Talk:Line of succession to the British throne/Archive 8

edit request
Can someone write an article on NN Phillips? Is hhe the first Royal without a vowel in her name?

thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.217.92 (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just replaced "NN Phillips (b 2010) daughter of Peter Phillips" by "Daughter of Peter Phillips (b 30 December 2010)" as it is not widely understood that in this context NN is an abbreviation for Non Nominatus/Nominata, Latin for 'Not Named'. Once the name is known it can be added and "30 December" removed. --Qwfp (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed formatting change
What would you all think if we changed the formatting to look like this sample in my sandbox? It would probably decrease the page size decreases the page size to 75% by removing up to half of each line describing the relations. I think it is more visually appealing rather than just a flat list. It would also remove the need for the long "Descendants in the line of Sophia of Hanover → George I → George II → Frederick, Prince of Wales → George III → Prince Edward → Victoria → ", etc. headings beginning each section. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC) edited 04:11, 2 January 2001 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Opera hat (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Significantly better. After 7 days have passed since you posted this, I think you should paste your version in. That gives users enough time to voice any displeasures! — Half  Price  19:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the sandbox format is useful and addresses several concerns of some editors. I think that it should only be used if it can include all the people listed in the current version (when I looked today it was only up to 467.  As someone who has done significant work on this page in the past, I know what a huge amount of work that is!! Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, a lot of effort was put into it, but we shouldn't let that cloud our judgement, this page is way too long and an excessive listing of stats. — Half  Price  09:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Emily Shard
Can someone provide me a reference for why Emily Shard is not in the line of succession? Thanks, Mlm42 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. Do you dispute the fact that illegitimate children are not in line of succession?
 * 2. Do you dispute the fact that Emily and her brother Benjamin were born illegitimate?
 * 3. If you don't dispute facts 1 and 2, how would it improve the article to list Emily and Benjamin as if they were in line (when they clearly are not).
 * It is perfectly reasonable to ask for a citation when something is in dispute. But to do so when the facts are not is dispute is a waste of the time of other editors. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Debrett's 1980 (five years after Emily was born) lists Emily's father as no. 20 in line, followed at no. 21 by her uncle James. Neither Emily nor Benjamin are listed as in line of succession. Can you cite a reliable source which does list them as in line?
 * A comparable example is Emily's uncle Mark, who was also born illegitimate (in 1964). Burke's 1970 shows that he is not in line of succession to the title of Earl of Harewood (Burke's lists his brothers with a diamond meaning "living members in remainder to the title", while Mark is listed with a circle meaning "living members NOT in remainder to the title"). Debrett's 1980 lists Mark's brothers as nos. 20, 21, and 24 in the line of succession to the UKGBNI throne, followed by his uncle at no. 25.
 * If illegitimate children were in line of succession then Victoria would not have succeeded in 1837. Her uncle William had ten illegitimate children (all genealogically senior to Victoria except for their illegitimacy). Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't claim to understand the subtlties here, but I think we should be a bit careful with WP:SYNTH - especially since WP:BLP also applies. All I'm asking is, do we have a source that explicitly says Emily is excluded from the line of succession? I see that Reitwiesner also mentions an "illegitamacy issue" regarding the children of David Lascelles, but doesn't mention the name "Emily". According to the Emily Shard article, the Queen gave Royal Consent to her wedding in 2008; which was apparently unnecessary if Emily were, in fact, illegitimate. So why did it happen? It puts, at least, a small amount of doubt on the fact she is illegitimate. So I think it's fair to ask for sources, preferably "official" sources, that explicitly say she's not in the line of succession. If it's true, why isn't it mentioned on this page, for example? I'm disputing a fact; once appropriate sources are found, we can add inline references into the article. This will improve the article, which is why I'm asking. Mlm42 (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Debretts 1980 is a reliable source which (five years after Emily's birth) provides a line of succession which does not include Emily or her brother. That is clear evidence that she is not in line (if any were needed beyond the fact that she was born illegitimate). Mlm42 asked for a reference and I provided it.  If he were really interested in this specific matter, then surely that would be an end of it.
 * To cite the fact that "the Queen gave Royal Consent to her wedding in 2008" as evidence that Emily was not illegitimate is original research; it has never been suggested by any writer before. In fact Mlm42 does not understand the difference between the Act of Settlement (which determines the line of succession) and the Royal Marriages Act.  The Act of Settlement leaves the crown to "Sophia and the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants".  But the Royal Marriages Act applies to any "descendant of the body" of Georg II.  The words heirs and descendant are very different.  Emily is certainly a descendant of the body of Georg II and is therefore subject to the RMA, but she can never be his heir under the Act of Settlement (even if some fifty-odd other people should die).
 * There are much better sources for royal genealogical information than www.thepeerage.com. Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So, to answer my question, you appear to be implying that there no references was explicitly say "Emily is not in the line of succession"? Also, I think you should have another look at No original research.. it doesn't count as "original research", in Wikipedia jargon, to ask questions on a talk page! On the contrary, challenging statements is encouraged on talk pages.
 * Would it be appropriate, then, to cite this "Debretts 1980" (by the way, I have no idea what you mean by that.. I'm not fluent in the literature here, so could you expand this reference please?), in Emily Shards article, justifying the claim she is not in the line of succession? If so, then that answers my initial question. When this source is added to these articles, it will be an improvement, and we can pat ourselves on the back, because we've improved the articles. That's how Wikipedia works. :) Mlm42 (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a 1980 published list of the first thirty people in line of succession. It includes Emily's father and uncle but does not list Emily and her brother Benjamin.  If Emily and Benjamin were in line, then they would be listed there (unless somebody wishes to suggest that Debrett's is in error, which does happen on occasion, but then some evidence would be necessary).
 * It is not an improvement to add unnecessary references. There are ongoing complaints that this article is too long already.  JamesyWamesy has initiated a format change (with no loss of information) which will reduce the size of the article somewhat. Emily is not in line of succession; the only reason she is listed here is to stop well-intentioned but less-knowledgeable editors from adding her. Adding unnecessary references just makes the article longer so that people will make more complaints about it.  Or was that the reason for this all along? Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me quote from Verifiability: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Notice the use of the word must here. Your argument against using inline citations is that it makes the article too long? Sorry, I'm not buying it. Mlm42 (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not against the use of citations. Citations are appropriate where material is "challenged or likely to be challenged". Does anybody claim that Benjamin and Emily are not illegitimate? Does anybody claim that even if Benjamin and Emily are illegitimate, they are still in line of succession? I asked these questions at the beginning of this discussion, and received no reply to them. Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said above, yes, I'm challenging it. I'm not claiming they are not illegitimate, I am simply challenging the statement that they are. So inline citation are required. Mlm42 (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your answer is your answer, but it does not seem to me to be an answer to the question Noel has repeatedly posed. While it has been apparent all along that you challenge the article's content on this point, Noel's question goes to a subtler issue. I, for one, believe it deserves a sincere and specific response. FactStraight (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To his questions, "Does anybody claim..", my response was that I don't claim it; and I'll also say I don't know of anyone who does, but I can't speak for the rest of the world? The point is that regarding inline citations, this is a moot point; I'm challenging the statement, and the burden of evidence is on the editor who wants to include information (Noel), not on the editor who wants to remove it (me). Mlm42 (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The length of the article is a very minor issue, by the way, in comparison to the original research concerns. Maybe this could be fixed by making some sections collapsible, for example. Mlm42 (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Collapsing the article does not make it any shorter at all - it merely makes it look shorter. Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're right; but collapsing may make it easier to navigate, which is another concern. If it is actually too long, then the solution should be to split - the solution should not be to reduce its quality by prohibiting inline citations. Mlm42 (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mlm42, the history of this article includes two fundamental objections, verifiability and length. Although distinct, some of those whose primary objection is verifiability have added or mixed in the argument about length, and vice versa (and much has been made of the fact that the two arguments are not mutually exclusive). Nonetheless, to some of us it has appeared that sincere adherents of one or the other argument, frustrated by not obtaining the changes they prefer, resort to the alternative argument, producing yet a third argument: "This article has multiple unsatisfactorily resolved problems, and so deserves to be truncated even if you are not persuaded by any one of the arguments." Noel argues in that context, carefully sorts out the arguments and addresses them separately, and has been very consistent in contending that the two arguments must each stand and be persuasive on their respective merits to justify truncation rather than being conflated to the third argument which, even if true, is not the principled basis for objection so much as a debate tactic. So it is not true on this talk page that length has been regarded as a "minor issue" (although you have been clear that it is not the fundamental issue for you) -- in fact I'd say the contrary is more historically accurate: length has been the most frequent and ardent objection. In that context the "in-line" citations it is argued would best resolve the verifiability objection would immediately expose the article to a strengthened objection on the grounds of excessive length -- that's not my conjecture, check the history of this content dispute. I support Noel's effort to distinguish the two fundamental concerns and to seek solutions that do not attempt to leave the article incomplete (i.e. deliberately omit persons generally acknwowledged as meeting the legal criteria of eligibility to inherit the UK crown under the Act of Settlement, and whom therefore a WP reader might reasonably expect to be enumerated here as in the "Line of succession to the British throne"). That said, Emily Shard's inclusion might deserve explanation, but WP's standards are affirmative and thus don't call for footnoting matter omitted (although an explanatory note might be usefully clarifying for those in her position). FactStraight (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree the two issues should be kept separate. It's understandable the issue of length is often discussed, because it is the most obvious thing about this article - it's massive, and you don't need to know anything about anything to see it's massive. But I'm comparing the relative importance of the guideline WP:SIZE and the policies WP:V / WP:OR. And relative to WP:V, and WP:OR, I still think WP:SIZE is a "minor issue".. even though it is often talked about here. But enough about length..
 * Regarding Emily Shard; indeed if the reliable sources omit her name, and we omit her name, then an explanitory note may be helpful, but not necessary. Nevertheless, we should still either remove the statements in her biography, or properly source them. Mlm42 (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Original research
Let me start by saying that I know a lot of work has gone into this article, and that this issue of original research has been brought up many times before. But I think there is a good reason it keeps being brought up - to a casual Wikipedia editor, pretty much this entire article appears to be original research. For example, can anyone cite a reliable, published source which states that the King of Sweden is, as of today (or any date, for that matter), the 203rd person in the line of succession? (Remember, we need a source that specifically states he is the 203rd.. not 202nd, and not 204th) If they can, then there should be an inline citation next to his name. I'm a little tempted to add a citation needed tag there. Mlm42 (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That the King of Sweden is in line after Alexis Broschek (and a bunch of papists) and before Prince Carl Philip is well established; Reitwiesner lists them. The only difference here is the addition of current numbers.  It would be possible to remove the current numbers before each person's name, but this "solution" has been rejected in the past.  In fact, however, there is no problem to solve. No original research specifically addresses this type of situation: "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources."  That is exactly what is being done here: numbers are being added, and editors agree that the arithmetic reflects the sources. It is not necessary that the actual numbers be in the sources. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But wait, you haven't provided a reference - you only said it "is well established".. By whom? (I'll point out I randomly chose the Kind of Sweden, but I'll continue for the sake of argument) According to Reitwiesner, The King of Sweden isn't even next after Alexis Broschek. Okay, let's list things we need to check to ensure the King of Sweden is in fact next in line after Alexis Broschek (hopefully I haven't made a mistake):
 * Every descendant of Alvaro D Galliera is ineligible to be included.
 * Ingeborg v Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg hasn't had any more children.
 * Alexis Broschek hasn't had any children.
 * Alexis Broschek is still alive.
 * Do we have references for these claims? (Is the first one even true?) Even if we don't insist on it being up to date every day, do we have any references that are more current that Reitwiesner? And this is only for the tiny fact that he's next after Broschek. To verify he's actually 203 would include verifying things like Baroness Irina von Plotho (b 1978) hasn't had any children.. maybe she has. This Wikipedia article claims she hasn't. Or what about her brother, Baron Christoph von Plotho (b 1976).. has he had children in the past ten years? maybe he has.. but this article claims he hasn't.
 * I'm just not satisfied with you claiming it's "well-established" that the King of Sweden is next after Alexis Broschek; and the policy Verifiability isn't satisfied either. We need reliable sources for this claim. Mlm42 (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have responded to the numbers concern raised by Mlm42. Now he wishes to raise other matters.
 * To be reliable, a source does not have to be from yesterday. When we say in an article that the President of Xland is Pat Soandso based on a particular source, we assume that something hasn't happened to change that fact (death, coup, election).  When we say that an actor has two children, we assume that neither have died, and no more have been born. So it is not necessary to show that Ingeborg has no more children, that Alexis has no children, and that Alexis is still alive.  We rely on the best sources we have which provide the most up-to-date information.  We don't engage in original research about these matters.
 * Wikieditors who come to this page without a specific background in this topic should know that there are a number of editors who have a very deep knowledge of this topic. We participate in online groups which track these changes all the time.  An example is Nobiliana (formerly Royaute) ; whenever there is a birth, marriage, or death, a notice is sent with the published source (and you wouldn't believe how picky the editors are about citing sources).
 * The descendants of Victoria are very well established. Marlene Eilers' book was published in 1998 with a supplement in 2004; I wouldn't be surprised if another supplement were published in the next year or two. Marlene sometimes says publicly that there are now x number of living descendants - at which point other people scramble to figure out what has changed.
 * The descendants of George I are slightly less well established - largely because of their greater number. Dan Willis' 2002 volume (with online updates) is the major source, but his other more recent works (e.g. on Romanov descendants in 2009) provide additions. The death of William Addams Reitwiesner in November is a HUGE loss to the field.
 * Neither I nor anybody else would claim that this article is perfectly accurate. But as regards reliability it holds its own with the best Wikipedia articles. Noel S McFerran (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out before, none of these 'authorities' take the slightest account of the Royal Marriages Act and the deletions that should flow from it, and nor does this worthless table in Wikipedia! As for the catholics the Wikipedia editors seem to believe that the Crown can go into a sort of limbo whilst some child baptised a catholic makes up his/her mind whether he wants to be head of the Church of England or not! For goodness sake let common sense prevail and delete the major part of it.AnthonyCamp (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Please provide a reliable source for your contention that the Royal Marriages Act would affect the content of this list and "the deletions that should flow from it". You may have a personal theory about how things should be, but unless it has been published in a reliable source, it has no place in a Wikipedia article.  This article relies on reliable sources such as Eilers, Reitwiesner, Willis (to name a few). Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Noel, remember that the editors who wish to include content have the WP:BURDEN of providing sources, not those challenging the content. And you have not sufficiently responded to my initial concern about whether the King of Sweden is number 203. You claim that this follows from the fact that the King of Sweden is next after Alexis Broschek. But you still have to provide a reliable source he is, in fact, next after Alexis Broschek, and you haven't done that. Not even Reitwiesner backs up this claim; even if it did, that claim is only current as of 2001. I await your source. Mlm42 (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia policy on verifiability exists in order to improve articles. It's not there to encourage editors who merely wish to menace other editors with false claims.  If any editor truly believes that the Duke of Galliera and his relatives have not (and have never been) papists and are therefore in line, then I suppose that that editor has a responsibility to edit the article accordingly.  I think that Eilers gives baptismal information for some of these individuals, but probably not for all of them. Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't accuse me of "menacing". I just want to uphold the policies of Wikipedia; they are there for a reason. You should want the same. You still haven't provided a source.. Mlm42 (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I do want this article improved; that's why I'm spending time here. I think it would be an improvement if the original research that is apparently in the article were removed. Mlm42 (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The outline tables (without sources) in the authorities cited by Noel McFerran are by no means infallible. The 2nd Duke of Cambridge died without legitimate issue in 1904 when the Dukedom and other English titles became extinct ["Complete Peerage" vol. ii (1912) page 499] and yet Reitwiesner incorrectly includes his illegitimate son Sir Augustus FitzGeorge (1847-1933) in his tables of those in line to the throne in 1861 and 1881. Daniel Willis (page 75, note 40) says clearly that the marriages of the Duke of Sussex and the 2nd Duke of Cambridge "did not meet the requirements of the Royal Marriages Act and were therefore not considered legal and the children were considered illegitimate". Willis doe not address the legality of later marriages that also contravened the Act even though its provisions were expressly confirmed by the House of Lords in 1844 when the judges ruled that the descendants of George II could not contract a legal marriage (in the British dominions or elsewhere) without the consent of the Crown. The effects of the Act (which can be consulted on the UK Statute Law Database and is discussed in Wikipedia in the article "Royal Marriages Act 1772") are not mentioned by Eilers. The 1844 ruling has not been challenged and consequently successive Monarchs, Law Lords, Privy Councillors and about a hundred members of the Royal Family have dealt with applications for consent. Their only purpose in so doing is to ensure the legality of the marriages and the legitimacy of subsequent offspring. Noel McFerran would seem to be suggesting that all these people are mistaken in their view of the law; that is his opinion but it does not reflect the reality of practice over two hundred years. Until the law is changed the offspring of marriages solemnized in contravention of the Act (whether through ignorance or otherwise) are unfortunately as illegitimate now as they were in 1844 and they should be removed from this table as should all the children who are known to have been baptised Roman Catholic. Rather than draw attention to these problems, however, relating as they do to living persons, the table should in my view end with the descendants of the present Monarch. The listing of subsequent names has no value whatever. AnthonyCamp (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Mr Camp is welcome to his own theories about the application of the Royal Marriages Act 1772 but unless someone publishes those theories in a reliable source then they have no place in a Wikipedia article. There are reliable sources which list those in line of succession (and more than merely "the descendants of the present Monarch").  There are no such reliable sources which make the allegations which Mr Camp makes.
 * Since the passage of the RMA over two centuries ago, there has only ever been one single legal judgment whereby a union has been declared invalid under the act (the 1794 judgment against Augustus and Augusta). There are three or four unions which are commonly held to have been invalid under the act (by "commonly held" I mean that that is the position generally taken in published scholarship on the matter).  There is not one single union in the last 150 years which has been seriously questioned in any scholarly reliable source (although in online royalty discussion groups someone might muse occasionally about a possible situation).
 * The Line of succession article should be based on the various reliable published sources. None of these make the contentions made by Mr Camp. Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm not sure I entirely understand the disagreement here; AnthonyCamp, can you point to the first entry (in the line) which you dispute? Then maybe we can discuss it further.
 * It seems that much of this list is using WP:SYNTH; for example "Source A says somebody was born on some date", "Source B says that child's parents were married on some date, and it was approved by the Privy Council", and then we conclude the new baby is in the line of succession, even though nobody actually says this. Why doesn't WP:SYNTH apply here, then? Because it also says ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." Okay, in this case, AnthonyCamp is pointing to a reliable source (Willis) which has published an argument (from above, ".. and were therefore not considered legal and the children were considered illegitimate"), that we should be able to use.. so I don't understand what Noel is disagreeing with. Are there other sources that disagree with this argument?
 * Noel, I entirely agree that this article should be based on reliable published sources. The problem appears to be the amount of original research involved in keeping the list up to date. The fact that 2010 births are included, implies the list is up to date as of 2010.. yet there seem to be no sources ensuring it is, in fact, up to date, other than the first 40 or so listed on the Monarchy's official website. AnthonyCamp, if you'd like to reduce the list to only a small size, the best way I see of doing this is proving that after a certain point the list becomes original research. I'm trying to determine exactly what point that is. Mlm42 (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that I put my comments in this section as I am mainly concerned that the list is itself basically unreliable. Mr McFerran seems to think that the 1772 Act is obsolete but we have a situation in which every monarch since Queen Victoria and successive Law Officers of the Crown for two hundred years have followed the procedures required by the Act, the purpose of which is to approve marriages and thus legitimise their offspring. The present Queen has been through them about fifty times. As I have said the reality of the situation speaks for itself and the children of marriages that have not been so approved should be deleted. The Act is not obsolete and but for its terms the late Colonel Sir Augustus FitzGeorge who died in 1933 would have been the third Duke of Cambridge. That he, a serious student of family matters, took no steps to put forward a claim to the title clearly demonstrates the Act's effects. No more recent example is available because those most closely involved are perfectly aware of the Act's serious consequences. AnthonyCamp (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

Mlm42, in your 2nd post in this topic you gave a list of "things we need to check to ensure the King of Sweden is in fact next in line after Alexis Broschek":


 * "1.Every descendant of Alvaro D Galliera is ineligible to be included.
 * 2.Ingeborg v Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg hasn't had any more children.
 * 3.Alexis Broschek hasn't had any children.
 * 4.Alexis Broschek is still alive."

Specifically addressing points 2, 3, and 4, how would you propose we document that? How would you prove that a person didn't die and didn't have another child? Is there a source somewhere that gives a list of all the people who didn't die or have children born this month? Absent any information that something has happened, we should (usually) assume that it has not happened. All we can do is use the best available resources to update this or any other article when any new information comes to light. Again, this is a response specifically to those points you raised. LarryJeff (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. And what about point 1? Mlm42 (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I had nothing to say about point 1. That's why I pointed out that I was specificially addressing points 2, 3, and 4.LarryJeff (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Noel and LarryJeff as to the irrelevancy of Mlm42's points 2-4 - if we have reliable sources that have Alexis Broschek as alive and childless, we should assume they are correct unless a more recent reliable source can be found which says otherwise. That is just standard procedure.  The issues of Papists and the RMA are more complicated.  As far as Papists go, the Palace itself has made things more confusing by, for example, including in the line of succession on its website Lord Nicholas Windsor's young sons, who one can only assume have been baptized in the Catholic Church.  Moreover, while there are plenty of reliable sources for births and deaths, checking out whether some of the very obscure individuals in some parts of this list are Papists or married to Papists can be very difficult to verify.  While it is unfair, I think, to demand that editors prove someone did not die, or did not have children, I don't think the same thing applies to demanding proof that someone is Catholic (or married to a Catholic) - that is something that can actually be verified, and in the absence of evidence I'm not sure we should be excluding people on the supposition, for example, that all Spanish people are Catholics.  Probably all of the Galliera relations are Catholic.  But unless we have reliable sources about specific individuals, I don't see how it's not OR to exclude them.  Of course, if reliable sources can be found, that is a different matter.  An alternative to this, which would require us to include a large number of individuals whom we have strong reason to believe are Catholic, would be to assume that any descendants of a marriage by someone in the line of succession to a Catholic are themselves Catholic unless we have information to the contrary.  This is more likely to give us an accurate list, but seems more liable to charges of OR. On the issue of the RMA, I agree with Noel that Anthony Camp's ruminations on the subject are much closer to OR than anything anybody else is doing.  Anthony is right that Reitwiesner has an idiosyncratic interpretation of the RMA.  However, it seems pretty clearly OR to suggest that particular marriages were invalid under the RMA unless we have reliable sources which say as much.  Finally, I think the concern about exact numbers is misplaced.  Are the exact numbers exactly accurate?  Perhaps not, but I don't see why anybody would expect them to be.  So long as they're as accurate as we can make them on the basis of reliable sources, and that's all that matters.  So, basically, I think the only real issue here is the popery one.  john k (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, I agree with pretty much everything you said, john k. I would also like to ensure the numbers are "as accurate as possible". But the crucial problem is that reliable sources appear to use different methods of producing a list - in particular, there seem to be different rules regarding which Catholics to include in the list (this has been discussed a little in this section below). Of course a Catholic couldn't take the throne, but who's to say they won't convert? This seems to be the problem causing differences in the reliable sources, and hence it becomes our problem. The NPOV policy means we have to present all significant points of view without bias on this matter, and to choose a numbering would be to endorse one method over another - violating NPOV. Mlm42 (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unlike members of any other non-Anglican religion, anyone who is ever Catholic, or who marries a Catholic, is forever excluded from the succession, even if they return to protestantism or divorce or outlive their Catholic spouse. john k (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see; then I guess to problem is caused by determining the precise moment when a person first becomes Catholic. The Official website implies it is after baptism. Other sources exclude Catholic children from birth. Mlm42 (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd think baptism would be necessary by any reasonable standard. The official website seems to not count baptism as a Catholic as sufficient, as, per wikipedia's article on Lord Nicholas Windsor, at least, both of his sons have been baptized in the Catholic Church.  Apparently the view is that one must take communion in the Catholic Church to be a Papist?  But this is not, I think, how the standard has normally been applied in the past, or how it is applied to Catholics more distant from the present royal family (I don't think any reliable source has ever said that the Prince of Asturias's daughters are in the line of succession, for instance.) john k (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While it may be true that most reliable sources in the past have removed anyone from the list who has been baptized Catholic, we cannot ignore what the Monarchy's website does - to claim (or prove) they are wrong in this matter would probably be original research. Since we are adding new content to the list in accordance with WP:SYNTH, we are relying heavily on the rules which reliable sources have used to construct the lists, and not only on the content of the reliable sources' lists themselves. For this reason it is vital that the reliable sources are consistent in how they apply the rules - unfortunately it appears this is not the case, as the official website demonstrates. Mlm42 (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Leo Lascelles
Do we have sources that claim Leo Lascelles (b. 2008) is illegitimate? I don't want to sound like a broken record here, but I'm still concerned about the synthesis of reliable sources which is occurring in this article. Since he was born in the last few years, it would seem the usual reliable sources don't cover the case of Leo Lascelles. Surely this Wikipedia article (together with his father's unreferenced biography) isn't the only source which states he is illegitimate? Mlm42 (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * His grandfather mentions him in a comment here and here that is father was unmarried in 2008, as well as a post from well-known royal historian Marlene Eilers. Both of Alexander's elder siblings were granted permission from the Queen via Privy Counsel, and naturally Alexander would've been expected to do the same, so the fact that he has not is a big clue to the fact that he's unmarried. Additionally, posts on Nobiliana (you must register to see, but it is a must for any royal buff) mentions that Alexander and Leo's mother, Laleh Yeganegy, were not married. Morhange (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links; blog posts aren't great, but are much better than nothing. Mlm42 (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Duchess Marie of Württemberg and Ralph von Stedman
Two questions: First, wondering why Duchess Marie of Württemberg (currently below #582) and her family are listed as skipped from the line. She married the Hereditary Duke of Württemberg, and according to the House of Württemberg page, the Württemberg royal family has been Protestant since 1797. Second, I have added Ralph Barton genannt von Stedman (currently #537) to the list as I cannot find a death date for him anywhere. He not been listed before his daughter since she was added in March 2007 by Mcferran, until I added him (assuming the editor that skipped him knew he was dead) in May 2010 as an intermediate relation between his daughter and grandmother. Is there a reference saying he is dead?-JamesyWamesy (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All of Wurttemberg's line of kings were Protestant. Yet in 1993 Princess Marie zu Wied married Friedrich, Hereditary Duke of Wurttemberg, heir de jure of the kings, who were deposed in 1918. Although the House of Wurttemberg re-converted to Protestantism by the beginning of the 19th century (when they were also elevated from dukes to kings) and remains prolific in the male line, the dynastic branches of the family ran out of Protestant males as they approached the 20th century. This was so long foreseen that Queen Victoria herself lamented in correspondence that Wurttemberg's royal crown seemed destined to fall to a Catholic branch despite the fact that a more senior Protestant branch, the Dukes of Teck, were thriving in England under her auspices. But the Tecks were ineligible to inherit Wurttemberg's throne because of a morganatic stain on their escutcheon: Had the throne not been abolished at the end of WWI it would have been mounted by the distantly related Catholic branch in 1921 when the last Protestant king, Wilhelm II, died. As it happens, Marie of Wied is his great-granddaughter and, ironically, Wurttemberg's future royal pretenders can only claim descent from any of its past kings through her. Nonetheless upon marrying Wurttemberg's rightful heir, Marie forfeited her British succession rights. Their children have also been raised as Catholics. FactStraight (talk) 08:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Albert and Leopold Windsor (2)
It appears these children were born to "deeply catholic parents", and yet they are listed on the Monarchy's official website are being in the line of succession. Have they been baptized now? According to this list, they have already been excluded from the line of succession. Is britroyals.com not considered a reliable source? Because if it is a RS, then this difference should be reflected in the article.

And to clarify, does this mean that when a baby is born to Catholic parents (for example Carol Ferdinand Hohenzollern (b 2010)), they are (briefly) in the line of succession until they become baptized? Mlm42 (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, I hadn't noticed the discussion above about this. Clearly something should be mentioned in the article to reflect the confusion. Mlm42 (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I hadn't realised we were "correcting" the Monarchy's website.. what reliable source are we using to refute their website? (other than pure logic?) Mlm42 (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The children's cousin Amelia is also still listed on the Monarchy's website even though her older brother and sister were removed from the succession for being confirmed as Roman Catholics. Amelia is also presumably being raised Catholic. Catholic children are apparently left in the succession until they make the choice to be confirmed as Catholics when they are teenagers. Albert and Leopold Windsor were baptized Catholic but are still toddlers and probably wouldn't be removed until they decided to be confirmed. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it is one of the chief reasons that I think that the greater part of this silly list should be deleted. Do we really believe that if one of these children inherited the Crown that it would go into a sort of limbo whilst the child made up its mind whether it wanted to be Head of the Church of England? The whole idea is quite absurd.AnthonyCamp (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC).
 * This appears to be a grave problem indeed.. the biggest problem, if I have interpreted the situation correctly, is that the official website appears to use different rules to other reliable sources.. is that correct? Indeed, if the methods of two different reliable sources produce two different succession lists, then to choose a single one violates WP:NPOV. In particular, the lack of ability to choose a single sequence (based on reliable sources) means that we would not be allowed to number the entries after the first such ambiguity - because such a numbering would endorse a single choice, violating NPOV. This would mean we would have to remove the numbering, and point out every instance where there is ambiguity. Mlm42 (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV does not mean that every source and every point of view should be treated equally. In this case the royal.gov.uk website is presently just plain wrong.  We all know that Savannah Phillips is in line even though she isn't listed after her father.  We also know that sons and their descendants come before daughters and their descendants (which would place Albert and Leopold - as sons of Nicholas - before Nicholas' sister Helen and her children).  Presumably someone will correct this at some point. Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But the particular problem I am talking about is: "When do catholic children get removed from the line"? At birth? At baptism? At confirmation? The sources appear inconsistent. If so, then this is much more than a simple omission, or mistake. This is a true inconsistency. Mlm42 (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have used the Monarchy's official web site, which I think is probably the best gauge of how the monarchy/government interprets the subject. And Catholic should be capitalized. With a small "c" the word means something entirely different and is not referring to the Roman Catholic Church. I think the list could be easily pared down. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Lady Amelia seems a different case from Albert and Leopold. Amelia's father is not Catholic, and, so far as I know, none of Lord St Andrews's children were baptized in the Catholic faith.  I don't know that we can say that they are "apparently being raised Catholic" - at least, I've not seen any reliable source saying that, you are just extrapolating that from the fact that both of the elder children have been confirmed in the Catholic Church.  There are other possible explanations for this than that all three are being raised Catholic, and in the absence of any evidence that Amelia is Catholic, or that she was baptized in the Catholic Church, I don't see how she can be excluded.  Albert and Leopold, on the other hand, have been baptized in the Catholic Church.  That seems like a different question entirely, and I'm not sure there's any reason to think that they are in the line of succession other than the royal website's inclusion of them, which may, for all we know, be out of date. john k (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Both Senna Lewis (b. 2010) and Lyla Gilman (b. 2010) appear on the list above Albert and Leopold, so it's been updated since July 2010. And this reference shows Leopold (the younger of the two) was baptized (a month or two) before Senna and Lyla were born. Of course it's not 100% up to date, because Savannah Phillips, born about two weeks ago, isn't there. Mlm42 (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is then perhaps time to recur to the important to understand point that "the royal website is not especially reliable, and is frequently mistaken." In the matter of Albert and Leopold Windsor, we know that it is mistaken, because it puzzlingly puts them behind Lady Helen Taylor and her children, even though, as sons of Lady Helen's brother, they would obviously be ahead of her (as seen in the reliable sources like Debrett's that put Lord Nicholas ahead of his sister before his conversion to Catholicism, or that the royal website itself puts Prince Michael's children ahead of Princess Alexandra, in an almost 100% analogous situation).  john k (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Even a reliable source can have errors; this is particularly the case with online sources where information is often put up quickly. Wikipedia must be careful not to be swayed by an obvious error merely because it occurs in a reliable or even "official" source. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me this is an obvious error, actually; it seems like a fairly intentional inclusion (even if they are in the wrong place). The question remains: "When do catholic children get removed from the line"? Do all reliable sources, other than the official website, agree on an answer? Or can inconsistencies be found among other sources as well? Mlm42 (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I should point out that Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor was confirmed a Roman Catholic 2008 when she was about 16, and as reported in the Observer lost her place (25th at the time) in the line of succession. It's possible the Observer reported this based on the official website.. but if we aren't believing anything the official website says anymore, then how can we trust this? Maybe she wasn't in the line to begin with? Mlm42 (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not referring to the papistry issue, but rather to the fact that Albert and Leopold are listed after their aunt Helen and their children; this is an "obvious error". I don't believe that anybody has suggested that "we aren't believing anything the official website says".  But we shouldn't treat "official" websites as if they were infallible. Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

To bring this back to the issue at hand, do we agree on the following statements: Clearly these statements have pretty important implications for the list. Mlm42 (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Reliable sources are inconsistent with how they answer the question: "When do Catholic children get removed from the line of succession?"
 * 2) It would violate WP:NPOV to choose a specific answer to this question for the purpose of numbering this list.
 * In the past 300 years there has been a standard interpretation of the word "papist" as used in the Act of Settlement, 1701 - anyone baptised as a Catholic. The Act of Settlement itself defines who is "the next in Succession in the Protestant Line" after Anne - the Electress Sophia of Hanover, in spite of the fact that there were ahead of her in succession at the time at least a dozen children who had been born to papist parents, baptised as Catholics, but who had not yet received the sacrament of confirmation.
 * I know of no source which argues otherwise (e.g. that people only become papists at some point later than baptism). All we have is a single website which includes two names which would not normally be included.  That same website fails to include Savannah Phillips and gets the order wrong with other people.
 * There is no reason to suggest that the "official" website is arguing in favour of a different definition for papist than has generally been used (it certainly does not make any assertions on the matter). It is just as likely that this is merely another error.  It would be unwarranted to act upon that error. There is no reason not to maintain the standard interpretation. An erroneous inclusion on a single website is not indicative of any scholarly disagreement on this point. Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. But I think there is reason to suggest the official website is arguing in favour of a different definition - The fact that Albert and Leopold are on the list, even though they have been baptized is a pretty good reason. You appear to be suggesting, then, that we remove Albert and Leopold from the list entirely? It seems to me that to claim the Official website is wrong in this matter is original research. Of course they may be wrong, but we would probably need a reliable source to back this up - i.e. a source which says the official website is wrong for including Albert and Leopold.
 * The omission of Savannah Phillips is understandable, and the incorrect order of Albert and Leopold is also a pretty obvious mistake. But I think we have to draw the line on correcting their mistakes somewhere - and the existence of the names Albert and Leopold on the list is too important to discount as a mistake; if we are going to remove them from our list, we need a good source which addresses this specific problem. Does anyone have one? Mlm42 (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Mlm42, the (so far) omission of Savannah Phillips only indicates a lack of timely updates (she's not even a month old yet); the position of Albert and Leopold Windsor on the list below their aunt is nothing more than a clerical error. However, the fact that they are included in the list at all seems to be a pretty clear indication it is the intention of the keepers of the list that they are (again, so far) to be included in the line. LarryJeff (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is true. The question then becomes "how far can we consider the keepers of this list a reliable source"?  We have reliable sources that state that these children were baptized in the Roman Catholic faith.  And we have reliable sources that say that anyone who is a Roman Catholic (or "Papist") is excluded from the succession.  I would imagine we can also find reliable sources which say that being baptized in the Roman Catholic faith makes one a Roman Catholic - certainly that is how the Church itself views it.  Assuming the last, why should we not conclude that the include of these two children on a list of uncertain provenance, which we already know contains several considerable errors, is not simply another error? john k (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hypothetical situation: everyone in the line in front of Albert dies tomorrow. Would he be offered the crown? I believe this is the question we are attempting to answer. Who would decide if he was Roman Catholic or not? The church? A judge? Parliament? It's conceivable that someone could reason: "the children haven't really been given the choice to be baptized, so they aren't really Roman Catholic until they are confirmed." Of course what I just said is speculation, but it may be what is going through the mind(s) of whoever made the list on the "Official" website. So, the inclusion of their names could be a mistake, but without a source explicitly claiming it is a mistake, it would be wrong of us to assume that it is. Mlm42 (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Alternate hypothetical situation: everyone in the line of succession in front of Infanta Leonora of Spain dies tomorrow. Would she be offered the crown?  Is your answer any different from your answer about Albert Windsor? It seems to me that the most likely explanation is that the royal website is operating under a false analogy with the children of Nicholas's brother, who have apparently been raised Catholic but were not baptized Catholic.  These have to wait until confirmation to be removed because they've not otherwise been part of the church of Rome.  This is not the case for infants baptized in the Roman Catholic Church.  At the time of his birth in 1932, Archduke Stefan of Austria was in roughly the same position in the line of succession as Albert Windsor is today.  I imagine that no sources exist which ever placed him in the line of succession.  My basic position on this is that the royal website is not a reliable source on subjects like this, and should be ignored where it cannot be compared with other, more reliable sources. john k (talk) 07:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, for the sake of argument, let's ignore the official website for the moment. Are all other reliable sources in agreement about this issue? That is, can we say that all other reliable sources use consistent rules for determining when a child is Catholic or not (and hence when they are removed from the line)? This is something that should be checked.. especially if we are going to remove Albert and Leopold from the line (which is what is being proposed, I believe).
 * I should point out that Reitwiesner (one of the article's main sources) says of the Roman Catholic clauses: "To date these clauses have never been invoked to prevent someone from succeeding to the Crown, so their precise meaning (as far as the Succession is concerned) has never been determined." Indeed.. he includes Catholics in his list. Mlm42 (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Another NPOV problem
The issue of Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern was raised several times in the article's history, but was not resolved. The problem is mentioned in a footnote, and stems from the controversy (and legal battle) around whether or not his father Carol Lambrino was legitimate. It appears that courts ruled that his is, in fact, legitimate. (I don't fully understand the situation surrounding King Michael of Romania, and the issues surrounding the Line of succession to the Romanian throne, but the subtlties seem irrelevant for this article.) At the moment Paul-Philippe is not included in the list. The solution to this problem should not be to (arbitrarily?) choose on way or the other, and continue numbering as if there is no problem. This is a problem, and should be acknowledged as such - and not simply with a footnote. The problem also includes Carol Lambrino's two other descendants, who are also not included.

If it is disputed whether or not Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern is in the line of succession (which is seems to be), then it would violate WP:NPOV to claim one way or another. Mlm42 (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This is probably a unique case. In my opinion there are generally some NPOV issues with those articles generally, such as Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern’s article name when compared with that of Prince Nicholas of Romania (b. 1985). Reitwiesner believed Carol Lambrino to be legitimate and as such in the line of succession, and excluded King Michael of Romania (as issue of a bigamous marriage) and listed his daughter after his wife. I think it would be better, to present a NPOV by putting Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern, son and brother in the list, in stead of skipping them, and place a note at the top of that section (Marie of Romania (1875–1938) → King Carol II of Romania (1893–1953)) explaining the situation. - dwc lr (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds okay to me.. it means that it'll shift everyone below no. 91 on the list further down three more places. (In particular, the King of Sweden, who I discussed above, will move from 203 to 206.. sigh) Are there objections to including the descendants of Carol Lambrino in the line of succession? Mlm42 (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. This is quite substantial revisionism, despite Reitwiesner's well-known, far from unique but not mainstream view. The view at the time, and until Mircea Lambrino and Paul-Philippe's relentless series of lawsuits to establish their claim as rightful heirs to Romania's abolished throne gained traction, was that this line was illegitimate. No one disputes that the elopement with Zizi Lambrino was valid under the laws of Russia where it was performed. Likewise, until recent decades it was not disputed that the marriage was subsequently annulled in Romania by that kingdom's authorities (as an act of public policy, if not of law). Moreover, the child was born a year after that annulment, too long to be "grandfathered in". The recent judicial decisions invalidating the annulment are complicated in their dynastic implications, amounting to a decision by the current republic of Romania that the defunct kingdom's action in the matter was ultra vires. Even if that decision is correct, as well as legally enforceable, the question arises as to its retro- versus contemporary applicability: the legitimacy not only of King Michael hangs in the balance (and he is here protected by BLP) but of all actions taken in his capacity as Romania's chief of state -- a validity not otherwise cast into doubt by Romania's judiciary, government or historians. Romania has never acknowledged bigamy as lawful, ergo the late Mircea Lambrino (and his living descendants) and King Michael cannot both be legitimate, and therefore cannot both be in the UK's line of succession. The annulment's retro-effectiveness cannot here be deemed as any more applicable to the British succession than is the Farran Exemption which, despite its prima facie validity, has been ignored pending a British court or Parliament's acknowledgement of its implications. Being a can of worms beyond our competence to resolve, let this sleeping dog lie (begging pardon for mixed metaphors). FactStraight (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Mary (Goodman) Leigh
Mary (Goodman) Leigh, listed as #650, is married to a Catholic. —Tamfang (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, she has been removed from the numbered listing. Does anyone know if her children are Catholic? -JamesyWamesy (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the Leigh's, I think some others in that section are Catholic though, such as the Mecklenburg's. - dwc lr (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Royal Marriages Act
I think I'm starting to understand AnthonyCamp's issue regarding the Royal Marriages Act. According to this House of Commons debate, which discusses a possible reform of the Royal Marriages Act, their interpretation (based on quotes from Vernon Bogdanor's book "The Monarchy and the Constitution", which I haven't read, but can see snippits via google books) appears to be similar to AnthonyCamp's interpretation - that there are many descendants of George II who have not notified, let alone got approval from, the Privy Council, and therefore have invalid marriages, and therefore have illegitimate children. This problem doesn't come up in practice because those closest to the throne, obviously, get permission from the Privy Council. Indeed, it would seem most descendants of George II don't even ask the Privy Council when they get married... yet we include them in our list. This certainly seems contrary to the Royal Marriages Act. Mlm42 (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, that is my main point. I would like to know why (a) the Queen goes through this procedure if it is not necessary, and (b) why, in 1933, Sir Augustus FitzGeorge was reckoned illegitimate because of the Act, but Tewa Lascelles, born in 1985, to parents who also married in contravention of the Act [No 52 on your list and the first to whom this applies],is listed as being in line. AnthonyCamp (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC).
 * The provisions of the RMA apply to any "descendant of the body of his late Majesty King George the Second, male or female, (other than the issue of princesses who have married, or may hereafter marry into foreign families)". Tewa Lascelles is a descendant of the body of George II.  But she is also a descendant of George II's daughter Louise.  Therefore she is exempted from the provisions of the RMA. In 1953 Charles Farran (in the Modern Law Review) pointed out that "there is ... only one living unmarried descendant of George II to whom the Act may still apply" (Alexander Ramsay of Mar), and even he and his descendants are exempted if Victoria was a "princess" in the meaning of the Act.  Debrett's (1995, page 68) summarizes the situation in these words, "Nearly all the Members of the Royal Family now fall into the category of being exempted." Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh.. that Farran reference sounds quite interesting (though I haven't checked it). If we can rely on that, then this problem is mostly solved.. there is only the question of what to do about the descendants of Alexander Ramsay of Mar.. are they legitimate? They are currently in the line of succession in our article, but based on what you've said Noel, it sounds like they shouldn't be. Is that right? (Unless, of course, they asked permission from the Privy Council to get married..) Mlm42 (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Farran, the only possibly non-exempt person in 1953 was Alexander Ramsay of Mar (he too and his descendants are exempt if you hold that Victoria "married into a foreign family" when she married Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha). But, assuming that Alexander Ramsay of Mar was obliged by the provisions of the RMA .... In 1956 he was given RMA permission to marry Flora Fraser, 21st Lady Saltoun; they have three daughters (all perfectly legitimate in line with the RMA).  In 1980 the eldest daughter Katharine Fraser, Mistress of Saltoun, was given RMA permission to marry Mark Nicolson; they have three unmarried children (all perfectly legitimate in line with the RMA). In 1990 the second daughter of Alexander Ramsay of Mar, Alice Ramsay of Mar, was given RMA permission to marry David Ramsey; they have four children (all perfectly legitimate in line with the RMA). The third daughter of Alexander Ramsay of Mar, Elizabeth Ramsay of Mar, is unmarried. So there are currently ten people to whom the provisions of the RMA still apply; of these, three are presumably past the stage of bearing children (although I have no reliable source to prove the last statement). Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the Farran Exemption can be treated as a catch-all escape when it is not treated as applicable by the vast number of people supposedly exempt from the RMA under it. The Farran Exemption is a minority position, and absolutely should not be treated as wikipedia's primary interpretation of the RMA.  In general, the Farran exemption is an attempt to use the somewhat poorly worded letter of the law to violate its spirit - obviously the purpose of the law was not for male line descendants of the monarch to become exempt by marrying a granddaughter of one of George II's daughters.  And neither before nor after Farran's article was published has any person claimed the Farran Exemption (either explicitly or implicitly) to allow themselves to avoid applying for RMA permission to marry.  The marriage of the second duke of Cambridge, conducted not in accord with the RMA, was not considered valid, even though Cambridge's mother was a descendant of one of George II's daughters.  The one son born to Cambridge after the marriage apparently accepted this and made no effort to claim his father's titles.  This article's interpretation of the RMA ought to reflect mainstream understanding of it, rather than a clever parlor game.  By my understanding, a mainstream understanding of the RMA would be that you are exempt if you can only trace your descent from George II back through a princess who married a foreigner.  That means the group assumed to be subject to the RMA is substantial, but limited - the descendants of George V and his sister Louise, and of Lady Patricia Ramsay; the male line descendants of the Duke of Albany; the descendants of Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone; perhaps Robin Bryan (I'm not sure if Prince Henry of Battenberg was a British subject when he married Beatrice); the male line descendants of King Ernst August of Hanover; the descendants of the Marquess of Cambridge.  Most everyone else falls into the "actually exempted by marrying a foreigner" category.  This interpretation is obviously subject to dispute, but it is how the RMA has traditionally been interpreted.  I also think there's some dispute as to whether legally valid marriage ceremonies outside the United Kingdom can be considered invalid in the UK because of the RMA.  If they can't be, then James Lascelles's second marriage is fine; although Jeremy Lascelles would still be on the hook. john k (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Farran exemption is not a "minority position". It is the standard interpretation today; as evidence of that, I cite Debrett's 1995 (which specifically cites Farran).  The RMA applies to any "descendant of the body of his late Majesty King George the Second, male or female, (other than the issue of princesses who have married, or may hereafter marry into foreign families)". There is nothing in the act which says exempt only if descent is from a princess who married into a foreign family.  That might have been a better RMA; but it isn't the RMA. Noel S McFerran (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is simply a restatement of the language of the Act itself, not a specific endorsement of the interpretation given to that language by Farran. If the Farran Exemption had become the standard interpretation, then why did supposedly exempt individuals request permission in 1956, 1959, 1960 (2x), 1961, 1962, 1965, 1967, 1972, 1973 (2x), 1978 (2x), 1979, 1980, 1981 (3x), 1986, 1987 (2x), 1988, 1992 (2x), 1993, 1994, 1999, 2001 (2x), 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 (2x), 2008 (3x), and 2009 (2x)?  Our own article on the Royal Marriages Act states that the Farran exemption was widely talked about after its publication, and subsequently ignored.  john k (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I might have mentioned this before, but lots of the princesses who were assumed at the time to have married into foreign families actually didn't, because their husbands, being Protestant, descended from Electress Sophia of Hanover and born before 1948, were technically British under the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 (as upheld in Attorney General v Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover 1957). This means their issue were not, after all, exempted from having to ask permission, and their descendants are illegitimate under British law. Opera hat (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how bringing in more esoteric legal arguments makes the situation any clearer. This article should be based on the dominant interpretation of the RMA, not legal parlor games that have never been tested.  Both the Farran Exemption and this argument are based on the idea that a very narrow and literal interpretation of the letter of the RMA should be used to violate its spirit.  Unless and until either of these theories is tested in court, or accepted as valid in some other way, there is no reason to view either of them as more than an unsubstantiated theory. john k (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * John k, do you have sources to back up the "dominant interpretation" of the RMA, which you have stated above? How dominant is this view? It seems to me that there may not be, in fact, a single dominant interpretation of the RMA. And this puts pretty much the entire article at risk of violating NPOV. If there is no "widely accepted" interpretation of the RMA, then there is also no "widely accepted" line of succession; and in this case we are not allowed to present a single line of succession as if it were truth. Mlm42 (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that the fact that the Queen and her Privy Council have met almost every year for fifty years as a result of the Act, evidenced by the London Gazette, should be good enough evidence for any encyclopaedia. AnthonyCamp (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC).
 * The Farran exemption would also have applied to Prince George Duke of Cambridge, as he was descended from Princess Mary of Great Britain (daughter of George II) through his mother. Opera hat (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I get it.
I enjoy British humor, even though I often don't think it is funny (Benny Hill= Funny. Alan Partridge= Not Funny). The vast majority of people listed in the "Line of succession to the British throne" are actually not in the line of succession to the British throne. Har! Har! I get it. Joke is on us Americans for hosting this article on Wikipedia; this is obviously some sort of trenchant commentary on the fatuity of attempted democratic endeavors such as Wikipedia. Looking at the discussion pages, it appears that numerous people have made this observation before, but to no avail. Any effort to remove people who are clearly not in the line of succession to the British throne is subverted by a group of entrenched Ironic Pseudo-Royalists who enjoy the giddy thrill of making Wikipedia look silly. Why don't you go away and start your own wiki encyclopedia? You could fill it up with as many nonsensical lists as you want. Yours in disgust, Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You have failed to assume the editors here are acting in good faith. It seems to me they all are. Your comments are completely unhelpful, and they amount to personal attacks. Mlm42 (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether in good faith or not, many of these opinions are those of a growing number of frustrated contributors, myself (British to the core) included! AnthonyCamp (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC).

New succession law
A lot of the problems highlighted above, will probably be sorted out in the next few years. It seems that the governments of the 15 Commonwealth realms, which under the Statute of Westminster must agree changes in the royal succession law, are working on a plan. A British minister raised the issue in Parliament recently.

We will not know for certain, until changes are enacted. However it seems likely that succession would be limited to descendants of someone more recent than the Electress Sophia of Hanover (King George VI perhaps). It is also likely that the precedence of males over females would be ended (so a hypothetical eldest daughter of Prince William would inherit before her younger brother). The rules excluding Catholics would also go, as they are in flagrant breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

If the succession law is changed, as I think likely, this article would become much shorter and easier to keep up to date (at least for the next half century or so).--Gary J (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are many arguments on either side of a possible change in succession law. Perhaps the best argument for change is that it would make it easier to edit this article. ;) Noel S McFerran (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Deaths & Catholicism
1. We can all agree that Catholics and dead people are not in the line of succession. 2. We need to pare this list down (as per a million comments on here).

Why don't we just cut the dead and Catholic people out of it? We would shorten it significantly. 87.194.214.89 (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Until this past week's format change there were no dead people listed. There now are a very small number of dead people listed in order to show family relationships - and this has allowed for an almost 8% shortening of the page in the last week (with the potential for even more in the future).
 * Catholics are listed since (although they can never be in line) their non-Catholic descendants can be. Noel S McFerran (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to have an authoritative source for that latter comment. AnthonyCamp (talk) 09:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC).
 * "The Act provides for a perpetual Protestant succession by debarring any person in line to the throne from reigning if he or she be a Roman Catholic or has married one. This question arose on the marriage of Prince Michael of Kent when he lost his right of succession through his marriage to a Roman Catholic, but according to the announcement from Buckingham Palace, their children and descendants remain in succession" (Debrett's 1995, page 67). Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice source - it could be added to the article with an inline citation next to their children's entries. As an aside, I wonder if they were baptized Roman Catholic? Mlm42 (talk) 03:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Frederick and Gabriella Windsor were baptised according to the rites of the Church of England; they remain in line (currently nos. 37 and 38). Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was also considering removing large families that have remained consistently Catholic, eg. the descendants of Infante Juan, Count of Barcelona and his sisters. We could remove all their descendants and just leave one line saying his/her descendants$XP$ -JamesyWamesy (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As pointed out above, that would be wrong. Indeed, it would seem that between birth and baptism, the children may briefly be in the line of succession. Mlm42 (talk) 03:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's nice to agree on something. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC).
 * It is an interesting concept that an announcement from the press office at Buckingham Palace can alter the law, whether reported in Debrett's Peerage or not. AnthonyCamp (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Well, if an announcement from the Queen's office expresses HM's will on an issue which is hers to rule on (royal protocol, precedence etc.), then surely it's almost as good as a warrant... DBD 11:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all, it is not in any way 'hers to rule on'. The whole purpose of the Act of Settlement of 1701 was to further limit the prerogatives of the Crown by defining the conditions under which the Crown could be held and in determining the order of succession to the throne. AnthonyCamp (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC).
 * The announcement from Buckingham Palace did not change the law. You asked for an authoritative source that the non-Catholic descendants of Catholics are in line.  I provided one.  How did this announcement change the law?  It was no different before or after the announcement. Noel S McFerran (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, as Prince Michael of Kent isn't a Catholic. Opera hat (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

What would happen if Kate Middleton converted to Catholicism, Prince William married her and lost his place in the succession, Prince Harry inherited the throne and then Prince William had a son who was raised Anglican? The child would be the genealogically senior eligible descendant of Electress Sophia. What would be his place in the line of succession to King Henry? Surely not ahead of the King's own children. Perhaps after the children of King Henry but before the Duke of York or his descendants - effectively treating Prince William as the second son? Opera hat (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Billy & Kate's child wouldn't be in the line-of-succession, as its father was already disqualified. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a puzzler. I'd think the child wouldn't be in the line of succession at all, but I'm not really sure. john k (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Such a child of Prince William would no more be excluded than are the children of Prince Michael of Kent (noted above). The "stickiness" of the situation would depend on timing--that is, if the child were born during the lifetime of Queen Elizabeth and/or Prince Charles (that is, before William would be passed over in favor of his younger brother) then, after they have both died, the crown would simply skip William and pass to his non-Catholic child.  My guess is that (1) William would never be given permission under the RMA to marry a Catholic and (2) if he were, then an act would be passed that specifically addressed the situation stated above (perhaps he would renounce his claim along with the claim of his future decendants, a la Edward VIII).LarryJeff (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If William had a child by his Catholic wife after his brother had ascended the thrones, the crown would have to pass to that child as if Henry IX died, since that child would be Sophia's most senior non-papist descendant. Now imagine that child being a daughter; if William had a son after her, she too would suffer the same fate as her uncle, as the crown would have to pass to the brother - the Act clearly stipulates that the sovereign must be Sophia's most senior non-papist descendant according to male-preference cognatic primogeniture. At least that's the way I see it. But all of this would simply be too much and something would be done to prevent it. Surtsicna (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We have to remember the object of the original legislation which was to remove any Catholic influence on the monarch and Supreme Head of the Church of England. To think that such a person might have a Catholic mother would have been abhorrent and impossible. And so the Declaration of Rights said that if someone in line married a Catholic they were "excluded and forever uncapable to inherit possesse or enjoy the Crowne". Someone who is incapable of inheriting was in the past generally incapable of transmitting. That, it seems correct to say, was the position until, at a time of heated religious controversy about the legality of the marriage of Prince Michael of Kent, a conciliatory press announcement was made by the Palace about future children being in the line of succession. That announcement was made in the full knowledge that their place in line was so remote that the truth of the matter would never be tested. As I said on these pages two years ago, it is because of these uncertainties (amongst others) that the major part of this list is completely hypothetical and utterly worthless. AnthonyCamp (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Anthony, I'm definitely starting to believe the view that this list is more hypothetical than it is undisputed fact - even reliable sources admit their lists are hypothetical, since the precise meaning of some of the laws have never actually been tested. I think the best course of action may be to start a RfC. To do this we should summarize the main arguments on all sides.. if it is decided that the existence of most of the list fails one or more Wikipedia policies (WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTAL come to mind) in an unfixable way, then it's not clear what should happen to this list. Even number 30 on our list, Albert Windsor, is a disputed entry. Maybe it would be appropriate to move this entire list to an article titled "List of descendants of Sophia of Hanover", including an explanation of the uncertainty of the actual line of succession. Mlm42 (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the last suggestion may be a bit extreme. There are certain certainties in this list. (“Certain certainties” … how’s that for a phrase?!) We know that up to HRH The Duke of Kent, the list is fairly certain. Most people who come to this wikiarticle are only interested in the first score and a half anyway. The remaining 1,000+ serve more to titillate our trivia tastebuds than anything else: “Wow! Did you know that the King of Sweden is an heir to the British throne?!” Stuff like that. Renaming the article something akin to “List of descendants of Sophia of Hanover” would only make it harder for Wikipedia readers to find out where, for instance, the children of HRH The Earl of Wessex fit. Why not draw a line at the point where the list begins to step into crystal ball territory with a statement to the effect that, because the succession laws have not really ever been tested, authorities on the subject cannot agree as to the remainder of the list? (Although, the largely unsourced wikiarticle Act of Settlement 1701 would suggest otherwise.) At the very least the list should place the members of the Royal Family in the line of succession. (See for example.) —  Spike  Toronto  20:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Childre of Princess Sakia, Mrs Edward Hooper (429
I think Louis Hooper currently listed (432) should be listed after his half brother Jake Naylor-Leyland and before his half sister Gabriel Lewisdl (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Gabriel George Naylor-Leland is a boy :) Morhange (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

many thanks will amend my records Lewisdl (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sophie of Merenburg, Countess of Torbay
In Between 675 and 676 you show the countess of Tobay and rightly exclude her because of her illegitemacy However you also exclude her children. However her husband IS also in the line of succesion but much further down so her children shouldnt be excluded here.

Lewisdl (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Sophie's children should be listed as descendants of Grand Duke Michael Mikhailovich. john k (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

ok I have spotted what i think is another error — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewisdl (talk • contribs) 19:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC) 1249.Gregory Alexis Wynkoop (b 1975) son of Elisabeth Wynkoop Sophia → George I → George II → Anne, Princess Royal → Princess Carolina of Orange-Nassau → Frederick William, Prince of Nassau-Weilburg → Wilhelm, Duke of Nassau → Princess Marie of Nassau
 * Calixte de Montaignac de Pessotte-Bressolles (b 1944) great-great-grandson of Duchess Alexandra of Oldenburg
 * Eve de Montaignac de Pessotte-Bressolles (b 1994) daughter of Calixte de Montaignac de Pessotte-Bressolles
 * Marie Isabell Nadejda d'Almont (b 1952) half-sister of Calixte de Montaignac de Pessotte-Bressolles
 * the descendants of Princess Marie of Nassau, as they are already higher on the list through her husband, Prince Hermann of Wied

I think we may be getting are Hermann of Weids mixed up

Princess Marie of Nassau 29 jan 1825 - 24 mar 1902 was married to Hermann of Weid 22 May 1814 to 5 Mar 1864 who is not in the line of succession

Another Prince Hermann of Weid 1899-1941 was in the line of succesion just above number 550 He was married to Marie Antoinette of Stolberg Wenigerode. He is the son of Freidrich of Weid 27 jun 1872 - 18 jun 1945 and Pauline of Wurttemberg 1877 -1965

Princess Marie's descendants include Elizabeth of Weid who married King Carol I Of Romania

just to help confuse us even more the younger Hermann is a great grandson of the elder Hermann 19:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewisdl (talk • contribs)

also the next two listings could be improved.

Princess Marie's father went on to marry another Pauline of Wurttemburg 1810-1856, she and her descendents are already higher in line. therefore it is by virtue of being Pauline's children that Helene and Sophie should be skipped not by virtue of their marriages. ( I'm fairly sure that Sophie's Husband King Oscar II of Sweden and Norway isnt a descendant of The Electress Sophia Lewisdl (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes on Helene and Sophie, and Oscar II definitely wasn't a descendant of Electress Sophia. john k (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Descendents of Adinolfo Luchessi Palli 18 jun 1911- 1986
Adinolfo was the third sibling of Antonio and Roberto whose descendents are listed just above 1310 finishing with Ludovico Adinolfos descendents are listed Lewisdl (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

1429 and 1430
Both these positions are listed as Walthers I believe 1430 should be Count Eric Lewisdl (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Children of Archduchess Eilika of Austria and Arch Duke George of Austria
This couple have 3 children Karoly Konstantin, Ildiko, and Sofia

They are correctly excluded after their mother (listed after her father Duke Konstantin (792) but then also listed after their father listed a little above position 1259

Lewisdl (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, this has been fixed -JamesyWamesy (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Children of Florian of Hoensbroech 1969 and Desiree von Sachsen-Weimar-Eisanach
This couples three children ( Philipp- Benedikt, Friedrich-Johannes and Franziskus Leonhard )are correctly shown as being excluded after their mothers position (just after 529 ) but also excluded again after their father's entry. In other words they appear twice in the list Lewisdl (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, this has been fixed -JamesyWamesy (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

1632 Alexandra Pellegrino
Daryll Lundy's Site "The Peerage" has Alexandra being born and dying in 1958. other sites show similar

Lewisdl (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

1694 Countess Lukardis of Erbach-Furstenau
I believe the Countess died on 9 Aug 2005 Lewisdl (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we have a proper discussion now?
This article is the third largest on Wikipedia. It is large, unwieldy and unaccessible for some users. This surely goes against what Wikipedia was made for – a reference website which anyone can take part in. Add to this the fact that most of this article's content is obvious original research and could even violate WP:NPOV (see discussions above). It's time to cut this article down, and I mean really cut it down. There's no reason for the list to go past a few hundred names. It's is not helpful and it is an excessive listing of statistics. So I call for some sense please, and the proper Wikipedian approach. This article is not a good one, despite the amount of work gone into it, and we have to ask ourselves why. — Half  Price  22:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is now 10% shorter than it was seven months ago. It is not an "excessive listing of statistics"; its a list of names (a totally different thing, not excluded by WP:IINFO. The article is big, because the topic is big. Reducing the size of the article by not including some people would really be changing the topic (e.g. "First 10 people in line of succession to the British throne") - but that would be totally arbitrary. Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That was very well put by Noel. I agree entirely. It is the result of historical events, and the legislative response. Cutting it down would make it incomplete. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree entirely. This was last discussed @ Talk:Line of succession to the British throne/Archive 7. I made a suggestion on 15 December 2010 to the effect that the entire list should be removed, except any parts of it that have been published on the Royal website.  My proposal received one supportive comment in January, and nothing in dissent.  I reaffirm that proposal now.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  02:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I dissent. Merely because a topic is large is not a reason for arbitrarily cutting it off at a certain point. I would equally dissent if somebody suggested that we should only list three planets in the Solar System. There are lots of long lists on Wikipedia, such as List of RAF aircrew in the Battle of Britain (only slightly smaller than this article at present). The difference with this article is that it is actually looked at and referred to often.  That's why there is a small team of hard-working editors who continue to edit this article, in spite of the visits to this talk-page by people who have little understanding of the topic. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with the size of the list, and everything to do with it being Original Research after a certain point.


 * The Official Website of the British Monarchy stops at 38 names.


 * This list shows only the first 60 names, and refers readers to the Wikipedia list for more details, so that is certainly out of bounds as a source.


 * This list says "The current line of succession is given below", then stops at position 100.


 * This list also stops at 100.


 * I’m sure there are other lists out there, but the question is, how authoritative and reliable are they? Nobody beyond position 10 in the list would ever have the remotest hope of ever becoming the monarch, so I think I’m being quite generous and acting in a spirit of compromise when I say we should limit our list to the first 100 names, which is where external sources also draw the line.  By definition, anything after that is OR. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This list, which is cited as one of the major sources for the article, stops at 4973. Opera hat (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A major source? You jest, methinks!  It's over 10 years old - not a problem for most articles, but a BIG problem for this article, which purports to show the list in its up to date state.  How many thousands of changes have occurred since 2001?  Just as a result of Prince Edward's 2 children, everything from Position 8 down is out of place.  Any adjustments WP editors make as a result of those later changes are all OR.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  08:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's OR to say that the Princess Royal is now tenth rather than eighth in the line of succession? Seriously?  Synthesis is only OR when it is used to make a "novel argument."  Simply applying well known succession rules based on more recent information is not OR. john k (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Half Price's comment has turned into something of a red herring. Although much of this article is not sufficiently referenced, that's not to say that at some point in the future, someone may come along and provide adequate inline citations for everything. So the original research argument is a "short term" problem, and not a long term one. The long term problem is the POV one I've pointed to above.
 * I could also point out that if the list's numbering were to be removed, then there would be nothing stopping the article from being split into smaller articles. The fact is, you can't number lists very easily across multiple articles, which appears to be the main obstacle preventing a split. Mlm42 (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason for cutting it off at a certain point, i.e. at No 30, is that beyond that point the list is completely hypothetical and worthless. Beyond No 30 it has no reference value whatever. Nobody knows what legal interpretation would be placed on the two Acts of Parliament if such an interpretation were ever needed and that is unlikely in the extreme. Why cannot you admit the facts and delete this rubbish? AnthonyCamp (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Anthony, I agree this list should be changed, and cut down. But the descendants of Sophia of Hanover are not "hypothetical", nor are they disputed (as far as I know). What is disputed is which descendants are actually in the line of succession.. but it's not disputed (as far as I know) that everyone who is in the line of succession, is contained in the list of descendants. For the reason, the list of descendants is relevant. So I'm saying deleting the entire list isn't the only option. On the other hand, I don't think it's possible to have a numbered list called "Line of succession to the British throne" (hence the poll I started above). Mlm42 (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your choice of 30 is entirely arbitrary. Why not 20, or 40, or 60, or 10?  The first exclusion on account of papistry actually comes before no. 30 (it would have been much earlier if Autumn Phillips had not converted to the CofE before her wedding). A listing up to no. 30 is not the "Line of succession to the British throne", it is merely "The first 30 in line of succession to the British throne"; that's a different article topic (a much easier one). Noel S McFerran (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Noel says that I don't understand the topic. I understand it enough to realise that the page in its present form is unsustainable. We've got to look at shortening the article or splitting it up. Even if you disagree that the list is excessive, you can't disagree that the actual page is too long and so unaccessible to many users. — Half  Price  14:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it's too big. The only way to split up the article is to remove the numbering. The only way to remove the numbering, appears to be, convincing the regulars (like Noel) that it violates NPOV to have a numbered list (beyond the first small chunk). I think this is an achievable goal. Mlm42 (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is NOT "inaccessible to many users" as User:Half price claims. It is not the longest article on Wikipedia nor has it been for quite some time. The longest article is List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters - presumably because it has even greater importance than this article!!! There are currently several thousand articles over 100,000 bytes, about 200 articles over 200,000 bytes, and about 15 articles over 300,000 bytes. The length-police have a great deal of work to do.
 * Article size divides the issues of concern into two major categories: readability issues and technical issues. The section on readability specifically says, "Lists, tables, and articles summarizing certain fields are exceptions. If there is no 'natural' way to split a long list or table, the current consensus among editors is it may be best to leave it on one page." Technical issues are connected with the type of browser used. The issues for editors are almost all solved by editing a section of the article rather than the whole article. The section on "Splitting" says "Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage." In spite of the fact that I use a computer which is over nine years old, I manage to edit this article regularly. Can I now go back to editing, rather than responding to concerns which have already been responded to previously? Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If we were to remove the numbering, then there is a very natural way to split this article. We could split off lists of form "List of Descendants of [somebody]", where [somebody] could be Sophia Dorothea of Hanover (1687–1757), for example. Mlm42 (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't agree with splitting the article. An article like List of descendants of Princess Augusta of Great Britain (1737–1813) would not be notable and would deserve deletion. The only reason to have a list of such people would be because they're in the line of succession to the British throne. So the content should remain at Line of succession to the British throne. Opera hat (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; but if people think the article is too big, then there are other solutions.. like using Templates to split up the content, which could then be transcluded in the article. But I don't know how much of a problem this is.. and yes, the accessibility could be improved with the "Collapse" template. Mlm42 (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Other crap exists, so what? Anything >300k is ridiculous, even if "sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage", and quite frankly that's hugely debatable, this article isn't just big, it's gargantuan. And there are readability issues. I had to spend a good 15 minutes understanding the whole thing. We can – and need – to make it easier. Wikipedia needs to be accessible to everyone, not just experts and royalists. — Half   Price  21:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If Article size is hugely debatable, it should be debated there, not here. I've just had a look at those guidelines and the technical aspect of the size doesn't seem to be too much of a problem. The main issue is the readability, and that can be sorted - e.g. by using Template:Collapse for those further down the list, as I've suggested before. Opera hat (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel quite strongly that this article should aim to be as complete as possible—i.e., to list all people who are in the line of succession. While I appreciate that there are concerns about the accuracy of some parts of the list, limiting it to 30 (or some other arbitrary number) would make the inaccuracy worse: it is not accurate that the line of succession stops after 30. I'm not sure why we should restrict ourselves to what is written on royal.gov.uk; that site is not infallible, as has been noted here before, and is also very incomplete. ¶ If the article is difficult to understand, perhaps the introduction needs work or the formatting could be altered—I don't think removing information is the answer. If there are disputes over particular people's inclusion (for reasons of religion or legitimacy, presumably), that can and should be noted in the article. Removing all the numbers strikes me as too drastic a solution and would deprive readers of potentially useful information, and cutting off the list after an arbitrary point would do the same. Alkari (?), 13 February 2011, 01:28 UTC
 * But what tells you that what individual editors come up with in the privacy of their own homes is any more "accurate" or "infallible" than what's been published externally? What gives them the right to just dump their theories here - because that's what they are in the absence of any external verification - in utter disregard about the rule that says "No Original Research".   If the name has to be changed because it is no longer the exhaustive list, so be it.  Let that trivial issue not get in the way of some sensible action here.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  01:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As Mlm42 has pointed out, descent from Electress Sophia of Hanover is verifiable and not Original Research. The OR aspect starts coming in when applying the other criteria of succession among those descendants, which I gather is AnthonyCamp's main problem with the article. I think this could be overcome by changing the article to remove definite statements as to whether such-and-such descendant is or isn't included - as in William Addams Reitwiesner's list here - with an explanation of some of the arguments both ways. Opera hat (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In any event, it seems likely that in the reasonably near future the prohibition on Roman Catholics inheriting the throne will be removed. That seems to be the biggest problem with the accuracy of the list, and if it is removed it would be a shame to have lost the regular updating of this list that is currently occurring due to its existence. Proteus (Talk) 14:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How far off is the "reasonably near future" exactly? And I think there are several editors that believe it's more important to ensure this article complies with the standards of Wikipedia, than it is to have an amazingly long and regularly updated list. Mlm42 (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. This is basically an incredibly arcane parlor game that doesn't have much value to the average person. I would probably cut it off at the descendants of King George V, which takes us back a century. No one else has even a remote possibility of inheriting the throne; most are private citizens who don't regularly announce births, etc. I imagine the complete list as it exists now could be preserved on someone's personal web site, where other royal buffs could go to visit it. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, but unless you cut it down to the first 29, you will still need to give all the same explanations about illegitimacy and catholicism. To have the shorter list and to explain these problems without casting particular stones is surely the answer. AnthonyCamp (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC).
 * That would probably be more useful, since the first 29 are the only ones with a realistic chance of inheriting. Actually, we could probably even limit it to the children and grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth II and possibly her sister Margaret. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I'm against having a long numbered list, because it violates NPOV, I'm not sure about deleting everything after number 30. For example, it seems generally accepted that the King of Sweden is in the line of succession. Although what number he is in line is disputed, the fact that he is in the line is generally accepted (as far as I understand). If that's the case, then this information seems encyclopedic enough to be included in his biography, does it not? Mlm42 (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One might add that it's not merely accepted that the King of Sweden is in the line of succession; it's also pretty generally accepted that he is in the line of succession after the descendants of Queen Victoria's second son and before his own children. The only question is how many of those who are senior descendants of Queen Victoria might be a) ineligible due to being Catholic; b) ineligible due to having married a Catholic; or c) ineligible due to issues relating to the Royal Marriages Act.  john k (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point; in fact it would be more useful and clear if the article weren't a long list at all, but rather prose describing the different lines of descent. This would also eliminate the NPOV and OR concerns caused by a lengthy numbered list. Mlm42 (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've suggested this in the past, but never gotten much response. john k (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confusing this article Line of succession to the British throne with another already existing article Succession to the British throne. The later is a narrative prose article.  The former is a list. Both have their uses, but one does not need to be made into the other. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What Mlm42 describes is not what Succession to the British throne is about. john k (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware of the article Succession to the British throne. The suggestion is to make this article, Line of succession to the British throne, into another prose article, describing the current line of succession. Mlm42 (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This is another vote for the William Addams Reitweisner approach. Only exclude those descendents who are deceased, illegitimate ore descened from someone who is illegitimate. Lewisdl (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This would still be as inaccurate as the present list. We know that several of the Kents are excluded for being Catholic, so including them would be incorrect. We know the Crown Prince of the Netherlands is excluded for his marriage to a Catholic, so he is excluded, etc. Including every descendant would be incorrect as we know that there are criteria that cause people to be excluded and that some are excluded on the royal family's official page. Morhange (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * isn't that the point, We dont know that they are excluded. As W.A.R says "Many other "Order of Succession" lists will omit certain persons who are, or are believed by the list compiler to be, Roman Catholic. The reason for these omissions is that the two parliamentary Acts state, in similar language, that anyone who performs certain actions (such as "professe the Popish religion", "marry a Papist", "be reconciled to or ... hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome") "should be excluded and ... made forever incapable to inherit possess or enjoy the Crown". To date these clauses have never been invoked to prevent someone from succeeding to the Crown, so their precise meaning (as far as the Succession is concerned) has never been determined. Because of this, the list below does not attempt to assert which, if any, of the descendants of Electress Sophia have been rendered "incapable to inherit ... the Crown" under these clauses. "Lewisdl (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)