Talk:Line of succession to the British throne/Archive 12

View Extended Line Option
Why not have a view extended line tab in blue like on other articles. Proceeding unsigned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.111.29 (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds awesome. What a great idea. That way, anyone who wants to display the entire line of succession can simply click on the blue tab and then have the whole list. Then they can close the whole list if they so wish. This option is a brilliant compromise and would work very well. I think there would be few objections to this compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.111.29 (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is, the longer list wasn't arbitrarily removed. The longer list was removed because many editors felt that it was seriously in conflict with many areas of WP policy.  Those same problems exist whether the longer list is on the main page or a sub-tab.  Kevin (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Also, I like how that anon proposed the idea, and then the same IP address added "What a great idea". Smooth.. :-) Mlm42 (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Pity. I thought it was an interesting resource. Ah well, WP is not for everything.Ordinary Person (talk) 04:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's why Lord Jimbo gave unto us the archives...Ordinary Person (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Guinness Family
Surely mention should be made to notable people who are inr in the line of succession, like Patrick Guinness and Jasmine Guinness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.144.168 (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * See past discussions. So he's a (distant) relative to the Queen. That's actually mentioned on his bio page, fine - although I'd like to see a reference for that other than the link to this article. As far as the line of succession is concerned, that some noteable person is number 2000-something on the list - i.e., a candidate for the throne if several hundred major desasters wipe out major portions of British society - isn't noteable IMHO. -- DevSolar (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Obama, Bush 42 and 44, and Carter are all in line to the throne, as were at least 17 other U. S. presidents. TFD (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Being descended from an English monarch is not enough to be in line. You have to be descended from Electress Sophia (George I's mother). The monarchs descended from her are: George I-VI, William IV, Victoria, Edward VII & VIII, Elizabeth II. DBD 15:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong, in order to be in line, one must be an heir to, not descendant of, Sophia.  Had she died without issue the throne would have passed to other heirs.  In the same sense if anyone dies, their property passes to their children, but if they have no children, it passes to other heirs according to inheritance law.  Note too that His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 amends the 1701 Act, by excluding the children of Edward VIII from the succession, although that rule is now moot.  TFD (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm quite sure that the right to succeed is limited to "Princess Sophia and the heirs of her body", meaning Sophia and her descendants. It cannot possibly pass to any person who is not descended from her so Obama and his predecessors have never been in the line of succession. Besides, a person could not succeed to the British throne if he or she is not descended at least from James I and VI, the first king of both England and Scotland. Surtsicna (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It differs from a title that becomes extinct when the last heir to the body dies. The throne would pass to the next heir, unless another act of settlement chose someone else as monarch.  The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, etc. would not pass into extinction.  TFD (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course the countries would not go extinct! The throne would simply become vacant. Under current legislation, it would certainly not pass to anyone because law forbids the succession of a person who is not a legitimate, non-Catholic descendant of Sophia. Anyway, I agree that notable people should be mentioned on this page. Surtsicna (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for your legal opinion? TFD (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got as many as you need. The one used by this article itself says: "The Act of Settlement makes no provisions for the Succession beyond the heir of the body of Electress Sophia. This means that the number of persons eligible to succeed to the British Throne under the terms of the Act of Settlement is finite, and limited to those persons who are descended from Electress Sophia in a manner which qualifies them to become the heir of her body." Surtsicna (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable sources, e.g., something written in a constitutional law book? TFD (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you wish to dispute the reliability of the source used in this article, be my guest. Until then, provide a source for your own claim - that the British throne can pass to someone who is not heir of the body of the Electress. I've already provided one and it's reliable enough to be included in the article for years. Surtsicna (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your source has already been questioned at RSN here and at other places with the result that the list in this article is limited to about 40 heirs. If you wish to change consensus, the onus is on you to provide reliable sources.  TFD (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Although the issue is of course irrelevant, the notion that the onus is on Surtsicna here to provide sources is bizzarre. While I am entirely ready to agree that the question technically remains open until the matter is settled by a court of law or discussed in an authoritative legal textbook, it would be perverse to assume that 'heirs of the body' has anything other than its usual meaning here. The notion that it means something different may be interesting, but it is purest speculation; and what onus there is (maybe none, since the issue is irrelevant to the article and talk-page debates don't matter) lies squarely with TFD who is advancing this novel interpretation. Doops | talk 13:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How about the Act of Settlement itself? Section I of the Act says that "the Crown and Regall Government of the said Kingdoms of England France and Ireland and of the Dominions thereunto belonging with the Royall State and Dignity of the said Realms and all Honours Stiles Titles Regalities Prerogatives Powers Jurisdictions and Authorities to the same belonging and appertaining shall be remain and continue to the said most Excellent Princess Sophia and the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants". This quite clearly says that only the heirs of the body - descendants - of Sophia can succeed. Were such heirs to fail, the throne would become vacant, as the Convention declared it to be after the flight of James II, and as in that situation, a Convention of "the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commoners" would then legislate as to who should become King or Queen. The new monarch would give the Royal Assent and the Act of the Convention would become law, just as in 1688. Opera hat (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"Were such heirs to fail, the throne would become vacant, as the Convention declared it to be after the flight of James II, and as in that situation, a Convention of 'the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commoners' would then legislate as to who should become King or Queen." Do you have a source for that? In any case, the scenario here is so far-fetched as to be virtually meaningless. PatGallacher (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, of course it is. I don't know why anyone's even talking about what might happen if Sophia's descendants were to die out. As there is no source for what would happen it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. Opera hat (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We do not look at primary sources and interpret them. There are often disputes over the intepretation of laws, which is evidenced by the attention paid to descisions of the Law Lords and in the U.S., the Supreme Court.  However, English constitutional law is a subject of study and it should be possible to find reliable sources that explain how the law should be interpreted.  Whether or not it is unlikely that the descendants of Sophia would die out is irrelevant to the line of succession.  TFD (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Identifying notable people who are in the line of succession may be less straightforward than it seems at first sight, since sometimes we cannot be sure if they are excluded on religious grounds, or if there was a dodgy marriage at some point along the line, and some claims may be based on dubious family legends. However the point I was driving at here is that this assumes that there is a clearly-defined finite line of succession, consisting of the Protestant descendants of Sophia of Hanover, in my view a less straightforward issue than it might seem at first sight. PatGallacher (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Gosh... guys, get a life. The line of succession is of no importance beyond determining who's heir presumptive. From the standpoint of the British throne, it simply doesn't matter if someone could be fabricated to be number foo-thousand-and-so-and-so on the list, because that's as noteworthy as some piece of rock in the asteroid belt perhaps hitting earth in a million years or so. The issue was whether someone like the Patrick Guinness should be mentioned here. Since there is no source for him being 2259th in the list (except the old long list here), this is reduced to "should some remote descendent of the Electress be mentioned here if he's somewhat noteworthy himself", to which I voiced my opinion in the negative. And you pounce on some minute details, gleefully taking the opportunity of flaunting some more of your leet genealogy skills. Again: Is Mr. Guinness a distant descendent of Electress Sophia, Victoria the Wicked or Vlad III The Impaler? It doesn't matter to this article, because while he might consider his ancestors noteworthy, as a descendant he is not. -- DevSolar (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is of importance beyond determining who is the heir-presumptive: the Counsellors of State are the first four people in line over twenty-one. In the early 'eighties the fourth person in line over twenty-one was Princess Margaret at around eighth or ninth, and in the 'forties it was Princess Arthur of Connaught who was eleventh or twelfth. Opera hat (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I missed that one, thanks for correcting me. However, this doesn't change anything for the sake of the argument. Talking about someone being "in the line" gets ridiculous somewhere in the higher two-digit numbers, because it doesn't have any effect one way or another, neither for the British monarchy, nor for the person. You cease "being in the line" and end up simply being a relative of someone noteable. Who cares if Wesley Berger has children, and whether they're baptized catholics or not? It is of no consequence. -- DevSolar (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Nicholson Baker has it right, "[T]here are quires, reams, bales of controversy over what constitutes notability in Wikipedia: nobody will ever sort it out." http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/mar/20/the-charms-of-wikipedia/?page=2 Patrick Guinness only merits mention on this list if it extends to him, no more than Catherine Oxenberg, at "number 1652" or Karin Vogel "number 2511."Bagbyb210 (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * it kind of sounds like what happened in Lord of the Rings, where the line of heirs to the king of Gondor was 'thought' to be extinct. But there's always a possibility that someone could step out of the badlands and 'claim' to be 4th in line, etc.  The purpose of the documentation of known heirs is self-defining - it is inherently the 'known' heirs.  While it is intriguing as a thought-experiment to walk through the logical possibliity of running out of 'known' heirs.Cander0000 (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Guardian edits & "proper" sources
Can someone please explain to me why my sources are considered "not good enough"? One was a list provided to the author of the article at the time BY THE PALACE. So I feel like they would know what they were talking about. The author doesn't mention Benjamin and Emily Lascelles, Mark or Martin Lascelles, the Earl of St. Andrews or his brother--people who are omitted by illegitimacy, conversion to or marriage to Catholics--and includes all the legitimate Lascelles grandchildren. So, really...what's the issue here? It's original research to have Daily Gazette information about whether or not certain members received permission under the Royal Marriages Act, but apparently it's also "not good enough" to provide articles from one of the major papers in the UK, including one from a couple years about Viscount Lascelles, mentioning his place in line? Or that his birth was noted in the Times mentioning the fact that he was in the line of succession? Or that his father's marriage was mentioned in Time Magazine and about his time as a POW reported by the BBC, both including the fact that he was in the line of succession? Or the fact that, until the Duke of Gloucester's three granddaughters were added, the Earl of Harewood was listed there; along with Princess Alexandra's descendants--is an older version of the Royal Family's website considered not good enough or original research despite the fact that it's from the official website? Can we not use the book authorized by the palace for that TV documentary that someone mentioned in another thread? Or Marlene Eilers Konig's book, for example, with regard to whether or not certain excluded people were born out of wedlock? Will the list on the BRF website be considered not good enough when there is a delay in updating it?

So, I guess the point I am trying to make here, is, what is considered a valid source? Why are certain sources considered "not good enough" and who gets to decide whether or not a source is good enough? Morhange (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, most obviously thse sources are about 10 years old, they do not provide the complete line of succession down to some point, and it's not clear that they are based on serious research. PatGallacher (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of questions there; maybe it would be easier if you asked about a specific change you'd like to make to the article? I think it's important to understand that sources are not simply classified into two camps: reliable and not reliable. One also has to consider exactly what you are using the source for. Are you using the source to justify someone's exact position in the line, or simply as evidence that they are in the line at all? They are different questions, and I think your source may be good for one question but not good for the other (due to the synthesis required). Mlm42 (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For example, what is your source that George Lascelles is number 46? Because neither of the sources you cite list him as that.. one says he's number 37 and the other says he's number 40. Mlm42 (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't feel like logging in while I'm on my phone, so excuse the typos The numbers are different because of births and deaths. I don't get how this is so difficult to understand. It took the official site several months to add the younger Gloucester and Kent grandchildren; Albert wasn't listed until some time Leopold was born. The list changes because people are born, others die, others marry Catholics, are baptised Catholics or convert. What happens when William has a child and it takes a few days for the site to update? It's fairly obvious from the archived version of the site that the list changes. The Earl of Harewood was 40th a couple years ago; now he's several places lower. It's impossible to source the exact position all the time for every person on this list because it changes with each birth/death. We follow the rules given by the royal site. The Earl of Harewood follows the Kent line. He was listed by the official site until recent births knocked him lower. It doesn't mean he's suddenly no longer in line, just that the official site lists the first 40 people--he's on the list. Can you provide any proof that he isn't? 174.252.56.216 (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC) (Morhange)
 * Well you can't prove a negative for a start,
 * I don't like the position that been taken ..but I do understand the reasons. Those of us that have an interest in these matters all know that the next in line are the Lascelles but the problem is that there is no "reliable" source.
 * It does seem rather strange though. As things stand at the moment, Should William and Kate have a child everyone will know that it will follow William in the line of succession AS SOON AS IT IS BORN. However we will not be able to update this article until it's actualy published in a "reliable" source that the child is 3rd in line.
 * So eventualy a reliable source mentions that the child is 3rd in line but fails to mention Harry is now 4th and Andrew is now 5th.
 * Presumably all those below 3rd will have to be deleted until such time as a reliable source lists them in their correct position. to do otherwise is either original research or synthesis.......TOTALY BONKERS!!!! Lewisdl (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

In that case I think we would have to exercies a degree of common sense. Also, when William and Kate have their first sprog there will probably be umpteen nespaper sources that she is 3rd in line. However there seems to be a consensus that going beyond the 3 sources we have accepted as reliable raises too many problems. PatGallacher (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * But there's the problem Pat. What people consider "common sense" varies enormously. To me and many others that have an interest in the list it seems common sense to extend the list to include the Lascelles. Everyone who has an interest in the subject knows they are next. To others though its totally wrong to list ANY information which doesnt have a reliable source. Who is going to decide?
 * As I said earlier TOTALY BONKERS!!!! Lewisdl (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * When this issue was brought to the BLP noticeboard, consensus was that the list needed to be shortened to essentially what was on the monarchy's website. From these discussions, one can readily identify several reasons for the decision: synthesis, original research, BLP concerns, listing non-notable people, etc. To try and shoot holes in any one point to fight this decision seems futile.. because regardless of the wording of any one policy, it appears the Wikipedia community doesn't want the extended list here.


 * As Jimbo said, it's a tough call because there are several editors who put a lot of work into this list, and believe strongly it should remain in its extended form. While I sympathize with this point of view (because I find it curiously interesting to see monarchs of other countries listed in the British line of succession), one must accept the fact that not all information is appropriate for Wikipedia - especially when it's information about living people. Mlm42 (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that was consensus at all. Consensus was that the list needed to be shortened to what could be sourced to reliable sources.  Of course it's going to be hard to find sources that say that the Earl of Harewood is 46th in the line of succession.  Who cares?  There are plenty of sources that say that he is in the line of succession after Princess Alexandra, her descendants, and the Earl's own mother.  Since Alexandra's most junior descendant is 45th in line, and the earl's mother has been dead for over 45 years, that means that it is a simple arithmetic calculation that he is 46th in line.  No original research need be done - there are tons of older sources which put him in the line of succession after Alexandra and her children. john k (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliable Sources....Again
I think most people reluctantly accept that its virtually impossible to find a verifiable source that lists the 7th Earl of Harewood as " 46th" in line to the throne. Yet there must be hundreds of verifiable publications which state that he is indeed in line to the throne. Would it not therefore be possible to have a new section under the succicnt line of succession called "others in line of succession" and list him there without any mention of his actual position. along with the reference. Of course that would have to apply to people like King Harald V of Norway, Queen Beatrix, Etc. Etc. As long as a verifiable source shows they are in the line of succession they can be listed in this section. I can't see how that would contravene Wikipedias rules on Original Research or Synthesis. Lewisdl (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A few problems there. First, we would not to ensure that the sources were reliable for the topic.  Few sources are, and they inevitably stop around 40.  Also, assuming we accepted your criteria, we would have thousands of entries and would have to explain why we chose to include some and exclude others.  There are also Alternative successions of the English crown.  TFD (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Its interesting that one of the references used on that site i.e. Descendants of Anne, Countess of Castlehaven is in fact William Adams Reitwiesner's site !!! Surely if we cant use his work on this page we cant use his work on that page either. Lewisdl (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would assume so. The reason it has been so rigidly applied here is because this list, being a list of living people, comes under the policy described at Biographies of living persons. WP:BLP says articles covering living people must adhere strictly to Wikipedia's core policies, including verifiability. Does that imply that articles on dead people need not adhere so strictly to these policies? Opera hat (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It is notable that he is a grandson of George V. If you dig up e.g. an old copy of Whitaker's Almanack (which some big libraries will still have) you might be able to say that he was 6th in line at the time he was born. I'm not convinced that we need to go any further than this. PatGallacher (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thats my point Pat. I think all we need is a verifiable source to say that he was in the line of succesion as my suggestion for this section doesn't propose to say what position any one person actualy is.Lewisdl (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, there are quite a few sources that indicate that at least the Earl of Harewood and Viscount Lascelles are in line (including a former version of the official site including both, as well as older versions of Debretts) as well as the Fifes & Norwegians. I don't see why it would be a problem to include the female-line descendants of George V, or Edward VII.
 * I'm sure they exist but we will probabaly need The title, publication date, page number, and probably ISBN number to satisfy those in control of this page. Lewisdl (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not a question of control as much as it is scholarly caution. The list could be extended to the heirs of Edward VII without encountering POV or BLP problems. Those excluded from the list down to that point are excluded by the Royal Family web site. No strict or even fanciful interpretations of the Act of Settlement needed. the Romanian Royal family represents the next (and very sticky) problem. (This was so much easier when Henry VIII had a will.)Bagbyb210 (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree, although it should be noted that Princess Ragnhild's children have all married Catholics, and thus present potential problems. john k (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

While it is highly likely that any living person who was ever listed in an old edtion of Whitaker's Almanack as being in the line of succession still is, we cannot be sure, something might have happened e.g. they might have married a Catholic. More seriously, the list of other people in the line of succession will become very arbitrary. PatGallacher (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there are reliable sources about the marriages of all these individuals, as far as I'm aware, at least for descendants of Edward VII. john k (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Why has George Lascelles and the Others in line section been removed?
Can the person who removed George Lascelles and the Others in line section please explain why it has been removed. This article is about the Line of Succession. it does not end at the 45th person. Whilst I accept that there are no reliable sources to say that George Lascelles is $^th in line there are countless that show that he is in line and one was provided. This is not Synthesis or Original research so why has he been removed and why indeed has the whole section been deleted. I suspected this would happen which is why I didn't list more people under this section. So an explanation would be welcome. Lewisdl (talk) 10:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I will come back to this in more detail, but I doubt if there are "countless" sources. What was the source which was provided? PatGallacher (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. Ok There may not be countless but there are Numerous (probaly in the hundreds if not thousands) of sources which show that George Lascelles is in the line of succession. There is not one that shows that he has been removed. Yet this is not good enough "because something might have happened to remove him from the line of succession like marrying a catholic." If we are not going to allow entries because "something might have happened" we might as well delete the whole of wikipedia!!!!!!!!! Lewisdl (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If there are hundreds of sources, why can't you come up with a single one them? PatGallacher (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I did, Whitakers Almanac for 2000Lewisdl (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We can't include everybody here so we have to cut it off somewhere. Wikipedia is under no obligation to promote the dilusions of grandeur of any particular person who fancies themselves inheriting a throne after a nuclear war. Hans Adler 15:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How about cutting it off at the point where there is no reliable source saying that person is in line? As I understood it, the problem with the old list was that people's presence on the line was deduced from known facts about their ancestry. If there is a published source (e.g. an older version of Whitaker's) explicitly saying someone was in line, I don't see the problem with their inclusion. This wouldn't result in a massive increase either, as the further back one's source, the more people in that source are likely now to be dead. I wouldn't anticipate this change resulting in an expansion even as far as the King of Norway. Opera hat (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I don't think anyone was disputing that there are a significant number of relatively obscure people of royal descent who were included in the line of succession in older versions of Whitaker's Almanack but have been excluded by recent births. Should we mention them in this article? Not a fundamental problem, but on balance I would say probably not, for these reasons:

1. Although unlikely, we cannot entirely rule out the possibility that in some cases something might have happened to rule them out e.g. marrying a Catholic or doubts arisen about their parents' marriage.

2. The sources are obscure, versions of Whitaker's from a few decades back, although a few libraries have them.

3. We would end up with an incoherent jumble of names in roughly places 50 to 80 in the line of succession, without ordering or the claim that this is exclusive, just an aribtrary cut-off point. PatGallacher (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * '' we cannot entirely rule out the possibility that in some cases something might have happened to rule them out e.g. marrying a Catholic or doubts arisen about their parents' marriage

Er, excuse me for perhaps misunderstanding you, but would that not be original research? If we have sources saying someone is in line, yet none that say they aren't in line, only that the official site choses to cut off at 40 people, where is the exact source saying they're removed? When/if Prince William has a child, the list will change, and Princess Alexandra will move down a spot, as will her descendants, but that doesn't mean they are no longer in line. It seems like original research to omit someone on the basis of MAYBE they married a Catholic, MAYBE they converted, MAYBE this, MAYBE that. So we can't add a person who was listed at the time of his birth, marriage, his eldest son's birth, etc, as being in line, because maybe they've converted or married a Catholic? If we need sources to add someone, then surely we need sources to omit them based on some hypothesis that maybe it happened, maybe it didn't. Morhange (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Original research" is totally OK for informing editorial decisions such as where to place the cut-off in a list. Nobody proposed making the article say that maybe something like this happened, so there is no problem. Are you arguing that the people you want to include should be inserted within the range of those we are currently including? Or did you miss that for policy-related reasons this list has been cut down from an attempt to give a complete list of thousands of people to just the first few dozen? Hans Adler 00:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Lewisdl requested that I explain my removal of number 46.. my edit summary linked to the talk page section immediately above, which answers this question. In other words, the reason I removed it was because the name was added to the numbered list, and hence gave him a number - which isn't backed up by a reliable (enough) source.

On the other hand, as I have said a few times on this talk page, that I see no reason why we shouldn't allow a well-referenced section, written in prose, about other notable members in the line of succession (such as George Lascelles).. we just aren't allowed to state their exact number in line. Mlm42 (talk) 05:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but that is incorrect. George Lascelles was shown in a section called "others in line to the throne" (or something similar) His position wasn't numbered.
 * The fact that he is in line was supported by a Verifiable reference. As far as I can deduce Wikipedia's policies on Original reseach, Biographies of living people, or Synthesis haven't been breached. Yet still the entry was deleted. So which specific wikipedia policies did it breach? Lewisdl (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lewisdl here. If an older source (and back issues of Whitaker's Almanac are hardly "obscure") shows that someone was in line, then that's enough to include them. If births, marriages and deaths since publication mean that their number would no longer be correct, then no number should be given. Opera hat (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about this recent edit. But apparently you were talking about something older.. and as you could have deduced from my comment, I agree that such information should be allowed, as long as it doesn't state their exact position in line. Mlm42 (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hadn't seen that edit and it's definitely not my work. I have no intention of giving George Lascelles an exact position (unless of course someday we find a reliable source) but it seems that Mlm42 and I are in agreement Lewisdl (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A 10 year old almanac is not a RS for him being on the page. The page is about a Line of Succession 1,2,3,4,...,40,41,42. No doubt there is an almanac reference somewhere that puts the Queen of Denmark on the list too, and many others from the old list could similarly be added to the section. How are you going to fix the problem that no one really knows past a particular number whether X is on or off the list, and ieven if you could how are you proposing to organize the list alphabetically? John lilburne (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry John but I can't find anything on Wikipedia that says a 10 year old reference book can't be used as a reliable source. Where do you draw the line and more importantly who draws it. It clearly shows he is in the line of succession and there is no evidence in existence to show that he is not. Yes the article is about the line of succession, but it doesnt have to have everyone numbered. What may me important to some (not to me particularly) is a persons position relative to another. For example if reliable and verifiable sources could be found that show Gerald Lascelles in the line of succession after his brother he can be listed below him. There need be no reference to any of their children legitimate or otherwise. (again of course unless reliable verifiable sources could be found for their inclusion or omission.)Lewisdl (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As I've said multiple times, such information should be written in prose. And even then, discrection must be used.. how important / relevant / encyclopedic is it that these other people are in the line? After all, as we should all know, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.. if we respect that policy, then a prose section should be acceptable. Mlm42 (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Im not sure how being written in prose is any better? are you suggesting that something like "NAME OF PERSON is in the line of sucession" is what is needed? Lewisdl (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Any better than what? The only other choice is to put them in a list, and this doesn't seem appropriate, given all the discussions on this talk page (unless you find a way to overturn the decision to cut down the list). If the information is encyclopedic, then one should be able to write sentences, in prose, about why it's interesting or important that the people are in the line. If you don't think it's interesting or important enough to have actual sentences, then I don't see how one can justify that the information is encyclopedic anyway.. but maybe that's just my opinion. Mlm42 (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Better than just just listing them. I'm not suggesting that the article becomes as comprehensive as it was. I think that would be impossible given that each entry must be supported by a reliable and verifiable source to show that they are in line. I personally think that it is perfectly possible to find reliable and verifiable sources that show the descendents of the Princess Mary as being in line. IMHO I think that is probably a sensible place to stop listing people. Below that its likely that people in line will become less and less notable and although many of may be certain of their position and the fact that they are in line I doubt whether there will be many who are prepared to find reliable and verifiable sources to back up the claims. Lewisdl (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points. Firstly, I don't understand the arguments against putting Lord Harewood next. There are plenty of sources which show that he is next after Zenouska Mowatt, even if they don't say he is 46th in the line of succession. The fact that such sources are old is irrelevant - if we have a reliable source saying someone is in the line of succession, we should consider them to be in line unless there are other reliable sources that explain that that person has been removed from the line of succession. It would be perfectly manageable to get up to the Crown Prince of Norway - everyone between Zenouska Mowatt and him is listed directly or indirectly in this Guardian article from 2002, and there haven't been any births or deaths in that part of the list since then. Everyone up through the Duke of Fife is actually named individually. Secondly, would prose descriptions of the line of succession after the point it is listed actually be accepted? I'm very dubious about spending time writing them without knowing whether or not someone will just go ahead and delete them. john k (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The only birth, as far as I can remember, was Tallulah Grace Lascelles (Emily Lascelles' children don't count) in 2005, daughter of Jeremy, but other than that, no other births or deaths. If we're not going to include the Fifes or Norwegians, we should at least list the rest of George V's descendants. I don't see why the Guardian article should be rejected as a valid source--of the people mentioned, only a couple have been married since then, and, if I recall correctly, they were all the ones born out of wedlock--Sophie, Benjamin and Mark--and they've all had permission per the Royal Marriages Act. The Fifes have asked permission as British subjects, and Edward VII's daughter Maud asked permission, but her descendants do not have to, as the descendants of a foreign prince. We are, after all, using a book published in 1995 as a source, who's to say that's not outdated? And if the dissenters her still insist that using that article constitutes some form of original research, then perhaps we can as the palace, as the person in the article did, for a longer official list. Morhange (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've taken it upon myself to contact the royal offices for any information about a longer list. So we'll see if I get a reply. Morhange (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If facts are not readily sourcable, then they do not belong in Wikipedia. If the Palace or Debrett's or whoever wish to publish a list of the next hundred heirs in order then it meets rs and notability and we may include it.  But if have to conduct our own investigations, then it is not reliably sourced, not notable and is original research.  TFD (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So any official list sent by the palace offices to confirm X number of additional people on the list is rendered invalid because I asked about it? Who is conducting an investigation here? You make it sound like some kind of criminal case. I merely sent an inquiry about the official existence of a longer version of the list. I'm not asking them to personally send me some unofficial copy of the list, I asked for the purpose of including it on Wikipedia, as well as an inquiry about why Albert and Leopold are included and if they are, why do they precede Lady Helen Taylor. Whether they elect to publish this list is up to them, but I don't see why it hurts to ask. Who knows, perhaps they WILL add the rest of George V or Edward VII's descendants. If you don't ask, you don't get information, and that is just what I'm trying to do here. Morhange (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Lets take this logicaly one step at a time. It seems that the first step we have to take is to agree that there are reliable and verifiable sources that show George Lascelles in line to the throne? now Im sure there will be those who say that there is (there's one provided above "The Guardian" and another quoted earlier " Whitikers Almanack" note we are not agreeing that he is 46th or whatever just trying to agree that he is in line. no doubt there will be those who say they are not reliable and verifiable no doubt saying the articles are old, so how do we resolve this? Lewisdl (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say that if the information is well-sourced enough to go in his biography article, then it is good enough to go here. For example, those sources are enough to deduce that George Lascelles is in the line of succession. But they are not enough to deduce he is number 46. Mlm42 (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the fetishization of numbers. The sources are enough to deduce that the Earl of Harewood is immediately after Zenouska Mowatt in the line of succession, so long as she is unmarried.  Given that she is 45th in the line of succession, it is simple arithmetic (which is not original research) to deduce that Harewood is 46th. john k (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not just write a statement like "Zenouska Mowatt is followed by the Queen's cousin, the Earl of Harewood, and his legitimate descendants." or "The line continues with the descendants of George V in the female line, beginning with the Earl of Harewood." or some such? DrKiernan (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * DrKiernan, that sounds like a fine suggestion to me, because those statements can be readily sourced. Mlm42 (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This would be okay with me. If I wrote a prose description of the earlier parts of the line of succession (without, for the moment, citations), would it be deleted? It would basically say - Harewood, his children and grandchildren, then descendants of Harewood's brother, then the Duke of Fife (descendant of Edward VII's eldest daughter) and his children and grandchildren, then the King of Norway (descendant of Edward VII's youngest daughter), his children and grandchildren, his sisters and their children and grandchildren.  Then the descendants of Queen Victoria's second son Alfred, starting with the children and grandchildren of the former King of Romania, and so forth.  If it's a problem to source it all as "the line of succession," we could note that this is the line of descent of the Electress Sophia, in the order associated with succession to the British throne, and source to Willis.  Old editions of Debrett's and Whitaker's would of course show many of these people or their ancestors explicitly in the line of succession.  I think something like this would be a useful compromise, but I'm not going to bother if it's just going to be deleted on specious grounds. john k (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ".. would it be deleted?" It depends on what it says, of course; but that's the point of the Bold, revert, discuss cycle (which I fully support). Mlm42 (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "I don't understand the fetishization of numbers." Indeed, neither do I! Let me point out that I'm not the one insisting on adding the numbers. Consider this: if one were to add that George Lascelles is number 46th in line to his biography, what references would one need to justify this claim? Mlm42 (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are the one fetishizing numbers because you act as though it somehow requires more evidence to say that the Earl of Harewood is 46th in line than it does to say that the Earl of Harewood comes immediately after Zenouska Mowatt in the line of succession. If it's okay to say that Zenouska Mowatt is 45th in line, and it's okay to say that the Earl of Harewood comes immediately after Zenouska Mowatt, then it's okay to say that the Earl of Harewood is 46th in line.  Adding is not original research.
 * BTW, I have actually found a clearly reliable source which calls the Earl of Harewood 46th in line! This Telegraph article about the royal wedding describes the Earl of Harewood as being 46th in line for the throne, and as the senior-most adult not in attendance at the wedding. Is that good enough for you? john k (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hehe, touche.. that source renders pretty much this entire thread moot, since it explicitly says he's number 46, and appears to be a reliable source for this information. Also, I'll remind you that I'm only enforcing the decision that had been made a few months ago following the discussion at BLP/N; some editors here might want to subvert it, since the decision didn't go their way. Mlm42 (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * BRILLIANT!!!!!Lewisdl (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mlm42 - I don't really think it's a fair characterization of what's going on to say that you are merely "enforcing" a decision made by others. Long before that "decision" was made, you have been advocating a much shorter list, and you were the one who inquired on BLP/N about the subject in the first place, presumably in hopes of getting just such a "decision."  Furthermore, and more importantly, the "decision," such as it was, was very vague - all that there seemed to be consensus for was that we should not include people without reliable sources as to their place in the line of succession.  You have chosen to interpret this in the most restrictive way possible, but that isn't the only way to interpret it.  I doubt we'll find any sources saying that Viscount Lascelles is 47th in the line of succession (this is particularly true, because he and his father are only 46th and 47th if you count Albert and Leopold as in line, which many sources will not).  But there will be many sources, including older editions of Debrett's and Whitaker's, I would imagine, which note that he comes right after his father in line.  Your interpretation that this is not sufficient is just that, an interpretation, and I don't think it is the most natural one. john k (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with John here. I don't think you need an explicit source for the exact numbering. If the official site is just going to 40, that doesn't mean that the full list stops at 40, it's just an arbitrary limit on the official site. Like I've said plenty of times before (and curiously, have never received a reply to most of my arguments for this) Any birth or Catholic removal and James Ogilvy will move to 41st. He still follows his mother in line, but if the official site removes him simply because 40 is where they stop counting, that doesn't mean he's no longer in the line of succession, it just means he's 41st now. Same with any death, and he'll move up and his son will as well--Alexander was still in the line of succession, he was just lower on the arbitrary list the official site keeps. You don't stop being in line unless you marry a Catholic or convert to Catholicism--or perhaps are baptised as a child? I'm curious, actually, to know where this interpretation came from? The Earl of St. Andrews' children were baptised Anglican (Diana, Princess of Wales was one of Baron Downpatrick's godparents) and only converted to Catholicism as teenagers, which, of course removes them, but where did this interpretation of confirmation as a Catholic vs. being baptised Catholic shortly after birth come from? The inclusion of Albert and Leopold on the official site? Isn't this original research? I guess the wording in the rules is perhaps open to interpretation? Morhange (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Albert and Leopold seems like (one of many) fuck-ups by the official site to me. It'd be nice to see if there are any examples of usage from earlier instances of children baptized Catholics - the nearest one to the throne, I suspect, would be Ileana of Romania's son Stefan, who would have been 26th in line at the time of his birth.  Anyone have access to old Debrett's or Whitaker's to see if he was included? john k (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, a lot of arguments seem to be being used to basically exclude the vast majority of possible sources. The two key arguments for this both seem specious to me.  The first is the "numbers" argument - i.e., we cannot say that Viscount Lascelles is 47th in line unless we find a source explicitly saying that he is 47th in line.  I don't get this at all.  If reliable sources show that Lord Lascelles comes right after his father, then the number is irrelevant - he should go there, and adding the number in is just simple arithmetic.  The second argument is that we can't use any older source because things might have happened in the meanwhile.  I don't think this one works either.  If there is a reliable source from 1980 saying that the Hon. Alexander Lascelles is in the line of succession, that should be sufficient - at that point, the burden of proof ought to fall on exclusion - i.e., there would need to be an explicit source saying that he is excluded (or dead) to supersede the source which puts him in line. john k (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "We cannot say that Viscount Lascelles is 47th in line unless we find a source explicitly saying that he is 47th in line. I don't get this at all." The policy in question is WP:SYNTH, whose first sentence is "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." One might argue it's "simple arithmetic", but in light of the BLP/N discussion, I think we'd need an WP:RfC discussion to justify this synthesis. Mlm42 (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is utterly absurd. Arithmetic is not synthesis.  "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources."  Could you please make an argument as to why this doesn't apply? Saying that Viscount Lascelles is 47th because his father is 46th and reliable sources say he comes right after his father is exactly like adding numbers and calculating a person's age.  Your argument would imply that if we have somebody's birthdate, it is original synthesis to say their age unless we can find a source saying they are that age.  That is not how OR has ever worked. john k (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mlm42's sugestion i.e "I think we'd need an WP:RfC discussion to justify this synthesis" is a good one. how do we go about it? I think a new section is a good start.Lewisdl (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not absurd, because the reasoning that applies to number 47 also applies to number 48, 49, and 50; and at some point it stops being "simple arithmetic" (especially if there are illegitimacy and Roman Catholic issues). I think if editors are planning to use an RfC to justify the addition of other people in the line, then the RfC question should not only consider the question about number 47, but about the others they would like to add as well.
 * I think it's better to ask deeper questions, such as: "At what point should we stop listing entries in the line of succession?" And then give a list of numbered options, such as: "Option 1: The complete list, synthesized from reliable sources", "Option 2: As far as the monarchy's website", "Option 3: As far as reliable sources provide the exact numbering", etc. Then people would respond by stating which options they prefer.
 * There are multiple objections to lengthening this list, and focusing on one (the synthesis argument) isn't going to solve the problem. Mlm42 (talk) 10:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The same logic applied only so long as we have reliable sources. My point is that the number itself is irrelevant This book gives us a list through the elder children of Jeremy Lascelles.  Why is that not sufficient?  john k (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The number itself is irrelevant. I'm not sure what you mean by irrelevant, but currently this article is attempting to state facts, such as "XX is number YY in line". The whole point of this article (as far as I can tell) is to determine the exact positions of people in the line of succession. A statement like "the number itself is irrelevant" sounds to me like a statement in favour of deleting this article. (It's not clear whether this article would survive an WP:AfD, given the existence of Succession to the British throne.) Mlm42 (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is about the list of people in the line of succession. It is worth knowing that the Duke of Fife comes in line immediately after all 60 or so descendants of George V.  It isn't really particularly interesting to anybody (except, apparently, the people who want to blow up this article) whether he is 61st or 59th or 63rd.  We have reliable sources that report his relative position, which is verifiable.  It is not as though the problem of articles being slightly out of date is a particularly novel one on wikipedia. As of right now, our article on Ryan Howard says he has 268 career home runs.  In fact, as of today, Howard has 271 home runs.  I assume you'll run into similar issues in the articles about virtually any active player. It is extremely unlikely that most of the hundreds of articles on active baseball players is going to be updated daily with new career totals.  That doesn't mean we give up on the idea that we can mention active players' career stats in their articles.  We just accept that the numbers might be slightly out of date.  You are constantly creating new problems that must be solved in this article in contexts where there really aren't any problems that we don't encounter in virtually every article that is dealing with contemporary issues that constantly change.  The goal in wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.  If we can find reliable sources that indicate that Lord Lascelles comes immediately after his father in the line of succession (and we can), then it is perfectly appropriate to include him at number 47 on the list if his father is at number 46.  We don't need a source that says "Viscount Lascelles is 47th in line."  john k (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Succession is not automatic
Several editors have pointed out that succession is not automatic, it has to be decided/ratified by the Privy Council - in fact, by several Privy Councils. The example of Ireland delaying a decision during the Abdication crisis has been made several times. It could be argued, therefore, that the entire list is speculative - even the one produced by the Palace. I am not suggesting that list itself is removed, shortened or otherwise altered, but that the introduction includes a very brief explanation of the succession process, including the extremely important fact that succession is not automatic, which currently does not appear. Arjayay (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It's my understaning that succession IS automatic these days, which is why they say "The king is dead, long live the king". I do not know much about what happened in Ireland at the abdication, but that was an exceptional case and Ireland was semi-separate even then. Also, the proclamation of the new monarch is carried out by the Accession Council, may not be the same as the Privy Council. PatGallacher (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If Arjayay can provide a verifiable and reliable source for such a statement I dont see why it can be included Lewisdl (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment
From the arguments above it would seem that we need to resolve wether " it is synthesis to conclude that Viscount Lascelles is 47th in line to the throne or Simple Arithmetic." Lewisdl (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

for my part I think it is simpmple arithmetic. We have a reliable source which shows Lord Harewood as 46th in line There are plenty of sources which state that Viscount Lascelles follows his father in the line of succession. It is therefore simple arithmetic to say he is 47th in line. in much the same way if someone is born on the first of january 1980 and today is the third of may 2011 its is simple arithmetic to state that he is 31 years old Lewisdl (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Interpreting a 300 year old statute is original research. TFD (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What interpretation is being done here? To say that Viscount Lascelles follows his father in the line of succession is to follow the lead of various reliable sources. john k (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are taking information from three different sources (the law, the list, family information) in order to present information not contained in any of the sources, which is synthesis. While I should not have to explain why this policy exists, any of the sources used may be wrong.  The Statute may be in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights or other statutes or laws, the list that shows Harewood in 48th place may be wrong (there are two lists and we are assuming that no heirs have been born since), and the details of Harewood's offspring may be wrong.  Also, if the fact that Lascelles was 49th in line was significantly important to be included in the encyclopedia, then it would have been noted in a reliable source.  TFD (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are talking about. I am taking information from individual reliable sources that list the line of succession. Doing what reliable sources say (even if they are not completely up to date) is exactly what we are supposed to do in wikipedia articles.  The question of whether the Act of Settlement is in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights is neither here nor there, and certainly has nothing to do with Viscount Lascelles's position in the line of succession, which is not in question - according to every reliable source, he is legitimate, he is not Catholic, and he has not married a Catholic.  I suppose your argument might apply to Lascelles's son Benjamin, who was born before his parents' marriage.  But, on the one hand, we have reliable sources that do not include Benjamin, and that put his brother Alexander immediately after their father.  On the other hand, we have your vague speculations that seem to be based on nothing but your own opinions.  We ought to be able to extend the line of succession in this article as far as reliable sources give us a continuous list.  After that, it would be perfectly fine, in addition to list (in a separate, non-ordinal list) any other people in the line of succession about whom we have wikipedia articles and for whom we can find reliable sources that attest to their being in the line of succession, even if we can't properly source their exact position.  john k (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the confusion here began because Lewisdl's question was not clear: Which sources are being synthesized exactly? Mlm42 (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought I was trying to be helpful but clearly my request was badly worded.Lewisdl (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The Royal Marriages Act could be contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights as well. PatGallacher (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You all are outrageous. Accusing us of original research when we use actual published sources you wish didn't exist, and then yourself engaging in the most blatant OR speculation when it suits you. john k (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The sources being synthesized are the list that ranks Harewood, the law of succession and family information about the Lascelles family. See WP:SYN:  "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[Jimmy Wales has said of synthesized historical theories: "Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history."] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article."  No source says that Lascelles is 47th in line.  TFD (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody is using either the law of succession or family information about the Lascelles to devise new material. The additions to the list are entirely based on lists that rank Viscount Lascelles, his children, siblings, and nephews and nieces. I copied the early part from a book based on a BBC series.  The last few Lascelles were added based on a list from Channel 4. john k (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Tewa Lascelles
The second (and third) marriages of James Lascelles were not approved by the Privy Council, and so it is assumed that they are in contravention of the 1772 act. Hence, by this argument, Tewa is illegitimate as the marriage of his parents was invalid. DrKiernan (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree - and yet he is included in the line (between his siblings Rowan and Sophie) on page 267 of the book Monarchy: The Royal Family at Work linked by john k above. This is why there shouldn't be any numbers unless there is a direct, up-to-date source for them. Opera hat (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If a reliable source includes him, Dr Kiernan's interpretation of the RMA is irrelevant OR unless he can find a reliable source that says Tewa Lascelles is excluded. john k (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The position of Lord Nicholas's children in the line is OR, but we accept that the one source that lists them and all the sources that do not are all incorrect and we put them in the place that we think they ought to be. My point is that the list is beset by contrary interpretations and the opinion of authors and is neither an agreed nor an official list. This is why extending it becomes problematic because past position 29, the sources are disagreed on the sequence and disagreed on who and who is not included. DrKiernan (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As to Albert and Leopold Windsor, I certainly do not accept that the sources that do not list them are all incorrect - personally, I think it would be better to list them as excluded. But I can concede that it makes more sense to include than to exclude when there is doubt - especially since I'm not aware of any specific sources that clearly describe them as excluded, rather than simply failing to include them.  The placement issue seems more in the nature of a typo than a real substantive error.  We know enough about how the line of succession works to know that the sons of a second son should come before a daughter, and we have reliable sources which showed specifically that Lord Nicholas was before his sister before his conversion to Catholicism.  This is, at any rate, not the same issue as with Tewa Lascelles.  With Albert and Leopold, we have the equivalent of a typo and reliable sources disagreeing.  Some sort of attempt to reconcile those discrepancies is necessary.  The same problem does not arise with Tewa Lascelles - nobody has presented any sources saying he is excluded.  Until that happens, we don't have a discrepancy between reliable sources, we have what reliable sources say vs. unsourced speculation.  It seems to me totally ridiculous that we can't use something like Dan Willis's page - a self-published list of the succession by the author of a genealogical book on George I's descendants - because of BLP concerns, but we can exclude people based on individual wikipedians' personal interpretation of eighteenth century laws despite what reliable sources say.  john k (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't David Lascelles listed as The Right Hon
AS a Viscount isnt David Lascelles entitled to the honorific The Right HonLewisdl (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He's only a courtesy viscount, not a real viscount, so he doesn't get the rt. hon. See also Viscount Linley, the Earl of Ulster, Lord Culloden, the Earl of St Andrews, and Lord Downpatrick. john k (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hardman etc.
Some significant recent additions have been made which appear to be at variance with the consensus that we should only use the monarchy website, Whitaker's and Debrett's. It is not clear that Hardman is a reliable source, it could also be just a snapshot from 2007, and doubts have been expressed about whether he is correct about the validity of some marriages. We could be getting into OR, or repeating amateur genealogist's OR, invasion of privacy by claiming living people are illegitimate. PatGallacher (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no such consensus - it is absolutely clear that there are a significant number of us who think that we should extend the list as far as reliable sources will allow us to. Maybe not a consensus to do that, but certainly not a consensus not to do that. Nobody has provided any reason not to think Hardman is a reliable source.  No one has provided any sources which cast doubt on the validity of James Lascelles's second marriage, or of Jeremy Lascelles's marriages.  Citing published books, major national television networks, and the like is not OR.  If those published sources are based on amateur genealogists' OR that is not a problem, any more than citing any other published work which contains original research is. Here is an article from the Guardian which attempts to note all the people early in the line of succession who are excluded.  It includes all the Lascelles' we are discussing, as well as various of the Lorentzens, the King of Romania, and so forth. john k (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree there is no such consensus. The position, as I understand it is that as long as there is a reliable and verifiable source to say that X is in position Y then we can use it. Now clearly there was such a source for Gerald Lascelles. Lewisdl (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not have a copy of Hardman's book, but it appears to have an appendix. If he has published a list longer than 40 names then we could use it as a source, but would have to explain that it is his determination of the list as of 2007.  But if the list has changed since then, we could not use it.  TFD (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Hardman lists the top 50 as of 2007. The appendix can be seen in the "Look inside" feature on Amazon.  Beyond that, you are setting unacceptably high standards here.  The list changes every year, of course, but the part of the list we are using Hardman for (the Lascelles family) hasn't changed.  Why shouldn't we be able to use it?  And, absent reliable sources indicating inaccuracy, why does the fact that it is older matter?  I should note that the course of the line of succession through the Earl of Harewood and his relations is actually far less disputed than the question of Lord Nicholas Windsor's children, where we have different sources saying different things, and where the British monarchy site, the only one which includes them, indisputably puts them in the wrong place in the order of succession.  There seems, nonetheless, to be a general consensus that that part of the list is acceptable.  So what's wrong with using Hardman for a later part of the list where there are no such disputes among reliable sources?  (Indeed, every source - whether wikipedia-defined reliable or self-published - I've ever read which deals with the line of succession at any length gives exactly the same list going through the Lascelles family). john k (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If he says that x is 50th in line then we can use it, unless a later list makes his list obsolete. We cannot for example use his source that x is 50th in line as a source that x is 49th or 50th in line.  That is clear in the policy WP:SYN.  TFD (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a matter on which we do not seem to have a consensus. I do not believe that is clear from policy at all.  Please consult WP:CALC, which I believe applies here.  I am getting tired of the way you guys all act as if policy is completely clear and obviously supports whatever it is you want to do.  Policy is not written with an eye to all possible circumstances, and it always requires interpretation to determine how exactly to apply it to specific cases.  That interpretation is open to good faith disagreements, and in a case like this there's obviously a lot of ways to interpret the OR rules.  I think that in this case the standards you all are demanding are perhaps tenable from a narrow reading of the policy itself, but are also ones that would, if carefully and universally applied, make the creation of an encyclopedia virtually impossible.  Conversely, I believe that my interpretation is perfectly consonant with both the letter and the spirit of the policy.  If these kind of cases do not qualify for the WP:CALC exemption, what does?  john k (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It goes beyond a simple calculation, because you have to assume our understanding of the 1701 act, which has never been tested in court is correct and that none of people higher in the list have become ineligible or died, no person has been born to alter the order, or that the person you wish to add is eligible. Also, if no reliable sources report the new ranking then it is unimportant and not worthy of inclusion.  TFD (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? If we don't have a source that anyone higher in the list has become ineligible or died, why is it wrong to assume that?  And what does an understanding of the 1701 act have to do with anything?  The list is based on other lists.  Is the idea that we are making crazy OR synthesis to assume that because in 2007 Lord Lascelles came right after his father, he still comes right after his father?  Why?  The official royal page was probably updated most recently a couple of months ago.  Is it OR to assume that nobody on that list has become ineligible or died, and that nobody has been born?  How is that any different? john k (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are taking information from various sources which is synthesis. The policy is clear.  TFD (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Every article takes information from multiple sources. Synthesis, in fact, is not forbidden.  What is forbidden is the synthesis of published sources to advance a position.  No position is being advanced here, and the idea that all synthesis is forbidden is ridiculous - synthesis is, in fact, what encyclopedias do. john k (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The position advanced is that x is nth in line to the throne, which is not stated in any of the sources. TFD (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The position that Viscount Lascelles is 47th in line is simply a rewording of the sourced statement that he comes immediately after his father in the line of succession. Again, simple arithmetic is not original synthesis. This is an utter twisting and misuse of SYNTH, which is supposed to prevent people from advancing crackpot theories. john k (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And lets not forget that we did have a reliable and verifiable source to show that David Lascelles was 46th in line. That is not OR or synthesis and yet he still had been removed Lewisdl (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is the nature of synthesis. We take information from different sources and make conclusions not found in any of the sources.  TFD (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Lewisdl is referring to this Telegraph.co.uk publication which states that George Lascelles was number 46th in line at the time of Will and Kate's wedding. Of course, one might naturally wonder where this information came from, noting that at the time of publication this is what Wikipedia said.. Mlm42 (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, concluding that the guy who comes after the guy who is 46th in line is 47th in line is a wildly original synthesis, just like advancing a crackpot theory not found in sources. john k (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Numbering again
At present, the sources given for this list are the royal.gov.uk website, Debrett's website, and Whitaker's Almanack 2011. (I notice the recent inclusion of Lord Harewood based on a reference in the Daily Telegraph has been removed.) The royal.gov.uk website goes up to no. 39, Princess Alexandra, and includes Messrs Albert and Leopold Winsdor at nos 35 and 36. Debrett's only lists thirty-two people (the last being Lady Helen Taylor, no. 30 on the "official" list), but does not assign numbers to any of them. I haven't checked the 2011 Whitaker's (I might tomorrow if I can get to a public library, but it's unlikely), but at present the article says it does not include Albert and Leopold Windsor. How then can it be a source for James Ogilvy being at no. 40, or for Zenouska Mowatt being at no. 45? Opera hat (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarification: when I said "at present" I meant "before John K's amendment of 02:45, 9 July 2011". Opera hat (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We ought to abandon the idea that to say someone is 35th in line, we must have a source which says "This person is 35th in line." Policy does not require any such thing. john k (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * @John k, have you read this discussion? Because consensus can overrule any policy (see WP:IAR), and the uninvolved editors at BLP/N agreed we needed sources for exact positions, which is an indication of a broader consensus than at this talk page. So to overturn this decision you should probably be trying some steps in Dispute resolution, rather than using this talk page to fight it out with other regular editors here, who's minds are unlikely to change. Mlm42 (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an absolutely inaccurate characterization of what happened there. Not counting people who've posted here, we have AndyTheGrump, who said, "If there isn't a reliable source that states that a person is in line to the throne, they cannot go on the list."  Nothing about numbers.  Will Beback said, "If we restrict the list to the top few dozen that will allow full sourcing and avoid original research, etc. There's no reason to exempt this list from WP:V."  Nothing to imply that we need a source for the number, explicitly.  Jimmy Wales said, "I think the list should be trimmed to just what reliable sources (for example the official site) confirm clearly."  Again, nothing explicit about needing the exact number.  AndyTheGrump later demands specific sources for specific numbers, but he's the only one to do so, and the specific objection I'm making was not addressed very clearly in that discussion, since it was focused on the enormous old list, which was based on application of the succession algorithm using genealogical sources, rather than explicit lists of the line of succession in reliable sources.  By the way, so far as I can tell Andy, Beback, and Wales were virtually the only "uninvolved" editors to post on this subject.  Everyone else posting in that discussion has been involved in this talk page, or else made little contribution over there.  And even if we add those three people to those who agree with you (and I think Andy is the only one it would be fair to add, since he's the only person in that whole discussion to specifically support the position you claim got consensus there), that still wouldn't be a consensus.  There was no decision, and no broader consensus for the position you support. john k (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @John K, for some reason you are excluding editors (i.e. John Lilburne, and Scott MacDonald) whose first comment to this talk page was after their comment on the BLP/N thread (and it was John Lilburne who first suggested having sources for exact numbering, very early in the discussion). Also, you are overlooking the uninvolved editors who didn't comment explicitly on the numbering (because that wasn't the question), but still supported the result of truncating the list (i.e. joe decker, and szyslak). Mlm42 (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mlm - I apologize for the mistake; looking back on months old discussions, I was careless and did not think about whether individuals had contributed to this page previously. Still, it was only a handful of new people.  Beyond that, what does supporting truncating the list have to do with anything?  I understand that the BLP/N discussion came to a decision to truncte the list and restrict it to what could be sourced to reliable sources.  If I was running wikipedia, I would have had it go the other way, but I respect the decision and I think there's some decent reasons to so restrict it.  But there is no hint in that discussion of a consensus that we can only include people if we have a source for their number. john k (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Opera hat, yes, the list was page protected in this form shortly after the shortening dispute, because someone decided that it looked strange not to include the descendants of Princess Alexandra. But I agree, I think our list should stop at number 39. Mlm42 (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * IIRC, Whitaker's does not give numbers; it just lists them in succession order. DrKiernan (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To those who want to restrict the list: would removing the numbers make it okay to include people for whom we have sources listing their presence in the line of succession and where they rank, but not giving a specific number? In that case, we wouldn't be including dreaded numbers that are apparently OR (because basic arithmetic isn't OR except when people want to remove information based on basic arithmetic calculations).  What would be the objection to including Viscount Lascelles then? john k (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Gaming the system?
I don't get it. There are no sources which say that Albert Windsor is 30th in the line of succession. This is because sources like Whitaker's and Debrett's don't include him, because he is Catholic; while the royal site, which does include him, puts him in the wrong place. If it is OR to include Viscount Lascelles because we don't have a source listing his explicit number, why is it not OR to include Albert Windsor at 30th in line? Whether or not Albert Windsor is actually in line is actually far more disputable than whether or not Lord Lascelles is, and the issue of numbering is just as problematic. I don't see how the current form has anything to recommend it. We should either limit the list to the points where it is actually completely indisputable (i.e., up through Lady Amelia Windsor, to which point all our sources agree), or we should be able to expand the list using reliable sources. john k (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd add that I really wasn't making a WP:POINT violation. If we aren't going to extend the list to include utterly non-controversial Lascelles entries, then we certainly shouldn't extend it to the point where we have to make a decision about whether and where Lord Nicholas's sons are in the line of succession. I would prefer the former, but if that is unattainable, Albert and Leopold need to go, too. john k (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm with John K on this: If we are to follow a policy then that policy has to be followed IN ALL CASES. so I am proposing we delete everyone below position 29. is that ok?Lewisdl (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly you are suggesting to prune the list even further so as to leave only the cases which are absolutely clear and stop where things start getting a bit fuzzy. This sounds excellent to me. Hans Adler 19:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is indeed my suggestion. If we want to have an absolutely clear list, where we know for certain that each person on the list is given the correct numbering, we have to remove everyone below Lady Amelia Windsor until our sources resolve the question of whether or not Albert and Leopold Windsor are in the line of succession.  We certainly can't make up a place for them that no reference gives them, and plug them in there, and we shouldn't put them in the obviously wrong place that the royal website puts them in, either.  (So far as I can gather, neither Debrett's nor Whitaker's includes them at all).  I don't think this is necessary, and I'd prefer a broader use constructed using all available reliable sources, but if we're not going to do that we should at least be consistent. john k (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

At present the consensus, such as there is, seems to be that we should go by the lists on the royalty website, Debrett's and ?Whitaker's, where there appear to be discrepancies between them or we are dealing with recent births or deaths we should use a degree of common sense. Using an additional source is not ruled out in principle but it would probably have to be an important reference work updated regularly. I am not in principle against changing this but we would need a degree of discussion and some consensus. PatGallacher (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would it need to be an important reference work updated regularly? It should be a reliable source, as defined by wikipedia.  Your arguments seem like an ad hoc argument to keep the article exactly as it is now, rather than one which is generally applicable. john k (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Pruning the list to only the first 29 would avoid the issue of Albert's inclusion, which is a possible WP:NPOV violation, whether we include him or not. Mlm42 (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason why we are calling people Lady this and Viscount that? Let us just use their own names as we do with other persons mentioned in WP.  TFD (talk) 05:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It they are so titled as far as UK sources are concerned, this UK-centric article should follow UK conventions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean in our discussions of them. TFD (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you really telling other editors how to refer to people? I suppose you think we should talk about the nineteenth century British prime minister Henry Temple, too? john k (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

OK so its JOHN K, Hans Adler, and me in favour of reducing to the top 29 and just Pat wanting to keep the list past this point. any others Lewisdl (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do want to clarify that I want to reduce the list to 29 pending a larger consensus on the extent to which combining multiple, overlapping lists constitutes original synthesis. john k (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No consensus on reducing to 29. If Royal web has 40, reducing that list further suggests WP knows better as to who/what is RS, and suggests overbreadth in understanding of BLP.
 * We already are ignoring all of our lists, including the royal website, by putting Albert Windsor, rather than Lady Helen Taylor, at #30. If the royal website maintainer ever gets off his or her ass and actually corrects their list and puts Albert Windsor where he should be if he actually is in the line of succession, that's one thing.  But so long as there's no reliable source including Albert Windsor in the line of succession in the place where he'd actually have to go, it seems problematic to include him there.  It seems equally problematic to exclude him, given that our main source does seem to think he's in the line of succession. As for "knowing better as to who/what is RS," I don't understand what you're talking about.  Who but wikipedia can judge whether something is a reliable source for the purposes of wikipedia? john k (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * john k, we are living in the twenty-first century and no longer are required to show deference to our social superiors. In fact, in the United States, all of that was ended over 200 years ago.  TFD (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Um -- this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA with strict rules about NPOV etc. We abide by the policies and guidelines of the project. We do not assert that "we are better than the people of the past" in any way - that is not our function as editors. Nor is the project supposed to be US-centric to the extent you appear to suggest. Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am referring to people that john k wishes to add to the list, who presumably are not people "of the past". For example, David Lascelles, who refers to himself by that name and does not normally use his father's subsidiary title.  Notice that we normally do not use other lesser titles, e.g., Mr., Mrs., Miss., Ms., when referring to subjects of the article, whether or not we are Commonwealth citizens.  This is an encyclopedia, not a social register.  TFD (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So far as I can tell, you are picking a fight over meaningless trivia. I refer to people by their proper titles because it's easier to do than to know what every person with a title goes by in every day life, and because if I'm going to err, I'd rather err on the side of technical correctness than of informality.  But seriously, you're just being a jerk here.  This has nothing to do with anything.  I'm going to call people how I want to call them, and you're going to call them how you want to call them.  I would never go after you for talking about Amelia Windsor or David Lascelles.  Why are you attacking me about this?  It's just incredibly obnoxious, especially when you make inferences about my politics from it.  john k (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I am coming round to the view that we should just go as far as the point where all reliable sources are in agreement. We would need clearer guidance about the inclusion or exclusion of children from Catholic families. (The issue of whether children are baptised a Catholic is thorny since it may involve the theological doctrine of "prevenient disgrace", see prevenient grace). PatGallacher (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that there's not a single source which puts Albert Windsor at #30 is a pretty good argument on this. We could exclude him and his brother, as Whitaker's and Debrett's do; we could also include him at #35, as the royal website does, even though we know this is clearly wrong.  But if "adding people to the list from a published book" is OR, I don't see how "coming up with a place in the succession on our own, on the basis of no sources but rather a logical application of the succession rules" is not. john k (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We could also keep in mind that the BBC's statement that George Lascelles was 46th at the time of his death was an (implicit) endorsement of the view that both Albert and Leopold are in the line. I think if there weren't the NPOV issue of other sources excluding them, I'd say it would be fair to correct the relatively obvious mistake made by the monarchy's website. Since there are sources that appear to exclude Albert and Leopold, I don't think Wikipedia should endorse one view over the other (as per NPOV), so I think we should cut down the list to prevent this problem. But, again, this doesn't prevent us from writing in prose in a neutral way about further down the line, and explaining this problem in the article. We as editors shouldn't be deciding what the "truth" is (except to fix obvious mistakes); we should be reporting on what reliable sources say. Mlm42 (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If not for the royal web page putting them in the wrong place, I think it would be reasonable to report the disagreement - include them with a footnote saying that they were baptized Catholic and some sources don't include them. The BBC, I would guess, was following the royal website and then counting upwards through the Ogilvys to get to 46 (as, probably, was the Telegraph article I cited earlier).  But yeah, it's reasonable to conclude that some sources count them.  But I do think it's problematic that there's not any source that includes them at 30 and 31, especially when other sources exclude them.  I'd add that I'm not sure I get your position that, if not for Debrett's and Whitaker's not including them, it would be fine to correct the "relatively obvious" mistake by the royal website.  That seems fine to me, but it also seems fine to me that we can add to the list from other sources like Hardman.  Unless we slavishly copy the royal website (which we all know to be wrong), we are going to be exercising judgment, and it's always possible to twist "exercising judgment" into "conducting OR through original synthesis".  Personally, I think the "original synthesis" part of the OR page is problematically written; it is unclear and, when interpreted broadly, can basically be used as an argument against virtually any content that a user oesn't like.  I think it should be interpreted quite narrowly in terms of its original purpose to prevent crackpottery and POV-pushing by implication.  john k (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the monarchy's website mistake, sources disagree on whether or not Albert and Leopold are included in the line at all. This can't be solved with a footnote, because it means all subsequent numbering is in doubt. Choosing a numbering based on including (or not including) Albert and Leopold would violate the WP:NPOV policy. Mlm42 (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This once again goes to the odd obsession you have that this article is about the numbers rather than about the order and relative position. The numbers are just a tool to make the list more clear.  john k (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the numbers are more than "just a tool". What the numbers say to readers is "XX is NN in the line of succession". Such statements should be backed up by sources - they're not "just a tool". Any attempt to list, without gaps, in order, the people in the line of succession, is essentially equivalent to giving them numbers. Of course if we were to remove the numbers beyond the point the line becomes in doubt (currently number 30), then it would avoid the NPOV problem. Mlm42 (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would certainly have no problem with removing the numbers after 29. john k (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Any attempt to list ... is essentially equivalent to giving them numbers" but then "if we were to remove the numbers ... it would avoid the NPOV problem"? I think you contradicted yourself.  I agree with John K that the numbers are a tool; it just keeps me from having to count the 20 names from the top of the list to find out that the person who is the 20th one listed is number 20, instead I can just look next to their name and see the number 20.  Otherwise, we may as well just list them all alphabetically (or even randomly) and just say to the reader "we're not going to say what order the list goes in, but here's a collection of names." LarryJeff (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right; I guess by "remove the numbers", I'm really saying, convert the list into prose. Really I think the only neutral way of presenting information about the rest of the list is if it's written in sentences (which is what I've been saying all along..). Mlm42 (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Old sources
Why is Debrett's, which doesn't include Savannah Phillips and still calls Prince William "Prince William of Wales" acceptable, but the Hardman book not? john k (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Savannah is included. DrKiernan (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So she is. My apologies.  Note, though, that the list of people who have lost their place is not accurate: it doesn't mention Marina-Charlotte or Nicholas's sons, even though it doesn't include them in the list.  john k (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, they've updated their list recently to add Senna and Savannah, and remove the Taylors. DrKiernan (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hardman would be acceptable, but only what he actually said, not our own original research based on his list. But then it would be out of date.  The more recent list from the Palace would appear to be better.  TFD (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We disagree about what would constitute "original research based on his list." My proposal is that we take up his list starting where the official list gives way.  You consider this "original research" because it involves giving original ordinals.  Perhaps you would answer the question I asked above - would removing all the ordinals make it okay to use Hardman where the royal website lets off?  john k (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because we do not know that Hardman is using the same list. Perhaps he has removed some members from the list and added on others.  TFD (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The current list already combined multiple lists. The Hardman list includes everyone on our list born before 2007, and none of the people born after that.  It also includes Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor, who had not yet converted to Catholicism at the time.  Otherwise, it is identical to the other lists we're using.  For the parts where it is the only source - Lord Harewood (Oh, I guess you want me to say "George Lascelles") and after - it is, well, the only source, so it is obviously not the same list.  john k (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In each case the complete list is included. We could add Hardman's complete list too if it were up to date.  TFD (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What would this mean? And why does it matter if it's completely up to date.  For the part of the list that it covers and the other lists don't cover, it is up to date. john k (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I could find a source from the sixties that says Anne is next in line after Charles, i.e., second in line, and edit the list accordingly. But it would be wrong because subsequent births have placed her lower in the line.  TFD (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And also wrong because we have more recent sources that show the correct order. In the case of the Hardman list, the parts that are duplicated are ones that we have more recent sources that give us the correct information; the parts that are not duplicated are still accurate, because that part of the list has not had any new births. john k (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want the article to provide a list of 50, 60 or 4,000 people, then find a reliable source for your list. If no one in the world can be bothered to publish such a list then tne information is too trivial to be reported here.  I notice that you have a PhD in history.  Write an article for an historical journal providing a list, then we will have a rs.  TFD (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are of course published lists - the Hardman list, for instance - but you won't accept it for some reason that seems to constantly change - because it isn't a reliable source, because it is four years old, because it doesn't exactly correspond to our other lists (which already don't correspond with each other). john k (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Provide a link to the list. Is it up to date?  TFD (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I can provide a permalink, but you can look it up on amazon on the "Look Inside" feature. You can find it here.  Go to index, then flip back a few pages.  It is from 2007, so not quite up to date.  Changes since then include: 1) granting to Prince William of the title "Duke of Cambridge;" 2) birth of Savannah Phillips; 3) birth of Lady Cosima Windsor; 4) birth of Senna Lewis; 5) marriage of Lady Rose Windsor to George Gilman; 6) birth of Lyla Gilman; 7) conversion of Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor to Catholicism; 8) death of the Earl of Harewood.  It is unclear if it missed the birth of Albert Windsor (it certainly missed the birth of Leopold) or if it, like Debrett's and Whitaker's, is excluding him. john k (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The BBC has confirmed that George Lascelles has died, stating at the time of his death he was number 46 in line. Mlm42 (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)