs (and to stop some undesirable character from forcing a marriage). It wasn't Philippa who was considered next after her father Lionel, it was her son, Roger Mortimer. They didn't *do* queen regnants until Henry VIIIs acts of succession opened that door. So I can see the case for doing an alternative line of succession from the 2nd Edmund Beaufort. It's just an imaginary exercise, after all. ScarletRibbons (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

2018
The entry #9 should not be there as he predeceased his brother It is not in this line of succession https://www.abroadintheyard.com/real-king-of-england-dies-in-australia-true-royal-lineage-which-would-have-changed-british-history/ Pacomartin (talk)
 * 1) 9 Francis Hastings, first son of George

Generic Titles for Special-Case Content
Not only does the section "descendants of John of Gaunt" focus exclusively on descendants of his third marriage when there are others,the section "Absolute Primogeniture" mentions only the line of Edward VII's elder sister and not the numerous other points of departure on that basis. Elizabeth the "Winter Queen" was Charles I's elder sister,and she had children of both sexes older than Electress Sophia. Margaret Tudor was Henry VIII's elder sister. Edward IV had an elder sister with numerous living descendants. Adela of Blois was Henry I's elder sister and had sons older than King Stephen who have plenty of descendants. And so forth.

Either retitle the sections,or add content for the other instances of what the section titles refer to.--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Gaunt's offspring by Blanche of Lancaster would be Philippa, Queen of Portugal (Catholic descendents) & Henry IV, whose line died out. By Constance of Castile, Gaunt's daughter Catherine would also be barred as she married Henry of Castile (Catholic descendents). Even though the C of E began permitting remarriages of divorced persons in 2002, being Catholic or marrying one eliminates an heir from the line of succession in the UK. If they ever change that, I am sure it will not apply retroactively to the 1300s.


 * Princess Mary's eligible descendent would be the current Earl of Harewood, her grandson David, who is already in queue at #52. Must have been Catholicism going on, because it appears only his son Alexander, the 3rd of his 4 kids, follows him in the line.


 * Margaret Tudor *is* a progenitor of the current line of royals; Elizabeth Stuart was her great-great-great-granddaughter, so she is, too. (Margaret-->James V-->Mary Queen of Scots-->James I/VI--->Charles I-->Elizabeth)


 * Of Elizabeth's 13 children, 1 died in infancy, 3 died in childhood. Of the 9 left, 5 never married. Of those, Rupert of the Rhine did have offspring, but they were illegitimate. Of the remaining 4, who did marry, Elizabeth's daughter Henrietta Maria died 3 mos after her wedding.


 * So before Sophia (Elizabeth's 12th child) we have her older brothers, Charles & Edward. Edward was excluded from the line of succession because he converted to Catholicism, which let out his Catholic children & their descendents.


 * As far as Charles goes, not only was he persona non grata with the royals due to his behavior in the English Civil War, he divorced his 1st wife, & compounded that by marrying his 2nd wife bigamously before he was divorced, so their 13 children were considered illegitimate. Of the 4 children resulting from his valid 1st & 3rd marriages, 1 died in infancy, 1 in childhood, 1 had no children, & he was eventually succeeded (as Princess Palatine) by his eldest daughter, Elizabeth. Elizabeth converted to Catholicism when she married the widower of Charles Is daughter (Henrietta Maria, AKA Minette, whose descendents don't count as she was Catholic, too), Philippe d'Orleans, so Elizabeth's descendents don't count.


 * The reason Queen Anne chose Sophia was because Sophia & her children were Protestant & Anne's closest living relative, both of them being granddaughters of Charles I. All of Elizabeth's children except for Sophia were dead & all of Elizabeth's grandchildren, save Sophia's kids, were Catholics before Anne began looking for an heir. Sophia was really the only one left to pick. Hope this clarifies the *why Sophia?* question.


 * Edward IVs eldest sister Anne of Exeter had 1 surviving child, Anne St Leger, by her 2nd marriage. That Anne had 11 children & of her descendents, only 2 could be found in Canada (for the matrilineal DNA testing of Richard IIIs bones), neither of whom have children & are too old to have any, so dead end there.


 * Adela of Blois had siblings ahead of her who had children, if you want to go all the way back to the Conqueror. But since they were French, the descendents are likely to be Catholic, too. ScarletRibbons (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, Anne St Leger does have many living descendants (the present Duke of Rutland is probably her heir-male, as a direct male-line descendant of her son Thomas Manners). The two Canadians are her only known matrilineal descendants (the children of her daughter's daughter's daughter's ... daughter's daughter, which is what you need for mtDNA), but certainly not her only descendants. Biblioteqa (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Richard II and Improvements to the Clarence Succession
I added a comment in the Gaps in Clarence Succession section above and I may have a go at 'correcting' the line succession in the main text, but this section is made difficult to read by the number of different alternative successions that could have produced it:


 * Richard II

The described alternative succession starts off not with George Duke of Clarence but with Richard II's nominated heir Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March. Had Henry Bolingbroke not have usurped the throne and had Richard II still died in 1399 (edit: he died in 1400 --78.51.148.98 (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)) then Edmund would have been proclaimed king.

This alternative succession is short-lived for it re-unites with the historical crown in Edward IV.

I propose this is made into a separate section.


 * George Duke of Clarence

There are several alternative successions that give rise to either George Duke of Clarence or his son Edward succeeding the throne.
 * 1) The supposed illegitimacy of Edward IV, as described in the current article. George, not Edward, would have succeeded Henry VI.
 * 2) The Lancastrian parliament in 1470 attaindered Edward IV and declared George Duke of Clarence second in line to the throne after Edward of Westminster. Had the Lancastrians managed to retain control of the crown it is possible that George would have inherited, although it is hard to conceive they would have ever handed the crown to George whatever parliament might have said. But that is POV and I would never dream of putting it into a Wiki page.

I would like to improve the current introductory paragraph and change the lines of descent to start from George Duke of Clarence as brother to Edward IV rather than heir to Richard II. I will also try to find some more appropriate references to support the three justifications for George or his son Edward becoming king. Please comment if you think this is a good/bad idea. If no one objects I will have a go at making changes in a few weeks' time. --Zipperdeedoodah (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Titulus Regius proclaimed Edward IV's children illegitimate. George was dead by the time Edward IV died and his son Edward Earl of Warwick was attaindered, but Richard III nevertheless named Edward as his successor. Had Henry Tudor been unsuccessful in his claim for the English throne but Richard III died nevertheless in 1485 (or otherwise with no legitimate offspring) then Edward Earl of Warwick would have become king.

Just so there's no confusion
https://books.google.com/books?id=Pv9eAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA294&lpg=PA294&dq=%22was+roger+mortimer%22&source=bl&ots=IP_uBzWd5M&sig=D3690uuWuOzmke2cI-2s38hw8Po&hl=en&sa=X&ei=66pgVczcHsXP7gaMhYD4BA&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22was%20roger%20mortimer%22&f=false 197.88.60.176 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=d8VP0bIV-IwC&pg=PA176&lpg=PA176&dq=%22was+roger+mortimer%22&source=bl&ots=8Czq0pdpaz&sig=dyDZru8vNvzOpBPilYi_XWS8u6E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nqtgVdenOvOR7Aaf8IPIBA&ved=0CBsQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=%22was%20roger%20mortimer%22&f=false 197.88.60.176 (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is someone removing information that is Reliably Sourced? 197.88.60.176 (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Or, more concisely, https://books.google.com/books?id=Pv9eAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA294 and https://books.google.com/books?id=d8VP0bIV-IwC&pg=PA176 should also work. —Tamfang (talk) 06:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Lines excluded by alleged Illegitimacy
If this argument is used, surely everyone in the article is excluded, as they are all descended from William I, also known as William the Bastard. Bohun (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * William the Conqueror became King of England by conquest (and by supposed gift of Edward the Confessor), not by inheritance, so his parentage is quite irrelevant... AnonMoos (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Edmund of Langley was a cuckhold.
Richard of Conisburgh was not his son. Richard's real father was John Holland, Duke of Exeter. -- 19:39, 10 August 2018‎ 93.44.187.99


 * According to Common Law Presumption of paternity, that's only relevant if the nominal father went through a legal process to disavow the child, or parliament passed a "bastardy" law. AnonMoos (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Raugravine line
In the interest of completeness, arguments have been made in favor of the "Raugravine line". Here's an excerpt from one to which Guy Stair Sainty and William Addams Reitwiesner contributed in 2002. (needs a published RS):

The British way, when it comes to marriages of dynasts deemed unacceptable, is to hold aloft the British constitution and sanctimoniously assert that, unlike "the continent," British law tolerates no discrimination against a man's wife due to her status before marriage -- while staring down Mrs. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Jordan, Mrs. De Ameland, the Duchess of Inverness, Mrs. FitzGeorge and Her Grace the Duchess of Windsor.

They will buttress their point by citing precedents of marriages of Plantagenet princes to women of the court back in the mid-1400s, when the world was still flat and "dynastic equality" was embryonic in a feudal world wherein counts still rivaled kings for wealth and power.

Or they'll enumerate the wives of Henry VIII, whose desperation for a male heir drove him to repudiate the spiritual authority of Rome and who could then hardly be expected to abide any but the Crown's will as definitive on the matter of brides and succession rights.

Then they'll point to the marriage of the future King James II to Anne Hyde, omitting to mention that it took place nearly 350 years ago, in secrecy, abroad (only being re-celebrated publcily six weeks before the bride delivered her first child), and upon learning of the marriage her father, Edward Hyde, Charles II's prime minister, begged the King to allow him to escort his daughter to the scaffold and to place her head upon the block himself as due punishment for her presumption upon the blood royal. The marriage was as much of a scandal as that of the future Charles Frederick, Grand Duke of Baden to Louise Geyer von Geyersberg 130 years later -- and no one denies that was a morganatic marriage despite the fact that their son succeeded to his father's throne.

Ask why, in 1700 when the Act of Settlement resolved the succession dilemma occasioned by the childlessness of William III, Mary II and Anne, the Crown-eventual was settled upon the Electress Sophia and her Hanoverian heirs when, contrary to popular belief, she was not the nearest Protestant heir after Mary. The nearest was a 30 year-old unmarried morganaut living in Heidelberg, the Raugrave Karl Moritz (1670-1702).

If Parliament had preferred an English heir after Anne, they could still have found one closer than Electress Sophia in one of Karl Moritz's two nieces, Fredericka and Maria von Schomberg, who were 12 and eight years old respectively in 1700. Their dead mother was the Raugravine Karoline Elizabeth and their father was Meinrad, 3rd Duke of Schomberg and 1st Duke of Leinster (1641-1719). Their grandfather was a legend throughout Europe and a hero in England; the renown Field Marshal Friedrich Hermann, 1st Duke of Schomberg (1615-90), who had led William III's Dutch forces in victory to England in 1688, been awarded 100,000 pounds by Parliament which he gallantly offered to Britain's military forces, and died fighting for William, aged 74, at the Battle of the Boyne.

Schomberg had been a sought-after general for most of Europe's kings, in the process becoming immensely rich; Grandee and Count de Mértola in Portugal, Count de Coubert in France and leader of the French Huguenots in Germany after France's Edict of Nantes banished them thither. The Schombergs were distinguished nobles even before the Marshal's exploits, with branches in Saxony, the Palatinate, France (Ducs d'Halluin) and England...It would have been impossible to select better heirs to Britain's throne in 1700 than the Raugraves if the British had borne no prejudice against issue of unequal unions.

>...has hit the nail on the head - and the ghastly George I would never have reigned...What happened to this line; where are they now and who is the heir(ess)? Guy Stair Sainty

1. Palatine Elector Karl Ludwig m2. Luise von Degenfeld

2. Raugrafin Caroline m. Meinhard Schomberg Duke of Schomberg

3. Frederica Schomberg m. Robert Darcy 3 E Holdernesse

4. Robert Darcy 4 E Holdernesse m. Mary Doublet

5. Amelia Baroness Darcy m. Francis Osborne 5 D Leeds

6. George Osborne 6 D Leeds m. Charlotte Townshend

7. Charlotte Osborne m. Walter Sackville Lane-Fox

8. Sackville Lane-Fox Ld Conyers and Darcy m. Mary Curteis

9. Marcia Lane-Fox Bss Conyers m. Charles Pelham 4 E Yarborough

10. Sackville Pelham 5 E Yarborough m. Nancye Brocklehurst

11. Diana Pelham (b. 1920) m. Robert Miller

Some notes:

2. Only married Raugraf child. 3. Her younger sister married a Count Degenfeld, their children and descendants are the Degenfeld-Schombergs

By the way, the Elector Karl Ludwig married a third time, a few months before he died, to Elisabeth Hollaender von Bernau. She gave birth to their son, another Karl Ludwig, about eight months after the Elector died. Nobody seems to know what happened to this younger Karl Ludwig. See 51a".
 * L'Allemagne Dynastique*, Tome IV [1985], p. 270, at "Wittelsbach XXVI

William Addams Reitwiesner retrieved by FactStraight (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine doesn't seem to have divorced his first wife by any recognized process, Catholic or Protestant, but simply decided to do whatever he wanted inside his realm. This called into question the legitimacy of the children of his subsequent wives... AnonMoos (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * True. However the Elector issued an official declaration of divorce from his first wife that was not contested by the recognized church of his own realm, consistent with Cuius regio, eius religio. This is the same principle by which the future queen regnant, Elizabeth Tudor, was recognized as legitimate in England under the authority of Henry VIII, as founder of the Anglican Church. So the notion that the monarch could unilaterally terminate his own marriage and validate the dynastic rights of children of his second marriage was already known to the history and law of England by the time that the Act of Succession was adopted, establishing a new order of succession. But the obstacle without precedent that confounded English scholars was that under the German Princely Law (gemeines Fürstenrecht) of the Palatinate and Holy Roman Empire, the Raugraves and their descendants were born morganatic: the German marriage of the ancestor through which they descended from Charles I was valid only for civil purposes (legitimacy), not for dynastic purposes (succession). The easiest way for English constitutionalists to avoid entanglement in this legal dilemma was to ignore those whose claim was vitiated by it. Thus they simply excluded the Anglicized Schomberg nobles in favor of the German Hanover royals, whose claim was clear and untainted. FactStraight (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Most of the alternative lines on the article page are about how the heir would have been different if principles already in force at the time had been more strictly applied. Yours is about how if the new principle of Catholic exclusion was accepted but applied in a different way the heir would have been different, so it's actually similar to the "absolute primogeniture" section near the end of the page... AnonMoos (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * P.S. The laws of England have never recognized morganatic marriages; either you're 100% legitimate or 100% illegitimate. That was part of why Edward VIII had to resign if he wanted to marry Wallis Simpson, and also part of the reason why the Royal Marriages Act 1772 was passed... AnonMoos (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate the points you raise above and agree that they may well have been raised at the time, you are simply speculating about why this "alternative" line of succession did not prevail. Whereas the point of all of these alternatives is that some thought each of them credible, valid or desirable, yet those in a position to successfully influence the succession thought another alternative preferable. I happen to disagree that the Raugravine line is different in kind from other alternatives mentioned, especially the Swynford/House of Beaufort and Elizabeth Tudor choices, which also turned upon differing assessments of the validity of specific marriages -- and I was persuaded thus during online discussions and offline research about its merits compared to others. It's all moot, though: Long Live EIIR! As for the oft-alleged "no morganaticism in England" allegation, I concur that British law never uses that term: But no other concept explains how the wife of "HRH the Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor" was never allowed to officially share her husband's designation in the UK and Commonwealth by personal decision and letters patent of George VI. FactStraight (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * HRH honorific-snubbing is an effete amusement which distracts from the main point -- if there had been a marriage between Edward VIII as king and Wallis Simpson which was recognized and valid under UK law, then there would have been no legal way to keep the children of such a marriage from succeeding to the throne -- unless Parliament passed a Declaration of Bastardy... AnonMoos (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Dismissiveness doesn't alter the fact that Parliament decides what is and is not do-able in British law -- not "tradition". George VI wrote his Prime Minister requesting that a way be found to prevent Wallis Simpson from being deemed royal after her marriage to a British prince. The Government analyzed the matter and concluded that it was perfectly legal to withhold the style of "Royal Highness" from the wife of a British prince if the Sovereign wished to do so -- despite the fact that it had never been done before and was and is still widely alleged to be a violation of the principle that a wife shares in her husband's hereditary title and style by right as a matter of English common law. The option of a morganatic marriage was requested by Edward VIII, was NOT rejected summarily by the British prime minister who, instead, agreed to submit it along with the options of queening Wallis or Edward's abdication for joint consideration by the Commonwealth prime ministers. It was rejected not "because it could not be done", but simply because most preferred that Edward abdicate. Whether or not the Raugravine option is included or excluded from this article should depend upon considerations raised when the exclusion of the Catholic Stuarts by Parliament was afoot, not whether today's Wikipedia editors think they had the authority to ban a king from being king, but not a consort from being queen. All I was doing was putting on record a reminder based on arguments I'd seen debated among monarchical cognoscenti, that we should not lose sight of some of the more obscure ones that have been put forth -- regardless of any modern distaste they evoke. FactStraight (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not 100% opposed to including this line of succession in the article, but it's kind of a double-hypothetical, and so not fully equivalent to some of the single-hypothetical alternative lines already in the article... AnonMoos (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Mention lines from senior children of Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia
Hello,

I wonder if it is appropriate to mention in the article the alternate line of succession issued from Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia (daughter of James I of England) which is senior to the line from Sophia, Electress of Hanover, which ultimately rose to the throne as the House of Hanover. As article "" states, this line was seriously considered for accession after descendants of Charles I of England were discarded (bold emphasis is mine):

"'With the legitimate descendants of Charles I either childless (in the case of William III and Anne) or Roman Catholic, Parliament's choice was limited to the descendants of Elizabeth of Bohemia, the only other child of King James I not to have died in childhood. Elizabeth had borne nine children who reached adulthood, of whom Sophia was the youngest. In 1701, in favour of Sophia, Parliament passed over senior living representatives of lines which included Elizabeth Charlotte, Duchess of Orléans, Louis Otto, Prince of Salm and his sisters, Anne Henriette, Princess of Condé, Benedicta Henrietta, Duchess of Brunswick-Lüneburg, and Sophia's sister Louise Hollandine of the Palatinate.'"

The most senior line from Elizabeth of Bohemia would be the following, if I didn't make a mistake:


 * 1) James I of England (1526-1625)
 * 2) Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia (1596-1662), daughter of James I, married Frederick V, Elector Palatine
 * 3) Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine (1617-1680), son of Elizabeth
 * 4) Charles II, Elector Palatine (1651-1685), son of Charles Louis, childless
 * 5) Elizabeth Charlotte, Princess Palatine (1652-1722), daughter of Charles Louis, married Philippe I, Duke of Orléans
 * 6) Philippe II, Duke of Orléans (1674–1723), son of Elizabeth Charlotte
 * 7) Louis d'Orléans, Duke of Orléans (1703–1752), son of Philippe
 * 8) Louis Philippe I, Duke of Orléans (1725–1785), son of Louis
 * 9) Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans (1747–1793), son of Louis Philippe I
 * 10) King Louis Philippe of France (1777–1850), son of Louis Philippe II
 * 11) Ferdinand Philippe, Duke of Orléans (1810-1842), son of Louis Philippe
 * 12) Philippe, Count of Paris (1838-1894), son of Ferdinand
 * 13) Philippe, Duke of Orléans (1869–1926), son of Philippe, childless
 * 14) Amélie of Orléans (1865–1951), daughter of Philippe, Count of Paris, Queen of Portugal as wife of Carlos I; her 3 children died childless before her
 * 15) Hélène of Orléans (1871-1951), daughter of Philippe, Count of Paris, married Emanuele Filiberto, 2nd Duke of Aosta
 * 16) Amedeo, 3rd Duke of Aosta (1898-1942), son of Hélène
 * 17) Margherita, Archduchess of Austria-Este (born 1930), daughter of Amedeo, married Robert, Archduke of Austria-Este
 * Heir : Prince Lorenz of Belgium, Archduke of Austria-Este (born 1955), son of Margherita, married Princess Astrid of Belgium

See also Descendants of James I of England on the same topic. Place Clichy (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not really relevant. The Senior Line(those descended from Charles I) were deemed to be unsuitable because they were Roman Catholics. The Act of Succession thus "skipped over" all lines that were Roman Catholic, and instead settled the crown upon Sophia and her descendants, they being the Protestants who next in seniority after William III and II and Anne. As the line you have mentioned here were of course all Roman Catholics, they were explicitly "skipped over" by the Act of Settlement. They were neither the Senior Line nor the seniormost Protestant line. Thus there's no reason to include them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.141 (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * But for anyone interested, I've attempted to trace the succession for each person skipped over, at User:Tamfang/Stuart. —Tamfang (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Margherita of Savoy-Aosta is as far as I can tell the absolute primogeniture heir of both Edward IV of England and James II of Scotland. That line diverges from the list above in 1723 (Charlotte Aglae instead of her younger brother), recombines in 1821 as Louis Philippe inherits from his mother, diverges again in 1894 as Amelie is preferred to her younger brother (recombining on his death), and of course Margherita's firstborn daughter is next in line rather than her younger brother Archduke Lorenz. LE (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

absolute primogeniture, again
Friderike van der Osten is Queen Victoria's heir-subjunctive by absolute primogeniture. Only one other elder sister has been passed over since 1714: Augusta (1737–1813), duchess of Brunswick, sister of George III. Her heir-subjunctive appears to be Prince Alexander of Wied, born 1960, unless Augusta's first great-granddaughter Marie of Württemberg (1807–1865), countess of Neipperg, had issue not mentioned in Wikipedia. —Tamfang (talk) 11:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe I have now identified all the relevant starting points for divergent absolute-primogeniture lines in the "Absolute primogeniture" section. I believe the heirships of the eldest sister of Edward II and eldest daughter of Edward III to leave issue combine under the Counts of Bar and lead to Charles Eugene, 2nd Duke of Arenberg at which point we don't have a clear exclusion of there being any daughters older than the sons in the respective article.LE (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Margherita, Archduchess of Austria-Este appears to be the absolute-primogeniture heir of Edward IV of England and James II of Scotland.LE (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The Arenberg line appears to lead to Laszlo Szapary, an uncle of Princess Michael of Kent (the son (1910-1998) of Frigyes Szapary). His oldest child (or representative thereof) would be the current heir of Edward I by absolute primogeniture unless elder sisters to the traced line are verified. At this point I don't know the birthdates or order of his children Christina, Nikolaus, and Peter. LE (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Dates of Hypothetical reigns
Shouldn't the article contain dates for the various reigns of the hypothetical monarchs? For example, Edmund Mortimer's "reign" started with the death of Richard II in 1400 and ended with his death in 1425. Emperor001 (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This chart gives some dates for what it calls the "Henrican succession" (adherence to the will of Henry VIII). http://www.wargs.com/essays/succession/henrician.html Emperor001 (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)