Talk:Jacobite succession

Mary II/III
, following your edit, I'd like to reinstate the hidden note. Here's my thinking: firstly, I don't think the IPs who keep replacing II with III have that in mind (and indeed just replacing II with III would still be inconsistent with the Mary Queen of Scots point of view). It's just a practical question of cutting down on unnecessary reverts. Secondly, I think that source is a rather idiosyncratic POV, and there might be a WP:DUE question in following it. It's always a bit murky claiming what is and isn't RS on a topic like Jacobite Succession but I haven't seen others making this point and certainly the cited source against Mary (Petrie) refers to her as II only. It may well be consistent with an ultra-legitimist Catholic POV but I don't think it's necessarily "Jacobite" to regard Elizabeth as a usurper. I'm just conscious of the repetitive mistake we get of thinking James II's sister should be in the counting, though. Would a wording that goes along the following work for you: "Do not delete "II" and replace with "III": The Jacobites did not recognise James II's sister as Mary II so did not figure in their reckoning." i.e. it adding III isn't necessarily excluded. DeCausa (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. DrKay (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Mary II was James II's daughter, not his sister. RGCorris (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Quite right - thanks! DeCausa (talk) 09:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

such a wordy table
"The changes aren't needed." Brevity, I take it, is not a virtue in matters of royalty.

In the second table, the heading and every entry after the first uses the phrase "his/her predecessor" because, I guess, we must assume that the reader is too stupid to recognize that the name of the parent or other relative matches the name at the head of the previous row, and too stupid to read the heading of the column. Yet somehow that's not needed in the first table? —Tamfang (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The relationship is very straightforeward in the first table. They're claimants as well, which is not the case in the second. Greater clarity is needed because of that. By the way this this removes a central part of the explanation of the succession. I thing we both have better things to do than mess around with this. can we just move on. DeCausa (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I moved some matter (because it applies to everyone in the list, not only the first), but what information did I remove? How many times, in how many ways, do we need to say that Henry was the last descendant of James II?  How many ways do we need to explain that, when descendants of James II died out, the claim passed to another line?
 * The table has a column titled "Relationship to predecessor in line of succession (primogeniture)". The entries in that column could reasonably consist only of "second cousin twice removed; brother; daughter; son; niece; son; son; son" (though I'd expand a bit on "cousin" and "niece").  Everything else in that column is redundant.  It need not say "of his/her predecessor", because that is in the heading.  It need not name the predecessor, because that is the previous line of the table, and I think most readers will understand the table as a sequence. —Tamfang (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You have to understand the editing history of this article. It's beeen plagued for years with WP:OR about who was or was not in the succession. Because it's not regulated by any extant law, it's prone for enthusiasts to argue about who is who. Since this specificity was added that has abated. Please let it be because you're opening a can of worms of drive by edits if you tinker with this. DeCausa (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Cardinal "of" York
I remain skeptical of the form "Henry, Cardinal of York". He was titular Duke of York, not Cardinal of York. (Most archbishops are also cardinals, but they are not "Cardinal of [diocese]"; anyway Henry was not a bishop, afaik.) He is very commonly called "Cardinal York", but this is the only place I've ever seen that of.

But, you know what? If you insist on it, you're welcome to it, along with all the redundant (albeit accurate) repetition that you love so much. You have succeeded in chasing me away from giving a shit. Unwatching now. —Tamfang (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Appreciated. (In my revert I linked to the Fitzwilliam Museum page entitled Henry, Cardinal of York. Googling would have shown you how common use of the the idiosyncratic title "Cardinal of York" is including in book titles, Britannica (2nd paragraph), other RS, news media, National Gallery of Art in DC, the website of the British Parliament etc and not just for Henry Stuart either but for Thomas Wolsey too eg this and Shakespeare!. It's pretty standard stuff even if it is unfamiliar to you - I'm sorry you're so uninformed. That's what Google's for if you care to use it.) DeCausa (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)