Talk:Line of succession to the British throne/Archive 14

seeing stars
Why are there three asterisks after Zara Tindall? —Tamfang (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Messy editing! -You will be glad to know I fixed it and there isnt anymore-see below. :) Nocrowx (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Back to the way it was!
As per my comments in the 'Master' section which are also relevant to the following sections above, there have been quite a few rushed and unsensible edits of late, so I have put everything back to the way it was for ages. Proper discussion and consensus needs to take place befor major changes like those done recently. So, please do not just change anything back, anyone. And see my reasoning for keeping it as it is, above; those are my own views, yes, but as I say there wasnt full enough consensus for the major changes that occured so all I have done is change it back, and hopefully people will agree with me that whatever your views are, it makes it fairer for all to have the list containg more complete info ie just keeping the full and proper titles for those who want to see what they are. Nocrowx (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are displaying a highly disruptive ownership attitude. Cut it out. And retract the personal attack of referring to other people's edits as "unsensible". Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not displaying the ownership attitude; I am trying to make it fairer for all, as I pointed out. The edits were unsensible because they displayed an ownership attitude, thinking that major changes could just be made because a tiny minority thought so. Nocrowx (talk) 08:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Zara Phillips/Tindall
Can somebody provide a reliable claim for the – rather outlandish – claim that "Mrs Michael Tindall" (rather than Zara Tindall) is this person's "legal" name? The convention of referring to married women with "Mrs" plus the first and last name of her husband is extremely outdated, and I'm sure outright offensive to many people today; I would be extremely surprised if it was still enshrined in any way in the legal system of the UK. Again, just because the royals' website chooses this bizarrely outmoded style does not mean we should do it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It does mean we should do it, while there are some obvious errors on the royal site, there is nothing wrong with the way they sstyle her and so we should choose that formal style her. Like I have said this list is about being an offical-type reference of the line of succession and she is legally married to Mr Tindall therefore that is what she is called. And do you think that even if we say Mrs Zara Tindall that it would be outdated? Granted women may no longer use their hubbie's first name, but practically all take his surname and in this case we can use both names thanks to the brackets. So again, less controversial and more fair to both viewpoints by keeping both styles as is currently the case: Mrs Michael Tindall (Zara Philips). Nocrowx (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What "both viewpoints"?? Is there a "viewpoint" anywhere here that women should be referred to by their husbands' first names? Absolutely unacceptable, not worth further discussion. I will definitely revert that one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be unacceptable to you, but remember that your view isnt the only thing that counts; wiki is a collaborative effort. Most importantly, I doubt it bothers Zara, since she is styled as such on her family's website! I imagine she is very happy to be known by her loving husband's name, but also retains her maiden name for some proffessional purposes. And that is the point I was trying to make; we can show both (names). But the Mrs Tindall is better with Michael in front of it because it avoids the duplication of 'Zara' and also serves to inform/remind people what her husband's full name is. A compromise could be Mrs Zara Tindall (nee Philips), but the 'Michael' is a valuable addition-back to my over-arching point that the more info for people the better; this is an encyclopedia ie where people come to find things out! Therefore, I have reverted it back. Remember, no-one is saying she must always be called either Zara Philips or Mrs Michael Tindall rather than Mrs Zara Tindall or whatever, it is just a way of presenting it in the list and the fuller the info in the list the better. And the same goes for everyone else-the list shows it all but people can choose what to use eg news reporters sometimes say 'Prince William' and sometimes 'The Duke of Cambridge' or a combination of both, but we know who they mean and if somebody doesnt then they can look it up here and see a full descriptive title of who they are, summarising info which is always usualy on the person's own article. Nocrowx (talk) 08:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Mrs. Zara Tindall implies that she is divorced, which is a BLP violation. TFD (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not in the language we are writing this encyclopedia in, no, it doesn't. This article is written in 21st-century English, not 19th-century English, and in current common usage there is no such implication. However, if you are afraid such an implication might still be transported by the use of "Mrs" plus the woman's own name, then there is an obvious solution: just get rid of the stupid "Mrs" etc. altogether again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think calling her Michael Tindall would be confusing. How should we refer to Princess Michael of Kent?  You keep mentioning what you find outdated, but do you not think that the subject of the article and calling people lords and ladies etc. is inherently outdated?  TFD (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * TFD, dont worry, I have placed a warning on Fut.Perf.'s talk page to make it clear to them that they cannot just make major changes according to their own points of view. They should now hopefully have the sense to just leave it be. Nocrowx (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nocrowx, the warning goes right back to you. TFD, here's exactly the misunderstanding: talking about an inherently "outdated" social institution is not the same thing as assuming an outdated mode of expression ourselves. We, as Wikipedia editors, write this article in common, modern English. We inform readers about styles and titles, to the extent we deem them pertinent to the topic, but we don't use them ourselves. (Incidentally, of course nobody has suggested calling her "Michael Tindall"; why the need to resort to such obvious, ridiculous red herrings?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * When the people in this list (with the possible except of those most closely in line to the throne) apply for drivers licenses, join the armed forces, sign legal documents, register to vote, appear in court, or apply for a greencard in the U.S., they use their first and last names the same as everyone else. Only in highly formal circumstances, or if one wrote them a letter, would their titles be used, but then so would Mr., Mrs., Miss, etc.  How do you choose which forms of address to use and which to omit?  Incidentally, newspapers handle this in different ways.  TFD (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What is this supposed to be an argument for or against? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is an argument for consistency. However, it is probably easier just to use descriptions from one list, than to put down the legal names of each heir without their titles.  TFD (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Deceased childless people
Why should deceased childless people be included in the list? I understand that, for example, Princess Margaret should be on the list in order to show how her descendants derive their places in the line of succession, but what's up with King Edward VII, Prince William of Gloucester and Prince John of the United Kingdom? They haven't been in the line of succession for about many decades (John himself has not been in the line for 93 years). Including them makes the list look more like a family tree than and less like a line of succession. Surtsicna (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The family tree shown lists all the descendants of George V. That is a very simple criteria for deciding who was in and who was out. Keeping the three named individuals who died without issue in the list is no big deal, but removing them would mean complicating the criteria and alaso leaving a gap between George V and George VI (assuming that the previous editor meant Edward VIII, not Edward VII). That is the reason why they are in the list and the reason why I would like them to remain in the list. Martinvl (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * But that is precisely the issue. This is not a family tree. It is a line of succession. It's actually very simple: only people in the line of succession and those whose descendants are currently in the line should be listed. It makes no sense to include someone who hasn't been in the line for 93 years and who has no descendants while excluding people who presently are in the line (such as descendants of Edward VII's other children). There is no sensible reason to include John, William and Edward. As I said, this is not a family tree; Wikipedia's got articles for such family trees. Surtsicna (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have reinstated the three names, one of whom was actually king. Please leave them there until we have more input. Martinvl (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Why don't you yourself give some input? I have addressed your arguments. You haven't responded to mine. So what if one of them was a king? It has no impact on the current line of succession. Had Edward VIII (or William or John) never existed, the line would've been exactly the same. Surtsicna (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Given that there is a huge overlap between the descendants of George V and the line of descent (all George V's legitimate descendants were by definition at some time in the line of succession to the throne), listing all descendants demon strates that nobody has been left out. A reader might see somewhere that George V had five sones and one daughter, and then question why only the descendants of three sons (now all deceased) appear in the list of succession. By restoring Edward VIII and Prince John, that question can be answered at little extra cost. Martinvl (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Now I too hope there will more input. This article is about the present line of succession and has nothing to do with the line during George V's reign. A reader can very easily look up George V's children and they can very easily conclude that only descendants of three of the five sons of George V have descendants today. There are articles that deal with that: British monarchs' family tree and House of Windsor, for example. Surtsicna (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The inclusion of the deceased people with no issue confirms the legality of the succession without the need for WP:OR. Martinvl (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What was that supposed to mean? Wikipedia may be influential but certainly not to the point of "confirming the legality of the succession". The purpose of this article is to list people who are (present tense) in the line of succession and show from whom they derive their right. A Wikipedia article cannot confirm legality of anything. Surtsicna (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Commenting once again as an appreciative "ordinary reader" who has made a fair amount of use of Wikipedia and made some input to other articles but not this one: after considering the points made above for and against by Surtsicna and Martinvl, and seeing that neither is mere pedantry and both are helpfully pragmatic, may I propose that the names of the deceased be left out per Surtsicna but that an explanatory paragraph be added about the way in which the listing tree is constructed, viz., not as a conventional family tree but only of those currently in line of succession, such that certain of the deceased are left out, namely... (X.. Y.. Z..), with links to the other articles which give the further information which some readers may be looking for? In other words, those of the deceased who belong to that subset should be noted as a check of the kind Martinvl mentions, but not in the main list. --Qexigator (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds very sensible. Surtsicna (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this what you had in mind? Surtsicna (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That does it for me. If I were bold enough to intervene I would move the whole paragraph from below to above the list. The reader needs to know this before getting into the list, especially as the reader is not scanning a printed page in front of his/her eyes but looking at a screen of unknown dimensions.Qexigator (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Use the names that the articles use, or would use
Can we make it that simple? Please? It would go like this:


 * Charles, Prince of Wales
 * Prince William, Duke of Cambridge
 * Prince Henry of Wales
 * Prince Andrew, Duke of York

Etc, etc. Since some of the Misters, Misses, Masters, etc, don't have articles here on Wikipedia it's save to assume we wouldn't use that title/style since it is common/universal to everyone but the titled people in the English speaking world... Seven Letters 23:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales" or "William, Duke of Cambridge"? Why use the courtesy and substantive titles?  What is the general rule that should apply?  TFD (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:NCNT isn't perfect by any means but it is a good start. I think the argument for not dropping the 'prince' for people like William is that people will be "confused" as to whether he is the ruler of a duchy, a mere nobleman, etc. I, personally, feel that the context of the article is what matters most when looking at the title and that it wouldn't be a problem. The same people tend to argue that using prince twice is redundant for Charles, although they are really two types of prince (German distinguishes them as Prinz and Fürst). It might just be simple enough to add the other 'prince' for Charles (and princess for Anne) for the sake of consistency. Seven Letters 23:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fully support this proposal. The Wikipedia naming practices are geared towards the one criterion that really counts: making the individuals in question most easily recognizable to the reader. That's the criterion that's operative for our choice of article title, and it should also be the criterion operative here. I frankly don't give a flying fuck about the technical differences between substantive titles and courtesy titles and whatnot, and I don't see why such considerations should be of great concern for this article. If editors on the other article have determined, no doubt on the basis of much discussion and careful observation of common usage in reliable sources, that "Prince William, Duke of Cambridge" is a correct and readily recognizable way of referring to that person, that's good enough for me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I'd much rather stick with the formal styles for actual royals and peers.  Just get rid of Mr., Mrs., Master. john k (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with John K - getting rid of too many titles is persuing a non-neutral POV. In short, what John K is suggesting is that we follow the style in Debretts and tweak individual entries (such as Zara Phillips) where appropriate. Martinvl (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Fredereick, Prince of Wales
User:Nocrowx amended the text to read
 * "The line of succession continues with the other eligible descendants of Edward VII and earlier British monarchs (as well as Frederick, Prince of Wales) back to George I (the line is limited to Sophia of Hanover's descendants ..."

by adding the reference to Frederick, Prince of Wales (shown above in italics). The reason why Frederick was mentioned should be obvious from the text, not hidden in behind the link. The only thing special about Frederick is that he is the only descendant of Sophia whose own descendants have been crowned monarch without Frederick himself having been crowned monarch (he died before his father, George II was succeeded by his grandson). I regard the inclusion of Frederick as irrelevant, and without proper explanation to the reader, confusing. Moreover, Frederick is no different from any other child of the monarch who was himself or herself never crowned monarch. I have therefore removed that phrase (twice).

Any comments from anybody else? Martinvl (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Commenting with "ordinary reader" hat on: 1_"... why Frederick was mentioned should... not [be] hidden in behind the link."--agreed. 2_"Frederick is no different from any other child of the monarch who was ...never crowned monarch... the inclusion of [him] without proper explanation to the reader [is] confusing. ...[he] is no different from any other child of the monarch who was ... never crowned monarch."-- agreed, but it would be helpfully informative, and not off topic, to add a brief paragraph in the article explaining about Fred etc.Qexigator (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I missed one point earlier - Frederick's son was George III from whom the current royal house is descended. Can we see if anythng can be written in this artcile about Frederick that is:
 * self-explanatory
 * not off-topic
 * not teaching grandmother to suck eggs
 * Martinvl (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * --not forgetting he was father of George III and great-grandfather of Queen Victoria, "Here lies poor Fred who was alive and is dead, / Had it been his father I had much rather, .../ But since it is Fred who was alive and is dead, / There is no more to be said!" (quoted by Thackeray). Perhaps not all readers (or editors) will be grannies, and not all grannies nowadays know about sucking eggs.--Qexigator (talk) 10:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * [Off-topic] I once heasrd that "sucking eggs" was a Victorian euphamism for what we today call the "facts of life" - something with which I am sure all grannies are conversant. (I don't have a citation for that THOUGH)Martinvl (talk) 10:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * lol! meta-topic?Qexigator (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Frederick is not "the only descendant of Sophia whose own descendants have been crowned monarch without Frederick himself having been crowned monarch"! Other obvious examples include Mary of Teck and Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn; Philip, Duke of Edinburgh is expected to join that list. —Tamfang (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Moving the para. explaining the list
Qexigator proposes, unless there is known to be reason otherwise, that the article would be further improved if the content of the paragraph now beginning "The above list is limited to those descendants of George V who are presently in the line..." were placed at the top of the section headed "Line of succession", that is, above the list instead of below. Please advise.Qexigator (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Serial numbers, comment invited: _At the same time, in view of earlier discussion among editors (now archived) about setting a serial number against persons listed, it is proposed to add to the explanatory paragraph words to the effect that the serial numbers denote the placing in the list made by editors from time to time according to information available, and that any person's actual position in the line of succession may be or become closer or remoter as a result of events including births, deaths or marriages of others. Or would it be better to put this as a general annotation, below the list? Qexigator (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * --Now added as a footnote. See also below proposal for Template instead of outright numbers. Qexigator (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC: What descriptions if any should we use for individuals in line to the British throne?
What descriptions if any should we use for individuals who are in line to the British throne? The official website of the British monarchy includes substantive titles, courtesy titles, titles assumed as part of one's married name, honorific titles and honorific prenomials. Wikipedia has no policy on this, but merely says that substantive titles should be included in the names of articles. Should we (1) use the desriptions provided by the royal family website, (2) exclude all titles, descriptions except individuals names, or (3) decide among ourselves which to use?

Note: Examples of substantive titles include Prince of Wales; of courtesy, Viscount Severn; of married persons, Lady Ogilvy; honorific titles, Lord Frederick Windsor; and honorific prenomials, The Hon. Charles Armstrong-Jones.

TFD (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a guideline at MOS:HONORIFIC. Please alter the opening statement to reflect this. DrKiernan (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Already mentioned, "Wikipedia has no policy on this, but merely says that substantive titles should be included in the names of articles". Incidentally the guideline says, "styles and honorifics should not be included in front of the name, but may be discussed in the article. In particular, this applies to: styles and honorifics derived from a title, position or activity".  TFD (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. Use the names provided in the royal family website We should rely on the source and avoid original research.  One editor says that the titles Mr., Miss, etc. are not noteworthy.  However they are still used in formal circumstances.  If we omit them then we should omit all titles.  Typically upmarket publications will refer to all persons by their social titles or else omit social titles altogether.  TFD (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How about using their article title (without disambiguation, if any) or what their article would be titled if they had one? Seven Letters 00:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This notion of sticking to "the source" or "avoiding OR" is a red herring. We use sources to secure the facts we report, not to have the style of presenting those facts dictated to us. We refer to people the way we have chosen on Wikipedia, across all articles, and that definitely excludes the use of "Mr" etc. Other titles can be used to the extent their presence is of encyclopedic interest in the context of this article. Determining what is interesting and what isn't is not "original research", but common editorial discretion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is unwise to use the royal family website because it's wrong. They use "The Hon" for Leopold and Albert Windsor but their father's title of Lord is a courtesy one not a substantive one and so they should not be given this style. DrKiernan (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Stick to substantive titles only These are readily determined, and should remove a lot of "puff" now present.  The reason why we should not remove substantive titles is their legal use on documents - Charles can sign "Wales", Dukes may sign using the name of their duchy, etc.  As those titles thus do have significance beyond simple names, they should not be excluded here.  And clearly such bits as "Hon." have essentially no significance for this list. Collect (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So you would remove all the courtesy titles of prince, princess, lord, lady, earl, viscount, etc. What about the title of "Countess of Snowdon", which is a married name not held by the princess in her own right?  TFD (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that "Prince" can absolutely be a "substantive title" and is not only a "courtesy title", etc. "Hon." is not a "substantive title." We also only list "highest title" (QE II is "Duke of Normandy, for example).     Thus we would have "Prince of Wales", then "Prince Andrew (Duke of York)" etc. following what we already do for Wikipedia titles.  "Prince" and "Princess" as "substantive titles"  are higher ranks than "Earl" one might well note.   Collect (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * While Prince can be a substantive title, e.g., the Prince of Wales, it is also a courtesy title used to refer to any son of a monarch. The earldoms of Ulster and St. Andrews are sudsidiary titles of the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent and are therefore courtesy titles when used by their sons.  TFD (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not. The earldoms are "substantive titles" but since we only use one title at a time, only the highest substantive title counts.  If one is in the Channel Islands, Elizabeth is not "Queen" but "Duke of Normandy" as a specific local substantive title.  You should also note that "Prince" can be a "courtesy title" for those other than sons of the Queen or King Regnant.  Similary she is "Lord of Mann" which is not part of the EU.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See the Wikipedia article, substantive title, which explains it quite well: "a title of nobility or royalty held by someone (normally by one person alone), which was acquired either by direct grant or inheritance. It is to be distinguished from: a title shared among cadets; or borne as a courtesy title by a peer's direct heirs; or acquired by a consort as a consequence of marriage or grant."  The earldoms are "borne as a courtesy title by a peer's  direct heirs".  Also the monarch's children as styled prince and princess at birth, although they may be later invested with the substantive titles of Prince of Wales, Princess Royal, etc.  The Queen's children btw do not assume subsidiary titles but are awarded titles that are within the gift of the Crown.  Perhaps you mean substantial?  TFD (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "See the Wikipedia article" does not impress me. What does impress me is what actual dictionaries state. And your citing of Wikipedia is not on that level.  Cheers - and toast the Duke of Normandy when there. Collect (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See Webster's: "A substantive title (or substantive peerage) is a title of nobility or royalty held by someone (normally by one person alone), which they gained through either grant or inheritance, as opposed to one given or loaned to them either as a courtesy title, or gained through marriage."  "The title [prince] has, next to its generic use, two basic meanings: as a substantive title, that are titles of princes who are reigning monarchs and in some cases heads of their noble house[;] as a courtesy title, which is a title of princes who are members of a royal or a highly noble family, sharing their title with several relatives in similar position."  TFD (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And you have not negated a single word I wrote. The substantive title of "Prince" outranks Duke, Earl etc.   You seem more inclined to question whether the son of a king or queen regnant outranks a Duke or Earl.  As the queen regnant (Elozabeth)  has so labelled some of  her progeny, that becomes a "substantive title" rather than a "courtesy title."  If she does not so title the sons and daughter, then you would be correct. "Prince of Wales" was, and remains a "substantive title" even though he does not "reign" over Wales.  Your requirement that Charles actually rule Wales is ludicrous here, and of no benefit to the discussion at hand. Collect (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No idea what you are talking about. Princes (substantive and courtesy) outrank Dukes (substantive and courtesy).  But the titles are only substantive if (per Webster's) they were "gained through either grant or inheritance".  So Charles for example has the courtesy title of "Prince" because his mother was Queen, and was later at age 9 invested with the substantive title of "Prince of Wales".  Anyway, we should move beyond this discussion of semantics and on to what you recommend.  TFD (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather than debating title on a case-by-case basis, why not pick a published style and stick to it. We have two to choose from - the monarchy website and Debretts.  If we do not want to incluide "Master" and "Mr", then the style used by Debretts is appropriate. Martinvl (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to that one; what does it do? But in any case, I think the logic is wrong. As I said above, we use individual sources to back up facts, but we don't let our style be dictated by any single source. We don't need anybody to tell us how to refer to a person, because we are perfectly capable of deciding that ourselves – based not on whatever individual source we use for determining the content, but on the totality of common English usage, as reflected in our naming conventions and MOS. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You can access Debretts here. I disagree with Fut.Perf. about using a single source - he might be right from a philosophical pointof view, but in reality this article is bedevilled by edit-warring over this matter. My suggesting is that we use the Debrett's format for names, adding any other names in brackets after the form used by Debretts. This is a simple rule to follow and will bring this endless bickering to an end. As an alternative, use the monarchy website with the same caveat about alternative names (I am not really that bothered which set of rules we use, but lets settle on one of them).  Moreover, once we have agreed we should place a "FAQ" template on the talk page stating exactly what our decision is to stop this senseless argument re-emerging. Martinvl (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Debrett's is correct, so it could certainly be used. Its style also has the advantage of agreeing with wikipedia ones like MOS:HONORIFIC. DrKiernan (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Whatever the WP:commonname is - That might be different for different individuals. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a fallacy of the excluded middle going on here. We should use substantive and courtesy titles, and honorifics like "Lady Firstname" or "The Hon. Firstname."  There's absolutely no reason to ever use "Mr." or "Mrs.", and certainly no good reason to use "Mrs. Husband's Name", much less "Master".  john k (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. DrKiernan (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we should drop the Mr, Mrs, Miss, Master, HM and HRH to comply with the Manual of Style, which has wide acceptance among editors already. DrKiernan (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, please let them be dropped. Qexigator (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you phrase a general rule. For example, "titles of gentry below the rank of knight will be excluded, as well as honorifics of persons of royal rank."  TFD (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with dropping HM and HRH - I think we should stick with formal styles for actual royals. In particular, using HRH for, say, the Earl of Wessex indicates that he is distinct from the Earl of Harewood, who is not an HRH.  I think that is most definitely worthwhile.  And I really don't want to be changing the linked text to things like "Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex."  john k (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * May be yes for retaining HRH for reason given, if explained in the article. But how far would objection to linking to things like "Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex" be preferring the passing convenience of some editors to the more lasting convenience of readers and of Wikipedia as a whole? Qexigator (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what it has to do with my convenience. I prefer the formal styles because this is what reliable sources use in this context, and because they are useful to know, in general.  What information do readers lose from having "HRH The Earl of Wessex (The Prince Edward)" as opposed to "Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex"?  The former tells them that his formal style does not include "Prince Edward," which is useful information in its own right. john k (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Useful info. yes, and this would be more or less as now listed in the article, including links, and as annotated? In other words, status quo? That seems to me (like some others) to be the way to go (stay). Or is there something else or more in your proposal? Qexigator (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, mostly status quo. But as I said before, I want to get rid of "Mr.," "Mrs.," "Miss," and "Master" for those without titles. john k (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * --agreed, but I don't see Mr etc there now among those listed as numbers in line. If continued that way, end of prob.? Qexigator (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Mr." is a title for gentlemen above the rank of yeoman who have no other titles, but has now become commonly used for all men, regardless of rank. However in the armed forces it is still uses for junior officers, but not for enlisted men below certain ranks.  TFD (talk) 08:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * --"...gentlemen above the rank of Yeoman"? Given that most of those who have edited or are proposing to edit this or such-like articles can reasonably be expected to be aware of that historic usage, they will also be aware that it is not the main topic nor a pertinent subsidiary topic of this one, in connection with the UK or any other country. It is irrelevant to the merits of the question whether or not to use Mr etc. in this article. That has already been established by comments from other editors. Qexigator (talk) 09:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is which titles to include and which to exclude. What is your criterion?  TFD (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hello, TFD. Answer: Three c's: common Usage - Common sense - common knowledge (see other editors).Qexigator (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * --That is the logical fallacy Argumentum ad populum. Even worse, you have not proved the premises.  TFD (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, TFD, forgive my reluctance to be drawn yet further off topic.Qexigator (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Off topic? You are providing irrational arguments instead of discussing policy and guidelines.  TFD (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Most editors wishing to improve this article will be aware that there are broadly two sorts of usage in question: one, the current conventions in UK and Commonwealth affecting the Queen and royal family in a variety of contexts, from personal and private correspondence to official business and formal proclamations; and the other, the current usages (in UK) among the titled and untitled when addressing each other socially (such as invitations to formal occasions or announcements of births, marriages or deaths). Sometimes, those two may overlap and the first will prevail over the second, and there are also varying degrees of formality, such that in works of reference such as Debrett, editors must decide on a house style acceptable to the intended readership. I may be mistaken, but my understanding is: 1_ that the purpose is to identify current usage for the convenience of readers, not to develop a set of rules for this particular article to satisfy the points of view of a self-selected group of editors; and 2_ If there is an editor who has good and sufficient reason to propose some deviation from or amendment to the Manual of Style (mentioned by DrK), then the place for that is there not here.Qexigator (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * --PS In view of later comments: Some who find questions about the use of titles in connection with this article worrisome or wearisome may not be familiar with Noblesse Oblige (book), illustrated by Osbert Lancaster. This work comprised essays by the notable, knowledgeable and entertaining Nancy Mitford, Alan S. C. Ross, “Strix” (Peter Fleming (writer)) and Christopher Sykes, a letter by Evelyn Waugh and a poem by John Betjeman. Covering such cases as an Armigerous admiral, it was first published in 1956 and has been republished many times. Perhaps reference to that work could helpfully be added to the article which, among other things, cites Debrett's, as does the article about the book. --Qexigator (talk) 09:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ...For ease of reference - p.76 (1956 ): In his "Open Letter " to Mitford, Waugh mentioned that, on being asked by Logan Pearsall Smith whether he would describe the garment he was wearing as a greatcoat, overcoat or topcoat, he had replied 'Overcoat', and Smith had then asked whether that would also be the usage of an armigerous admiral. Waugh cautioned Mitford "That way lay madness and I fear if you are taken too seriously you and Professor Ross may well drive your readers into the bin".Qexigator (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have been WP:BOLD and added a "Quote box" to the header of this talk page. This box coudl be replaced with a "recurring theme" box later. Martinvl (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * --Yes, and please clarify. Refers it only to the page "The Line of Succession to the British Throne" or extends it also to other pages such as "Forms of Address- Our unique and indispensable guide to negotiating the social minefield of British titles and styles",  and "Everyday Etiquette, Everything you need to know about contemporary conduct…",, and "Joie de Vivre" and "Debrett's Guide to British Behaviour- Our indispensable Guide to British life and manners...". ? Taking a leaf from these, let questions of "criteria" (which may be troubling others) be determined by topic relevancy and the three c's. Qexigator (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was referring only to this article and to the page "The Line of Succession to the British Throne". We do however need to add a note that if somebody receives a new title, we would reflect the new title rather than wait for Debrett to update their page (for example, Prince William becoming Duke of Cambridge).  The main point that I was making is that we woudl omit the titles "Mr", "Mrs", "Miss", "Master", but keep the title "Hon", "Lady" etc.  Debretts does not however resolve the Zara/Phillips/Tindall problem - mainly because they do not appear to have updated their website. Martinvl (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In my book (to use a somewhat dated expression: see TFD ) there is no problem in such cases about using the style which would ordinarily be used for any commoner (including non-use here of Mr, Mrs etc) unless there is some overriding usage directed by the Queen as head of the royal family and as the sovereign and Fount of honour. --Qexigator (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If we follow MOS for article titles, then we do not have honorable, right honorable, his or her majesty or royal highness, lord or lady this, etc. What is the rule you propose?  TFD (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the first line of the lede does use "Lord", "Lady" etc (See Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). It appears to me that the Debrett format on their succession page is the closest to Wikipedia's format for lede introductions, which is why I made my original proposal. Martinvl (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It says, "honorific prefixes such as Lord or Lady, which differ from full titles in that they are included as part of the personal name, often from birth – should be included in the article title if the person is far better recognised with the title than without." Margaret was not best known by her honorific title of Countess Snowdon, the tabloids called her "Princess Margaret".  TFD (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * _Two points about styles and titles in the list:
 * I am not aware of any compelling reason for including or omitting "Rt Hon" or "Hon." in the list [but now propose omit, Qexigator (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)].
 * Add HRH if missing from any properly so styled (as prescribed under statute or by the Queen) now or in future, and continue omitting Mr, Mrs etc.
 * But otherwise, as I see it the article is now pretty much as it ought to be, thanks to the work and reworking of editors to date -- subject only to correcting confirmed inaccuracies, if any, of name or position in line and updating resulting from any dropping out of the line (death or disqualification), or future removal of a disqualification, or birth of child to one already in line. Leave well alone.[]. --Qexigator (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: "now", as revised by Morhange 05:07, 3 November 2012. She has added "don't think we need birthdates". Is there any good reason either way? (Before putting this query, I have noted lengthy discussion of the article dated June 2011 at User talk:Morhange and User talk:Alandavidson.) --Qexigator (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If we have birthdates, we should also have death dates which might overflow the line and destroy the article layout. In these cirtcumstances I don't think that the extra information conveyed is worth it. Martinvl (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * --An "ordinary reader" agrees, and waits to see others' comments. Qexigator (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Drop Hon. and Rt Hon. Unlike HRH (and Prince and Princess) the use of Honourable and Right Honourable derives independently from the system which regulates the line of succession to the throne or royal lineage, and is no more relevant to whether or not a person is in line than Mr etc. or Rev. I now regard this as a compelling reason to omit.Qexigator (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Use of Hon. (I'm not sure there's any non-peers or royals who are right honourable this high in the line of succession) actually provides information, which Mr. and Mrs. do not. john k (talk) 05:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello again John K -- May be informative but not on topic of this article for the reason given above. Whether titled as peers of first creation or re-creation or by descent or otherwise, or knighted, or members of an order of chivalry would be beside the point, viz., whether or not properly styled Hon. or Rt. Hon. is irrrelevant to line of succession. I see these two styles now appear in the list at 16, 17, (47-48), 48, 50, 51, 54, (58-59). And as everyone here will know, any of the others could become Rt Hon., e.g. if appointed to the Privy Council or ex officio. Qexigator (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * None of the titles or honorifics has a bearing on whether someone is in line to the throne. What is your reason for keeping any of them?  TFD (talk) 08:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * --The law, customs, usages and practice commonly and traditionally recognised from time to time under the crown of the kingdom of England, Great Britain, United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, so far as not remote from the topic of this article, and neither mere pedantry nor snobbery, and pragmatically suited to the format: briefly the three c's above-mentioned.Qexigator (talk) 09:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Subject to advice of better informed editors, my proposed summary would be:
 * _retain: HRH for any so entitled, and Prince and Princess as directed by the Queen. For all in line who are of the peerage (HRH or not), (short) titles by which they as peers of the realm are known in all ranks from baron to duke, whether by descent or of first or other creation (of whatever limitation, including any life peerage). Courtesy titles of sons of peers above viscount and of grandsons, if any. If not otherwise titled, baronetcy or knighthood, if any.
 * _in all cases, drop Hon. or Rt. Hon., if any, and all other styles. This would depart from using "prefixes such as Lord or Lady, which differ from full titles in that they are included as part of the personal name, often from birth". These derive otherwise than from or in close connection with the line of succession of the royal family.
 * _omit birth and death dates. Qexigator (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * _Commoners (that is, all who are not of the peerage): Editors will be aware of the use of names alone for commoners in connection with Privy Council Orders linked to copies in the Gazetted column of the table at Royal Marriages Act 1772, including cases where the other party is styled HRH, such as Prince William to Catherine Middleton.. Such is the variety of styles that there are added to others, though commoners, styles such as Lady... or Hon...., but for the purposes of the line of succession list such additions to the personal name can safely be omitted. Qexigator (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Returning to the box (17:00, 30 October 2012 ): it states (proposes?) that the article follows the format used by Debrett's. Actually there is a major difference. While the article is arranged in the form of a tree, Deb. is a simple list, sequential but unnumbered, mentioning parenthetically immediate kinship: such as _eldest/ elder/ second/ third/ only son// daughter of..., nephew/ niece/ cousin of... Deb. omits HRH and there are other differences in use of names and styles. The sequence is the same up to 25, but Tane Lewis has not yet been included at 26, nor are Albert Windsor (32) and Leopold Windsor (33) included, and Deb. stops at Lady Helen Taylor (34). Deb. does not include birthdates, inclusion of which, as in the article, indicates why a male, such as Tane, would come before an elder sister.Qexigator (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We should drop the Mr, Mrs, Miss, Master, "The Hon.", "Right Hon.", HM and HRH to comply with the Manual of Style, which as DrKiernan pointed out has wide acceptance among editors already. Anything short of "Sir So-and-So" for a Baronet, or an actual tile such as Earl or Baron otherwise, gets dumped. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC) (notoriously republican)
 * For those practising the art of conveying encyclopaedic information according to the principles and precepts of NPoV, and free from sentiments of royalist or republican inclination, it may be reasonable to use HRH and HM in view of the article's specific topic. Qexigator (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"Mrs..." etc.
Those seeking to make editing improvements to the article will be aware of the styles used for members of the royal family (UK and Commonwealth) at British Royal Family and Court Circular and similar. My comment is that an ordinary reader looking for socially neutral information (not the promotion of some particular viewpoint about reforming existing customs and usages), would expect this article to follow the current usage, or if there is good editorial reason otherwise, to make clear that this is so, giving the editorial reason in simple non-contentious terms for departing from what readers will find at those articles.

I am not proposing to draft a paragraph about this for two reasons. 1_The information is within the comments which some editors have already made. 2_Those editors would be likely to regard such a thing as an unseemly intrusion upon what they regard as a consensus building discussion among themselves, which lately has been conducted in a way that has incurred a block and blocking threats and counter-threats.Qexigator (talk) 11:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The language of Court Circular is 19th-century English, not modern-day English, and should not apply to an article written for the 21st century. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  00:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite so Orange Mike, thanks for helping to make clear the gradualness of the change in styles and usages affecting this topic.Qexigator (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Royal Marriages Act
The inclusion of some of the descendants of Mary, Princess Royal, is contrary to the Royal Marriages Act. Technically as a result of that Act they are illegitimate. It was for this reason amongst others and the highly doubtful legal situation about their legitimacy that the list was previously truncated. I see that statements that the marriages of their parents were in contravention of the Act have been deleted from the individual Articles about them. As the succession is regulated by this Act amongst others, some explanation of this point should be included. In my view the list should be truncated as it was previously. AnthonyCamp (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC).
 * The same thought had struck me. DrKiernan (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get this point about the Royal Marriages Act, but the list claims that their place in the line is sourced by the Debrett's website. I have checked and it isn't, so they should be deleted. PatGallacher (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I am certain I found a source several years ago last year (ETA it is the Hardman book from 2007; you can find the link in the archives) that includes the Lascelles family in the line of succession. Do I now have to search for it again to get them put back in?  As for the Royal Marriages Act, this has been Anthony Camp's hobbyhorse for several years now, and he has yet to provide any reliable sources that indicate any of the positive claims he is making.  Given that all of the Lascelles family are descended from two daughters of George II who married foreign princes (via Queen Alexandra), there is at the very least a case to be made that the RMA doesn't apply to them.  Given that they all have been listed in various reliable sources as being in the line of succession, and given that there are no reliable sources that they are excluded due to the RMA, I don't see how this can possibly be a cause of removal. john k (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not up to us to determine how the RMA should be interpreted - that is original research and should be made by the authors who prepare the secondary sources, i.e., the various lists on which we rely. There have been no disputes affecting the succession since the law was enacted and it is not clear who would adjudicate the line of succession or how they would interpret the act.  TFD (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "no disputes affecting the succession". Hmmn, well if George IV's first marriage had been valid then he couldn't have been king, he'd also have been a bigamist and Charlotte of Wales would be a bastard. There was also the case of Frederick d'Este. DrKiernan (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Succession to the throne depends on legitimate birth and it has several times been determined that children born of unions contrary to the Act are not legitimate. The last, of course, was Augustus FitzGeorge who died in 1933 who, but for the Act, would have been Duke of Cambridge. He knew that for all practical purposes he was illegitimate and he made no such claim. AnthonyCamp (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC).
 * But it is not up to Wikipedia editors to apply 19th century legal precedents to the present day unless reliable sources do so. Find a source that says Tewa Lascelles, or whoever, is not in line. If you can't do that, the story of Augustus Fitzgeorge is completely irrelevant. john k (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure how the Lascelles would be excluded? With the exception of Tewa Lascelles' recent marriage and Jeremy Lascelles' third marriage, all of the Lascelles marriages have been approved by the Privy Council... Morhange (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that Anthony Camp's contention is that Jeremy Lascelles's first marriage, and James Lascelles's second, were not approved, and that thus the children from those marriages are not in line. I'm not sure what his evidence of this is. john k (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * DrKiernan, the succession has not been challenged since the RMA was passed. And it is doubtful that the courts would ever determine succession.  TFD (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of some undisputed source on the question of the legitimacy of the descendants (correction) of Mary, Princess Royal, truncation seems to be the reasonable and preferred option. As at 16:44, 4 November 2012, the list was down to 47, and the Hons were reduced to nos. 16, 17 and 41.Qexigator (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I realise that it can be awkward when an article is subjected to controversial editing and deleting, but unfortunately we cannot go by vague references like "the Hardman book from 2007", nor can we go trawling through the archives to find it. If the book was from 2007 I suggest that at best it may have been a guide to the line of succession at the time but not necessarily 5 years later. PatGallacher (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt in five years anything has changed regarding the Lascelles' inclusion aside from the dead of the previous Earl and not counting the marriages/births of illegitimate children. Morhange (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe the late earl's death is the only change. Beyond that, why shouldn't we be able to use a source from 2007?  Is there a difference in kind between a source from 2007 and a source from, say January of this year?  In all cases we have to update the list based on the most recent events. And I'm not certain why "we" can't go trawling through the archives to find the reference to the Hardman book. What is preventing "us" from doing this? In any event, this is the book.  The list of the line of succession appears to no longer be in the free preview. john k (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It was not difficult to find "the Hardman book from 2007" on the internet, and to purchase for the price of p&p the copy I now have open before me (OR with a secondary source--is it permitted to mention this? -- "Robert Hardman reveals the private side of a thoroughly modern monarch" 25th September 2011[]: noted but not notable, comments include one from Tracy, Boston USA). The book's Appendix A is "The line of succession to the British Throne" listing _Descendants of Queen Elizabeth II 1 (Pr. of Wales) to 11 (Zara Philips) _Descendants of King George VI 12 (Visct Linley) to 17 (Arthur Chatto) _Descendants of King George V 18 (Dk of Gloucester) to 50 (Ellen Lascelles). Events have made it out of date and other sources are needed for Wikipedia. Not surprisingly, the book is not cited at Succession to the British throne either. It is not a scholarly work and cites no sources. It was "published to accompany the television series 'Monarchy: The Royal Family at Work' first broadcast on BBC One in 2007". Qexigator (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Template instead of outright numbers
Isn't there any template that can be used to determine a person's place in the line instead of outright numbers? # used to do this, but obviously doesn't work anymore. A birth or death of a person in the line would require manual changing of all numbers that follow(ed) that person in the line. For example, when the Duke of Cambridge has a child, 44 numbers will have to be changed manually. There has to be a way to regulate this more efficiently. Surtsicna (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking ahead, perhaps only a few months or so, if a future renumbering is required before a suitable device is available, may be the thing to do, while retaining the tree format, would be to let the serial numbering be dropped and instead a note added mentioning that the numerical place in line of succession for the first twenty is shown at Succession to the British throne. This proposal results from noting that--
 * 1_"Succession to the British throne" has a section "Current line of succession" which lists the first 20 individuals in the line, numbered simply 1. to 20.
 * 2_ At the edit page of that article,[] the device used for auto-numbering is _ x ol y .. x li value="1" y.. x li y.. x /ol y _ where x= 
 * thus,--

x li value="1" y HRH Charles, Prince of Wales... x li y HRH Prince William... etc............... x li y Arthur Chatto... x /ol y.
 * Of course, for the top twenty that would mean updating the articles in tandem.Qexigator (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a good idea. We should not add or remove people from the list until the a reliable source publishes a new list.  Otherwise we are applying our knowledge of the Act to information about births, deaths, etc., which is synthesis.  TFD (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * TFD, the proposal here is about format: given that changes will be due to be made from time to time (properly sourced and all that) 1_let it be changed in tandem with the top 20 in the list at Succession to the British throne and 2_Can an autorenumbering template be created for use in the list tree here? Where does synthesis come into that? (The term "Tandem" can also be used more generally to refer to any group of persons or objects working together, not necessarily in line.) Qexigator (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way if in respect of any person no source which is undisputed can be found when an update is due, the solution is to annotate as suited to the case. Qexigator (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * -And do not doubt that judicious anxiety for maintaining suitably high standards for editing is certainly to be encouraged and ought not be dismissed as merely finicky. Qexigator (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If we say that someone is 7th in line to the throne, for example, we need a source that says that. You of course may determine that based on your research into births, deaths, legitimacy and religious persuasion and create a list, but that is original research.  Note that two of the sources, the Royal Family website and Debrett's disagree.  It is not our role to determine the truth but to report what reliable sources say.  TFD (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * --Interesting, but without a doctorate in logical fallacies I hesitate to say whether that is one or not, perhaps petitio principii, , , or some such. Others may know better. Qexigator (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not following you. Are you saying that my suggestion we follow policy is a logical fallacy because it is based on the premise that we should follow policy?  Sounds original, do you find it helps in winning arguments?  TFD (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * --So now it seems TFD regards "policy" as about winning arguments. Would that be a team game, a herd game or one to one? Again, I must ask TFD to forgive my reluctance to be drawn further off topic. Qexigator (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand what relevance your comments have to anything under discussion. They appear to be insults rather than coherent commentary.  TFD (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * --Anyone can see that a gentle reminder to pay attention to the topic, which here is "Template instead of outright numbers", is the reverse of insulting. Qexigator (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again whether someone is first or tenth in line is something that should be sourced, not the product of original research, which is what the template proposes. TFD (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you TFD, that makes the point you wish to make clearer to me, but please forgive me when I say that I fail to see that if, as you say, that would not conform with a prohibition against "original research", the fault would be with the template as proposed above. Can we leave it at that? Others will be able to see your comment and be able to judge for themselves whether a fault free template can be devised. Qexigator (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Another reason for commending the re-presentation of the information in the article per TFD (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2012, (UTC)[] below under "synthesis when updating the list", is that a template such as proposed above[] would no longer be needed. Qexigator (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

synthesis when updating the list?
Can experienced editors interested in improving the article please advise whether or not steps 5 and 6 of the following would be disallowed as "synthesis" within the meaning of the offence, and if so please explain: 1_An authentic list exists, such as the one showing the top 20 in the current line of Succession to the British throne. 2_An authentic external source declares a death of one of the persons in that list. 3_The acknowledged basis of the list as enumerated is such that when a person has died that person drops out of the list and as a necessary consequence all later persons move up one place. 4_No further information or confirmation is required for making the change in that list. 5_The list is edited to make that revision in the enumerated sequence. 6_And at the same time the list in Line of succession to the British throne is likewise revised. Qexigator (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think that's synthesis. I think updating the list by one up or one down when there is a simple and straightforward birth or death is fine. What concerns me is when there is a complication: such as a Catholic parent, a Catholic baptism but not a Catholic confirmation, an older brother who is recognised as legitimate by any ordinary meaning of the word but not in a strict reading of English succession law, a marriage that is not approved by the Privy Council, etc. In the straightforward cases it is obvious that the line has changed, but in the complicated cases the succession is not at all obvious. In the event that the first 20 people in line were killed in some horrific attack, then yes number 21 would inherit smoothly. For the first 25 people in line to die one would require simultaneous disasters on opposite poles of the planet, which strikes me as unlikely. By the time you get to the first point at which the line becomes complicated by peculiar circumstances, we are talking about the deaths of 31 people higher in line. Frankly, if that were to occur the question would not be "who is the monarch?" the question would be "should we have a monarch?" Historically, when the entire line of obvious succession has been removed (such as happened in Russia in 1918/9 and in Scotland a couple of times) there are inevitably competing claimants. The same thing is happening here: as you get further away from any likely succession, the competing interpretations clash with one another and the line breaks down in a plethora of hypotheticals. DrKiernan (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems to me a helpful explanation of what may (will?) be a future problem, involving "as and when" questions to be resolved ad hoc-- questions of degree in at least two senses.. The final point "...as you get further away from any likely succession, the ... line breaks down in a plethora of hypotheticals" could be the best reason for limiting the number listed to no more than at present. The main problem then being, disputed updates arising from other events at the top end upon the happening of events such as marriages and births, or RC status: again to be resolved ad hoc by editors in a collaborative and friendly (i.e. Wikipedian) manner? Qexigator (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Bolsheviks killed in the entire imperial family, yet Kirill Vladimirovich, No. 7 on the line of succession court calendar in 1917, survived to be pretender later on. Elizabeth and her 14 descendants are the royal family. It's hard to imagine any situation in which being No. 21, let alone 31, would have real world relevance. Kauffner (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I take your point but Cyril's claim was disputed because his mother was not Orthodox at the time of his birth. DrKiernan (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The marriage was apparently OK with Nicholas since he put Kirill on the court calendar. Actually, Kirill was No. 3 in the line of succession, since the women on the calendar aren't in line. Kauffner (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * May I sidestep the question of Cyril as pretender, to ask whether the point about limiting the number listed has been discussed before? Can it be (re-discussed) now? Would erudite editors find the following acceptable: let the tree list be 1_limited to the present Queen's descendants for the time being; 2_updated as need be from time to time, perhaps limited in number to 20 or so; and, given that Queen Elizabeth's line of succession at the date of her death would be added to History of the British line of succession, 3_reconsider at the next demise of the Crown  whether to limit the list to the descendants of the present heir apparent (Prince of Wales), subject to a given limit in number. Qexigator (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The person we list as being x in line to the throne may in fact be x+1, x-1 or not in line at all. Our assumption is that we have complete information about all births, marriages, deaths and religious conversions and know how the laws should be applied, but that is WP:SYN:  "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."  It is fine to say that a person is x in line to the throne, if a reliable source says that.  It is not fine to combine that information with other information to revise the list.  TFD (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't deny that that is a fair reading of the guideline, but it is a strict one. I would prefer to consider the numbering, and the odd addition and subtraction, under the routine calculation "get-out" clause. So, we can include (or exclude) someone when there is consensus among editors to do so. For example, we have no sources placing Albert and Leopold in line in the position they are in, but they remain in because we appear to have decided collectively to ignore sources in their case. (Although this may well be a tacit acceptance of their inclusion rather than explicit agreement.) DrKiernan (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So then, in the case of two reputable sources not agreeing about the placing of one or more persons in the line of succession, names go in the placement accepted as more probable with its citation with a note mentioning the other placing with supporting citation? Qexigator (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Albert and Leopold are in the line because the Royal family has listed them, although Debrett's has not. That shows that even the numbering is disputed.  I would accept btw that if a source provides an unnumbered list that is in order of succession, that we can supply the numbers as a calculation, but when we begin to add and subtract names and re-ordering the succession, that is when we wander into original research.  We need to remember that we do not know how the law would ultimately be resolved or if there are individuals listed who have lost their place, or individuals not listed, due to events of which we have no knowledge.  TFD (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

For the purposes of the article, could much of the above points be resolved thus: 1_Limit the enumerated list to Queen's descendants only, that is 1 to 14 of present list, with future updating. 2_Add a statement that in the event of that line failing, the next in line would be from the descendants of her (deceased) father King George VI, or in the event of that line failing, the descendants of her (deceased) grandfather George V? Who, of those now in line from those two kings, would then be both living and not disqualified is not even conjectural. Would a list of a limited number of KG VI's descendants be needed? As has been mentioned the happening of events which would remove all the descendants of the Queen is unlikely, and, from the point of view of the article at the present time, the relevance of those in line from her father and grandfather recedes to vanishing point. It would leave out those now listed as 15 to 47. Why not? All have articles of their own name or are mentioned in or could be added to the articles of the parent from whom they derive a place in the line, and links to those articles could be added. Qexigator (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have any policy or guidelines that back up the succession? We earlier cut back the list when it had hundreds of heirs listed, but the bases w OR and SYN.  TFD (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not been a party to formulating policy. If you regard the proposal as good why would you be looking for some "policy"? Perhaps others are better able to advise you about that. The general policy is to produce readable articles in an encyclopaedic style, with certain cautions about biography of living persons. Qexigator (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Policies and guidelines are developed by editors "to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia," i.e., to "to produce readable articles in an encyclopaedic style".  If you object to them, then you are free to work toward changing or eliminating them.  While you may believe that certain changes may benefit the article, it is difficult to be persuasive unless you can explain how they follow policies and guidelines.  Note that this discussion thread you set up is about whether we are following the policy of synthesis, which for some reason you linked it to the article about synthesis. TFD (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * --Thank you for pointing out the error in the link, which is now corrected. By the way my comments have not been objecting to policy, and the diligent and arduous work which many have given in developing workable guidance is appreciated. Qexigator (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * --I asked if you have any policy or guidelines to support your recommendation that the list be restricted to the Queen's descendants. TFD (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Noting per TFD that the basis for having cut back the list was OR and SYN, recent comment shows that for reasons of that kind the article would be improved by cutting back to the present Queen's descendants, as mentioned above. The essential points are relevance to the topic and informative value. The Queen's descendants are certainly in line (subject to disqualification), they can fairly readily be identified from authentic sources and are not too numerous to suffer from the topic defect that, at present, expectancy of their succession is practically nil, and in some cases subject to uncertainty of one kind or another, such as TFD and others have mentioned. Such useful information about them as the article now has can more suitably be supplied to readers in other ways. Qexigator (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable, since sources conflict over the less immediate heirs. By providing information about the laws of succession and the various sources we allow readers to find the information they want.  TFD (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and this would obviate the proposal above for Template instead of outright numbers[]. Qexigator (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Good God, now we're going to limit it to the Queen's descendants only? This is outrageous. Certainly Princess Margaret's descendants, and the Duke of Gloucester's descendants, are entirely uncontroversial. So are the Duke of Kent and Lady Amelia. And the point of the line of succession is not who is likely to succeed (it is extraordinarily unlikely that anyone beyond Prince Harry will ever become king or queen), but the inherent interest of the line of succession itself. Although our sources don't all agree, they all at least attempt to carry the succession through the Duke of Kent's family. I don't see any grounds for us to do anything less. Furthermore, the existence of disputes is not itself a reason to simply cut off the list. Disputes can be noted, especially when later parts of the list are well documented. So, we aren't really sure about Albert and Leopold Windsor (it seems to me that the royal website is clearly in error here, and they should both be excluded as Catholics, as Debrett's does, but whatever). But Lady Helen Taylor and her children, followed by Prince Michael's children, followed by Princess Alexandra and her children and grandchildren, is entirely uncontroversial, too. I don't see why the right thing to do is to cut the list off (particularly not to cut the list off with Zara Phillips!), rather than simply to explain in a footnote that sources disagree about Lord Nicholas Windsor's children's status and then continue the list up to the point where we have reliable sources. More broadly, I don't see why the fact that the list might not be 100% authoritative and completely unimpeachable in every way is a good reason to remove from the list a large number of people whose place on it is completely secure. john k (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Steady on, John K, mottos to remember here are Dieu et mon droit and Honi soit qui mal y pense. Sorry if the proposal seemed so shocking, but it is about relevance and informative value. The useful information which the article now has would not be abandoned, but more suitably presented for better informing the reader, including, as I see it, such as may need to be added to cover the points you have made. Qexigator (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with John K. Reducing the list to the Queen's descendants would make the article entirely pointless and redundant to a number of articles, including Template:British Royal Family, British Royal Family and Succession to the British throne. As John said, it is highly unlikely that anyone beyond Harry will succeed, so that's not an argument in favour of limiting the list to Elizabeth's descendants. Surtsicna (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So far as "...absolutely agree with John K", please see reply pointing out that the information would not be abandoned but presented in a way more suited to the topic and the reader. Other descendants can be listed and explained, but the need for a tree-wise presentation can hardly be supposed "absolutely" the one and only or necessarily the best for the purpose. The conjecture that "it is extraordinarily unlikely that anyone beyond Prince Harry will ever become king or queen" if relevantly admissible here is indeed an argument for redundancy of the article. The present article adds something to Template:British Royal Family, British Royal Family and Succession to the British throne, but not much other than a tree-wise enumeration, and most is identical with that available in those places. Be that as it may, as I see it the article would still be of value if its content were re-presented as proposed. Let the information in this and the other articles be better focused on their several topics.Qexigator (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should now (again?) be asking: Is the article's presentation being honest with its readers? Arranging the information tree-wise gives a spurious air of certainty because it looks like other more familiar trees: 1_a family tree, the data of which, so far as it can be ascertained by genealogical science, is accomplished fact, and 2_the line of regnant kings and queens to date, also accomplished fact and matter of record. By contrast, a projected line of succession may make use of ascertainable data but it is subject to the contingencies of the sequence of future deaths, marriages and births (and in the caes of UK, RC disqualification): it is surmise and conjecture until it has happened, and then is no longer a projection. Come to think of it, it may be for that reason alone the kind of synthesis which attracts unfavourable comment. Such a projection may be of keener interest to those marrying into or out of the line and their families, but it can hardly be of the same interest to the general public. Qexigator (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please see my suggestion below. StevenJ81 (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The main relevance of this article is that it explains how the succession is determined, which people are likely to ascend to the throne, and how that could become altered if anyone were removed from the succession, as happened with the abdication crisis. The rest is trivia and if there is no reliable source that regularly updates the list then  it is not important.  TFD (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Two questions: 1_ Given that the article's main relevance is explaining how the succession is determined and how that could become altered if anyone were removed from the succession, at what point does the trivia begin? The whole of the list or part only? 2_If the importance of the article is dependant on a reliable source that regularly updates the list, must that in practice be a single reliable source, and what counts as reliable for this purpose? Qexigator (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Common Sense when updating the list
From someone who just happened here: There are other sources for people interested in all 5000+ people who have some claim to the succession. I'm making an assumption here—so it's opinion—that there's a limit as to what your average reader at Wikipedia is interested in when s/he comes here. And we may all have some differences of opinion on exactly what that looks like, but let me propose the following general approach: Then I'd probably add one more (next) group that is less obvious: So what happens when the current Queen passes away? Well, aside from the curiosity factor around the reshuffling of the list to allow equal female right of succession, you end up with a very similar setup: So I would propose: Two most obvious groups, plus one less obvious group. But you have to judge things as they are at any given time. If the Queen and the Prince of Wales both got hit by the proverbial bus tomorrow (God forbid), then immediately on that event, you would still have As William and "Harry" have children, and as their first cousins have more children, eventually Princess Margaret's family gets pushed off, because that's how the world works. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Most obvious (The current Queen and her descendents)
 * Fairly obvious (The current Queen's sibling and her descendents)
 * Less obvious (The other eligible descendents of George V)
 * Most obvious (The new King [presumably the current Prince of Wales] and his descendents)
 * Fairly obvious (The new King's siblings and their descendents)
 * Less obvious (The other eligible descendants of George VI [= Princess Margaret's descendents])
 * Dropped: The other descendents of George V, as they move farther away from the center
 * Most obvious (The new King [William] and his brother ["Harry"])
 * Fairly obvious (The new King's aunt and uncles and their descendents)
 * Less obvious (Princess Margaret's descendents)
 * Fair enough for starters, StevenJ81, but there is TFD's comment above, 01:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC), to take into account, which also, it seems to me, is based on common sense. Qexigator (talk) 07:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course.
 * I suppose the main question is about where "wondering what would happen next" gives way to "trivia," and different people can see things differently. Using the succession as of today as the illustration, I would disagree with TFD in practice and say that Princess Margaret's family is in the realm of plausible for most people concerning "wondering what would happen next." (Suppose the Queen and her descendents were all together for Christmas, and something happened ... It's a little like why one US cabinet secretary is always excused from attending the President's State of the Union message.)
 * There's one other point, though: Some people understand concepts better through concrete examples. I would argue that including the rest of George V's family provides more concrete examples of how the rules work, especially when you get past the more obvious examples. That is why I thought one "less obvious" branch was worthwhile. But maybe one gives a single concrete example: "The line of succession continues with the other eligible descendants of George V, starting with HRH Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester," or something along those lines.)
 * In any event, you still can't always judge it by "the descendents of the reigning monarch." If the Queen died tomorrow, God forbid, "the descendents of the (new) reigning monarch" would consist of only two people, so who comes after them would be far from trivial. (Under the proposed legislation, it would be the Princess Royal, right?) StevenJ81 (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As I understand your reasoning (please say if not): In addition to the present Queen's descendants, the article should include at least a list of Princess Margaret's descendants, and a simple statement to the effect that "The line of succession continues with the other eligible descendants of George V, starting with HRH Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester"? If so, the tree could be removed and the information could be presented in two successive lists, each with its introductory note to explain that the second is contingent upon the failure of the first, and that as the first expands or contracts, the places of members of the second will become further or nearer in the line. It seems reasonable to include the second list (Princess Margaret's descendants, nos 15-20 of the present list) to allow for contraction of the first.  Perhaps honest presentation requires adding an explanation that the passing of the line to Gloucester and descendants would happen (under the present law) only in the event of single or multiple catastrophe or calamity.Qexigator (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's exactly right. I don't care a bit whether it's done as trees or lists.  And as for adding "honest presentation" around Gloucester, why not?  That would be completely accurate. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is refreshing to hear that from another who "just happened here". Qexigator (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent additions are clearly unsourced. At present the consensus is not to add anything not in the British monarchy website, Debrett's or Whitaker's Almanack. PatGallacher (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Extending present list?
At present the list in the article is declared to limit itself to the descendants of the sons of George V (1-47). Some editors have been in favour of extending it at least to descendants of their sister (Mary, Princess Royal) (1-61), others, for one reason or another, may be in favour of limiting it to descendants of the Queen (1-14) or of George VI (1-20). Here are 3 points about this:

1_Apart from other practical concerns mentioned at 2 below, it is also of interest to be able to have a fairly wide view of the number and ages of those near enough to be considered if it were decided to reform the constitution and provide by some process of appointment for the selection from the members of the royal family, somehow defined, such as those of The House of Windsor (List of members of the House of Windsor), or such of them as would be willing to accept the position, if tendered. It is reasonable to take The House of Windsor as providing "a fairly wide view", and it is something defined and ascertainable under the applicable law and within public knowledge. I propose that this is a good and sufficient reason for continuing to limit the list as at present.

2_But that gives a wider view than is useful when the focus is on practical concerns of the (Accession Council) and others who need to have sufficient information to be prepared for the process of an accession, due to their responsibilities and expectations: the royal family, the court officials, the College of Heralds, the governments of UK and of the "other realms and territories", the diplomatic corps, the organs of communication (press, broadcasting), bodies enjoying royal patronage and so on. In fact, they must also be prepared for the unexpected such as an abdication or even a previously unknown disqualification. For such concerns, a list limited to descendants of George VI could well suffice.

3_Other considerations: There is admittedly some fascination in a more extended list for its own sake, and if there are editors sufficiently motivated to keep it properly up to date, well, why not? But there is the recurring objection about reliable sources, giving rise to doubts and disputes creating weak links, vitiating the placement of all further down the line. This in turn adds to the call to truncate the list further up-- but then the question is: at what point? Perhaps the answer to that is when the relevance of the information to its specific topic here dwindles away for those having a need to be prepared for the process of an accession by the next in line, mentioned at 2 above. But a wider view may be preferable, as in 1 above, which results in status quo.Qexigator (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The wider view requires original research and is therefore against policy. Nothing is stopping enthusiasts from setting up a website for that subject, but not everything belongs in an encyclopedia.  In fact there are websites that do that to which we provide external links.  TFD (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nor will mention of the House of Windsor suffice to meet that objection because the linked articles lack the sources. Qexigator (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Status of an unborn child?
The announcement of Kate Middleton's pregnancy brought to mind a question that I don't see answered in the article but may be good to include. What is the status of an unborn child in the line of succession? Imagine a tragedy occurs while Kate is pregnant where Elizabeth, Charles, and William die. Does Harry become King and take over the line of succession or does the child become king or queen upon birth? It may be an unlikely case but it is theoretically possible. Clarifying what would happen would make this article more complete. Mantisia (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That is discussed in Posthumous birth, although unfortunately there are no references. TFD (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Henry would possibly be conditionally proclaimed, such as Victoria was (saving any issue of the widow of her predecessor). I imagine they might declare an interregnum but we simply do not know. Any child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge has a greater right to the throne than Prince Henry of Wales. Seven Letters 17:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a number of documents on this subject at http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/HO_45_23509.htm. DrKiernan (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

DrKiernan's documents show the law officers determined that the succession would be governed by the Regency Act 1830. The next in line would become sovereign but the throne would pass to the heir apparent upon his birth. The proclamation of the accession of Queen Victoria 1837 worded it, "WHEREAS it has pleased Almighty God to call to His Mercy our late Sovereign Lord King William the Fourth, of Blessed and Glorious Memory, by whose Decease the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is solely and rightfully come to the High and Mighty Princess Alexandrina Victoria, saving the Rights of any Issue of His late Majesty King William the Fourth which may be born of His late Majesty's Consort." Of course, the law officers today are not bound by previous opinions. TFD (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I read the same conclusion in DrKiernan's link. I found the following clause in that dizzying document, "it is submitted that Princess Elizabeth would be entitled to succeed to the Throne on the demise of His Present Majesty, but that a posthumous son would be entitled to succeed to the Throne on his birth in her place." Therefore while an unborn child has entitlements, (s)he is not in line to succeed until birth. JGray (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the thrones cannot be vacant, Henry IX would ascend and reign until the birth of his nephew or niece. On the birth of the child, demise of the Crown would occur and the crown would pass to the child as if Henry IX died. The former king would then become heir presumptive. This is, of course, synthesis/OR on my part, but that's what was intended to happen in case William IV died childless leaving a pregnant widow. Surtsicna (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The posthumous birth of a father's heir is to be distinguished from the widow being enceinte with his begotten but unborn child before the demise of the crown upon or before the father's death. Qexigator (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:44, 4 December 2012 UTC to clarify status in respect of any child yet unborn of Duke of Cambridge, useful to anticipate popular interest evidenced by current press and broadcasting coverage about the Duchess as expectant mother. Qexigator (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Ditto, 16:58, 4 December 2012 UTC. And not "any child" will do: consider the case of twins, one male the other female. Qexigator (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should say that William's male children will be ahead of daughters in the succession because we do not actually know that. Nor do we know for certain, at this point, if older female children will be listed before younger male ones. DrKiernan (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * True enough, and the same goes for all in the line under the present order, as yet unchanged. Meantime, best omit what is unnecessary and speculative. Qexigator (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Do pregnancies qualify for mention?
Is it agreed that this article should now be extended to include announcements of pregnancies of the wives of persons in line? The recent revision is unsourced but seems to be relying on press reports about a pregnancy, which is not the same as "The future child..." It has now been reported that the condition of the Duchess is such that she may in fact be pregnant with twins. But there is no certainty that any pregnancy will be happily carried to term in this or any other case. Qexigator (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a point during either 2007 I think, where unborn children were included as an indent. It was when the list was longer but there were a lot of pregnancies (Isabella of Denmark, Sofia of Spain, Viscount Severn and Lord Culloden, etc) and it was a way to indicate a future addition to the list. I think it tapered off after the '07 pregnancy boom ended, but maybe just doing it as a hidden tag, ie <-- the unborn child of The Duke of Cambridge -> Morhange (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put them in the list. I'll grant that this case is of greater interest than a pregnancy at #250, or even #15. Still, as someone pointed out in the section above, an unborn child cannot actually inherit the crown while still in utero. So until a baby is actually born, s/he is not in the succession. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Succession Bill 2012 I added the names of 5 major pieces of British law that will be amended under the Succession Bill (and their respective dates), to show the significance of this change to British history. (Talking 300+ years!) I also added the number of Commonwealth realms (16) that agreed verbally in October to the change, to show the world-wide reach of this bill. Can anyone find the actual name of the Bill? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awolnetdiva (talk • contribs) 04:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Updating reportage on progress with the proposals is being diligently attended to at 2011 proposals to change the rules of royal succession in the Commonwealth realms, and once passing into law has been finally accomplished, certain changes in this article will, of course, become necessary. Qexigator (talk) 08:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)