Talk:Succession to the British throne/Archive 2

4973 people: propose remove Reitwiesner's list
I think enough readers will be interested in this fact to make it worth keeping. We have made it very clear that it is out of date, but the precise number today is not important. It's still a reasonable ball park figure. Richard75 (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * To my mind it is trivial, but as presented in the article could serve as a warning against sources which might otherwise mislead. Qexigator (talk)


 * It should be deleted: it looks unencyclopedic to have a statement with that many caveats. And indeed the caveats pretty much indicate it fails WP:RS. (Although the website's author, according to his article, has received praise for his research thoroghness in an article in the Washington Post, it's still WP:SELFPUB and a little borderline even without the caveats). DeCausa (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it's hardly an unreliable source if what it says is in fact accurate. Richard75 (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The point of the caveats is to say it's not accurate! So, what we have is a piece of trivia followed by a lengthy explanation saying why the trivia is most likely inaccurate, derived from a self-published internet source. Encyclopedic, not much. DeCausa (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is the point, but I have added an inline link to the list's deceased author, given that we may surmise he would, if living, have been a credible expert witness. Yet the list, which admittedly suffers diminishing accuracy as to persons now living, does not purport to be based on the present law, and is self-contradictory, in the sense that the branches of dynastic genealogies multiply and split with the generations, until any one of the lines becomes extinct, and the prospect of any of the remoter lines coming near to the succession vanishes. At any given time, the first six persons in line may be thought of as within a realistic prospect of succession, but beyond that (depending on ages, marriages, fecundity, health and survival) perhaps up to the next twenty or so have sufficient proximity, and any of them who are displaced from the number by others coming into the line above them may be considered as becoming one of those who never were of that number. What number can reasonably be treated as the cut-off point is debatable, but for the purpose of presenting an informative article concerning the line of succession to the present Queen, it is acceptable that the list in the main Succession article stops at (17), that is the line headed by the Queen, while the Tree list at Line of succession to the British throne extends to the descendants of the collateral lines headed by George V, now reaching to (52). I would therefore propose that the mention of 'Other persons', by reference to Reitwiesner's list or any other, be removed from the article. Qexigator (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The caveats do not make it inaccurate; the statement was accurate at the given date. The precise number is not important though. It is included just to give an idea of roughly how many people are in the line of succession. I guarantee that if you remove it, people will start asking how many there are. Do you have a better figure to give them? Richard75 (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Qexigator. It should be removed. It's inaccurate and the only way to present it without it be entirely misleading is to surround it with "warnings" which look unencyclopedic (and slightly ridiculous frankly). DeCausa (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it should be removed, for the reasons Richard75 states: It is information many would not only find of interest but indicative of how a prominent modern monarchy is structured and functions (notable especially if contrasted with alternative monarchical systems on which we have articles, such as, at one end, the Dutch succession, which deliberately keeps its number of dynasts small by lopping off royal descendants from eligibility at every change of occupancy in the throne and, at the other end, vaster potential successors in polygamous cultures where dynasts proliferate to the point of constituting a politically significant class {Swaziland's House of Dlamini} or tribe {House of Saud}). It is the kind of information people turn to encyclopedias to discover. More important to me is that if one is interested in this information, an article labeled "Succession to the British throne" is a very reasonable place to seek it, and therefore, to find it. Surely it can be re-worded in a way that makes it seem less caveat-drenched? "As of 2011 royal genealogist William Addams Reitwiesner had counted 4973 living descendants of the Electress Sophia who, save for those that became or married Catholics, were eligible to inherit the throne." FactStraight (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * First, Reitwiesner was not and never claimed to be 'royal', he was a genealogist with the genealogies of royal houses as a speciality. Secondly, what is this article about? A genealogy is a presentation of known facts about persons living and deceased, but this article's topic is about who can be identified as the heir apparent or presumptive to the British Crown today on the happening of a future event (demise of the Crown) in an unknown future, and that person's heirs apparent or presumptive at the present time in succession, up to some limit of reasonable expectation, given that the line is liable to change from day to day, as a result of uncertainties such as family events and any political events resulting in a change of the law determining eligibility, and with reference to the genealogy only so far as necessary to identify members of near collateral lines. The number of descendants of the Electress Sophia who, save for those that became or married Catholics, were eligible to inherit the throne, is not otherwise relevant to this article, which is not about information which can be expertly derived from the genealogy.  As remarked when discussing 'Karin Vogel's place in line' at Talk:Line of succession to the British throne, this article is not the place to gratify the supposed enthusiasm of amateur historians or to excite the curiosity of casual browsers, who if keen enough can follow their own calculations, without encouragement to that end from an article intended to offer factually based information specifically on the topic of the current line of succession, nor should those readers be more favoured than others whose range of interests may be surmised to extend to other topics such as constitutional law, sociology, the past present and future of hereditary monarchy in general as a form of government, and so on. Qexigator (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * +Perhaps I could expand a little to explain the point about relevance. A question arising directly from this article's topic could be: How relevant will senior collateral lines be on the next demise of the Crown? First, it may be remarked that, as it happened, there has never been a shift to a senior collateral line after the demise of the Crown on the death of Queen Anne and the succession of George I, but of his heirs, some who later died without issue were succeeded by a younger brother if living or the brother's issue if not. Given that the first 17 in the current line descend from the present Queen, the immediate prospect of a shift to a senior line on the next demise of the Crown is negligible to nil. But, if the Duke of Cambridge, who is now second in line as heir apparent to the Prince of Wales, becomes heir apparent to the Crown, persons in a more senior collateral line could come within the number of up to twenty or so in the then line of succession to the throne, at least until they move down the line as the number in Pince William's line is maintained or increases. Qexigator (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If you were truly deceived into believing I thought Reitwiesner to be a royal rather than scratching a pedantic itch, I apologize for leading you astray: others, I suspect, got my point. As for what this article is about, since its name is "Succession" rather than "Successor" to the British throne, it seems a reasonable expectation that its scope include more than one or two persons. We aren't talking about a genealogy, since no one has suggested charting one, nor about a list of 4793 people, since no one is suggesting enumerating that either. If the extent of my interest in the succession is the heir apparent or heir presumptive, good; I will find that answer readily. If my interest includes how many people are in the line of succession, its fluctuation has prompted a limitation on specifying that number here, but if my interest extends beyond the first person in line to curiosity about whether the number of those eligible is closer to four or to four thousand, there is nothing in that query which places my interest beyond "some limit of reasonable expectation" other than your conviction that I ought not to care and that Wikipedia ought not to offer an approximation if it cannot provide exactitude. An encyclopedia isn't written exclusively for those interested in the isolated facts we care to dole out niggardly but, yes indeed, also "to gratify the supposed enthusiasm of amateur historians and to excite the curiosity of casual browsers." Or have you never soared through the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica's cornucopia of human thought? Our guide to what is or is not included is not whether researchers would find every word useful to their purpose, but whether the curious might find every concept germane to understanding the topic under inquiry. I submit that the range of those a prominent monarchy designates as dynasts under law is reasonably germane to understanding the operation of its principle of succession. And yes, it's interesting too. FactStraight (talk) 09:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. The article name Succession to the British throne, followed by the top (or lead/lede), and the contents list, show well enough what the article is about:
 * Contents 1 Current line of succession 2 History 2.1 England 2.1.1 House of Wessex ... 2.1.6 Tudors 2.2 Scotland 2.3 After the union of the crowns 2.3.1 Stuarts 2.3.2 Hanoverians and Windsors 3 Current rules ... 4 Perth Agreement reforms... 5 Accession 6 Members of European dynasties in remoter lines of succession 6.1 Other persons.
 * I have been proposing that 6.1 is surplus to the article's requirements, for the reasons given above. To my mind, while none of the points in your comment are persuasive against the proposal, I infer that Reitwiesner's list may be more suited to some other article, such as Order of succession or more specifically to any article connected with any of the persons named in the list as of a line of a dynastic house which was not extinct at the given date, such as that of 970. Lennart C Bernadotte-Wisborg (*1909), of the line of Prince Oscar Bernadotte, but it would take someone with expertise in the genealogy of European royal houses to sort that out. Maybe some other article/s would do as well or better? The equivalent of browsing in one of the old print editions of Encyclopedia Britannica in a library on a wet day with time to spare would be taking a search term and linking to an article in Wikipedia or to some other source available on the internet, which involves a minimal amount of mental and physical effort, less than going to a bookshelf, using the index to find the volumes, taking the volume/s from the bookshelf, opening a volume and turning the pages. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If I wanted to know roughly how many people there were in the line of succession to the British throne, I would be more optimistic about funding it at Succession to the British throne than at Order of succession. As for your comparison of books with the internet, I can't tell if you are being obtuse or sarcastic, but either way you can do better than that. Richard75 (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, Richard75, on reflection perhaps you will see, as I do, what an odd way for a regular editor to respond that was. Neither obtuse nor sarcastic on my part, but there may be something of either or both on the part of others. Once more, yours seems to be less than equal to responding to a reasoned comment. My last comment was responding to FactStraight's (09:57, 7 May) mention of Encyclopedia Britannica (1911) which can still be read in print by anyone fortunate enough to possess or have access to one, and gently drawing attention to the comparative ease with which anyone wishing to browse in the byways branching from a topic can  make an internet search for themselves, without demanding that off-topic material be dumped on Wikipedia articles.  This particular item can be tested by putting in a search box how many people there were in the line of succession to the British throne which offers Royal Central, and that in turn links to. Voilà! Qexigator (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I just meant that FactStraight wasn't talking about the medium in which the Encyclopedia Britannica is written, but its content. So your comparison of print and internet was missing the point a little. Richard75 (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Reitwiesner spent decades meticulously identifying, ordering and documenting the descendants of the Electress Sophia precisely because they are potential heirs to the British throne. No one is trying to include that entire list in this article, but information therefrom is more relevant to the British succession than to any other and thus belongs here. Those most inclined to look up this article are also probably most inclined to find of interest an approximation as to how many such living descendants who have succession rights or the right to transmit them to their descendants there are, how closely/distantly related remote dynasts may actually be to the reigning monarch, and whether they have multiple descents from the Electress (as many do) which affect where they may be in line -- all verifiable and researched factors directly relevant to succession to the British throne which however, we are told, may not be so much as alluded to (for that's all that's under discussion here) because this article on "Succession to the British throne" is restricted in scope by some unrevealed (but indisputable!) formula based on the likelihood of accession which, we keep being told, ought to similarly restrict readers' encyclopedic interest in the topic (notwithstanding plentiful historical precedents of remote royal kinsmen acceding to their ancestors' throne (e.g. Henry IV of France, Charles Albert of Sardinia, Maximilian I Joseph of Bavaria, Grand Duke Adolphe of Luxembourg), more rather than less relevant in this era of (Nepalese) royal massacre, multiple restorations {à la Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia}, accelerating terrorist assassinations (and their "tradition" of targeting royals e.g. Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Empress "Sissi", King Faisal, Earl Mountbatten), not to mention potential King Ralphian disaster scenarios. To my mind, none of the points in the proposal to delete are persuasive (not to mention being massive overkill) against the expressed interest in retention of relevant, brief, accurate and sourced information. FactStraight (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Those most inclined to look up this article are also probably most inclined to find of interest an approximation as to how many such living descendants who have succession rights or the right to transmit them to their descendants there are...: That is a more than doubtful supposition based on a personal pov, joined with the false surmise that Reitwiesner or his list are being disparaged. The primary purpose of articles such as this is to enable persons looking for hard information relevant to contemporary events, where necessary explained with historical background, unhindered and undistracted by trivia about thousands of living persons who are descended from the Electress, with absolutely no prospect of succeeding to the British throne. If the list is to be cited at all, it is more helpful to readers of all sorts to mention its up to date version. If there is no other article where this can be conveniently dumped, that more probably indicates that among serious students or casual browsers none is sufficiently interested to stir themselves to contribute the information by way of an existing article where it may be more on topic, or a new article designed for information of that sort. Qexigator (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a more than doubtful supposition based on a personal pov, joined with the false surmises that Reitwiesner's information is being "dumped" here, is not on topic and that not-yet-written or expanded articles are, ipso facto, trivia or inexistent because of laziness. The best sourced version of information is that which should be included, if less impeachably sourced information is being disrespected. The "primary" purpose of any article is not its "exclusive" purpose, and even if it were your theory that users read encyclopedias to obtain -- and they should only be able to access here -- "hard" information, or "contemporary" information or "historical" information is certainly a reasonable theory for you to hold, but it is your preference, not Wikipedia policy, that these constitute the extent of worthwhile content. There seems to be an effort to impose rather than convince others to agree; condescension is not persuasive. People may hold different definitions of what constitutes "trivia", and you have imposed a definition of the "primary purpose" of this article which you believe "proves" your criteria for trivia is irrefutable. I don't concur that your theory is exhaustive. Or holy writ. Much hand-wringing here over "4973", about whose "triviality" reasonable people may -- and apparently do -- disagree. FactStraight (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Those friendly remarks and pov noted. Qexigator (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think the exact number should be removed. It's 14 years outdated and actually, was probably immediately outdated by a death or birth or Catholic sacrament shortly after it was published. What use is it knowing how many descendants there were on January 1, 2001 when we are in May 2015? Morhange (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Around 5,000" would work too. I quite like that it's a precise number though, because it shows that he accounted for and listed each individual concerned, instead of estimating. Richard75 (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

As a result of the above discussion, 5753 and Reitwiesner's list are in the now current version, so let us treat the discussion as closed. Cheers, all! Qexigator (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Up date Perth Agreement section
Given that there is a separate article on the Perth Agreement, and that the proposed changes are now an accomplished fact, would it be acceptable to trim its section in this article by removing all but the top paragraph in the section as it stands in the current version? As I see it, there is nothing notable for this article except the top paragraph which is not also in Perth Agreement. Qexigator (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC) + 06:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Richard75 (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Merge
Recommend that this article be merged into Line of succession to the British throne. There's not alot of difference in the two articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. Richard75 (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should not be too hasty about this. The two articles can be seen to serve different aspects of the topic:  Succession is more of the history, Line is more of the line as it is today and will be in the future, following the changes of 26 March. If they were merged, that differentiation would be lost, and the single article could be more bulky than convenient for readers. But the present versions overlap, and some trimming will sharpen up the distinction. The work done on them in connection with the Perth Agreement and the legislation which has at long last come into effect is a good time to reassess the distribution of information between them. Thus, in the usual way, each may need to have a concise statement of something given at greater length in another, but mere repetition or re-statement of the same in different words should be avoided so far as possible. Broadly, we could see the Succession artticle as continuing to give, first, the general scope of the topic, and the history up to 26 March, while the Line article continues from there. While retaining the Perth Agreement article pretty much intact, perhaps the Line article could be relieved of saying much more about it than to account for the changes which occurred in March, and leaving Succession to say as much as is needed to account for the changes which were brought about, but leaving the PA article to describe the process which brought the changes about; and, in the usual way, the end result should allow each of the three articles to be read as stand alone, while directing the reader to the others for further information about this or that.


 * At the moment, I see little in Line which unduly repeats Succession. But perhaps the first question is, how much if any of the section on 'Line of succession to the British throne' do  we need to retain in Succession? And the second question, how much of the top (lead paragraphs) of Succession relating to the present line can be trimmed? Also, if the above distribution of information between the two is acceptable, then the Gallery of the present 'first six' could be removed from  Succession. Qexigator (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be necessary to refer to two different articles to find out about the same subject. The only reason there are two articles in the first place is because we used to have a line of succession running into hundreds of people, which was too long and unwieldy to have in the main article, before it was cut down to less than sixty people. But now we have two articles which mostly repeat each other, and a shorter list. We may as well combine them. Richard75 (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If reviewing back numbers, let us recall the edit history pages show:
 * Line started in January 2003, listing 20; after 100 edits, it listed 159; on 7 August 2004, the number was 161.
 * Succession started in August 2004 and as at 7 August, had no list, but three sections headed 'Development' (Normans to Windsors), 'Current rules', and 'Accession'. A list of 20 first appeared in December 2010, after a Talk proposal. I suggest adding the beginning of the line of succession to the British throne to this article, maybe the first 10, 20 or 40 individuals. It's obviously relevant for this topic, and a good "summary" of the complete 3,000-people list "Line of succession to the British throne" ''[.
 * That shows the two articles began separately to serve distinct topics and they should continue separately, especially after the rule change in March, which separates the old from the new. The excess of numbers in Line has now been resolved. There is no need to merge it in Succession, which would be better trimming its present list, as mentioned above, maybe down to the first six under the new rules, or perhaps none unless to explain part of the old rules. Its 'Current rules' would be adapted to describe the old rules and the changes after the Perth Agreement. Qexigator (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Whatever the origin of the separate articles I concur with Richard75 that "It shouldn't be necessary to refer to two different articles to find out about the same subject" and, having taken note of the described distinctions, I am more rather than less persuaded that, unless Line is lengthened to include more successors, the two are short and related enough to combine without becoming unwieldy or unfocused. Certainly if either is to be further truncated to minimize overlap, better to consolidate in one article. FactStraight (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Comparison
 * Succession "has been viewed 60,717 times in the last 90 days"
 * 164 pages link to Succession, 6 redirects


 * Line "has been viewed 206,951 times in the last 90 days"
 * 713 pages link to Line, 37 redirects

Qexigator (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Redirect? If this version (where the long list and some other text and notes have been added) is accepted, perhaps Line can become a redirect, and not a separate article. Qexigator (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If merging
Would this be acceptable for merger?
 * 1_Re-order the section sequence to be:
 * 1 - History, 2 - Perth Agreement Reforms, 26 March 2015, 3 - Current Rules, 4 - Current line of Succession.
 * 2_After the descriptive list in 'Current line...' insert Tree list from Line of succession to the British throne
 * 3_Make new section 5 to receive 'List of changes from and after 26 March 2015' moved from Line of...
 * 4_Trim and copyedit top and all sections, including jump link from top of 'History' to 'Current line...'.

Qexigator (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That works for me. I assume you still mean to keep the section about accession? Nothing wrong with trimming it a bit though. We can probably combine the two lists so all the info is in one list. Richard75 (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, retain Accession section. In my view, both of the two lists should be retained, as a service for readers. The two lists, of course, have the same sequence up to 17, but present the information differently. For some readers the shorter list as now in Succession, comprising only the Queen's descendants, is sufficient and easier on the eye. But for the longer list, as now in Line, the Tree format shows collateralness better to the eye, and while it may seem too cluttered for those looking only for the shorter list, the shorter is also included in the Tree, for those that want to see it there. I do not agree that readers should be required to see one of the two only, and denied the other. Qexigator (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I vote for keeping the long list in the tree format. It was much easier to see the exact parentage between all members of the Royal family. And why not keep all the descendants of George V? Some of them still carry royal duties (like Princess Alexandra, the Duke of Gloucester etc.) and have enough notoriety to deserve to be included in that list. A list of 50 people is not that long (especially since the tree format makes it very easy to read). Eventually, when Queen Elizabeth passes away, we can shorten the list and keep only George VI's descendants. But for now, why not have a list of the extended royal family? It's not like we lack the space for it. And I think that's why people accessed the Line of succession page so often. I mean, everyone knows who are the first people in line. The reason why you would want to check the list on wikipedia is to see an extended version of it. 109.103.87.237 (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good points, and the full Tree list can now be found in Succession to the British throne, merged in from Line.... Qexigator (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Top: merge or not
Is/would the following be acceptable as the top (lead/lede) for the current version whether or not merger goes ahead? Qexigator (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC) + 14:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * para. 1 'Succession to the British throne is determined by descent, legitimacy and religion. The crown is inherited by an individual's children and by a childless individual's nearest collateral line. The ordered sequence of all those who are eligible to succeed to the throne is called the line of succession. It is currently determined by the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement 1701, the Act of Union 1800, and the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. These restrict the succession to the legitimate Protestant descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and expressly debar those who are Roman Catholics. The order of succession before 28 October 2011 was governed by male-preference cognatic primogeniture, by which succession passes first to an individual's sons, in order of birth, and subsequently to daughters, again in order of birth. After the legislative changes giving effect to the Perth Agreement, an elder child now precedes in the line of succession a younger sibling born after 28 October 2011 regardless of their sex.
 * para. 2 same
 * para. 3 same, with Note added at end: 'In Quebec the validity of the Canadian parliament's legislation is under judicial review.'

In this version the long list and some other text and notes have been added. Qexigator (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's fine. Not sure that we need the Act of Union 1800 as it does not actually say what the rules of succession are. Richard75 (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Stems from Revision of 13:57, 10 August 2004 (Lord Emsworth). Qexigator (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not blaming you. Just my thoughts. Richard75 (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not needed in present context. Qexigator (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in the lede
The claim "[t]he realms have agreed that no realm can alter the line of succession without the agreement of the other realms" is not correct. Firstly, if "the line" refers to the shared line of succession (that being composed of the identical lines in each realm), then no one realm can ever alter it; a realm can only alter its own line of succession (by whatever method its constitution requires). It's thus not that "no realm can alter the line without...", but either that "no realm can alter the line", period, or "no realm can alter its line without...". Secondly, any realm can change its line of succession without the agreement of the other realms--it can change its line of succession by ending it and becoming a republic or it can change its line of succession to have those in a different royal house inherit the throne. The agreement of the other realms is not required for that kind of alteration, since the realm would be leaving the shared monarchy and succession relationship among the Commonwealth realms. Because remaining in the shared monarchy and succession relationship requires a realm to have the same succession as the other realms, not only the agreement of the other realms, but a parallel change in them, is required for a realm to change its succession and remain a Commonewalth realm. The lede should say "The realms have agreed that no realm can alter its line of succession without the agreement of, and a parallel change in, the other realms, unless leaving the shared monarchy relationship." -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am unable to find that claim in the article. But regardless, there's only one line. Apart from your suggested insertion being unsourced, if a realm leaves the shared monarchy then it is obvious the line no longer applies there. This article is about the shared line of succession; lines of succession to presidencies or other thrones are irrelevant and need not be mentioned. DrKay (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you being facetious? Let's then deal with the change you made while I was writing the above. "Any alteration in law determining the line of succession must be agreed by the parliaments of all the realms" is still not correct. A realm can alter its line of succession without the agreement of the other realm parliaments. It is not right for anyone here to assume every reader understands that "any alteration" refers only to the shared line and not the line within a particular realm. The lede should at least specify that. Also, the assent of the parliaments of the other realms is required by the Statute of Westminster, which is a law in Australia, Canada, and the UK only. So, your sentence should avoid the specifics of the Statute of Westminster and be amended to "Any alteration in the laws determining the shared line of succession must be agreed to by all the realms." -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not being facetious and calling me that in a roundabout way is not helpful. DrKay (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you for clarifying, since it wasn't clear what the intent was behind your comment "I am unable to find that claim in the article", made after you yourself had removed "that claim" from the article. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed it from the lead, I thought it might have been repeated in the body. As 14 minutes elapsed between the removal and the talk page post, I assumed you had seen the removal. DrKay (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is called "Succession to the British throne," not "Succession to the Commonwealth thrones," so there is no need to remove the UK's Succession to the Throne Act 2013 from the introduction, as long as it doesn't imply that the Act applies elsewhere. Richard75 (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree, Richard75. As I understand it part of the UK act pertains only to UK, that is, the treason and regency provisions, but the gender and marriage parts are to implement the Perth Agreement, and operate in one way or another in all the realms on and after 26 March. That should be plain enough to anyone looking at the legislation. No problem. It makes better sense to speak of a shared history of the peoples and their laws and governments, from colonial times to independent statehood, up to and beyond the Perth Agreement changes, than to speak of awkward abstractions such as shared monarch, or parallel lines. Qexigator (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for the assertion that a British law applies in non-British jurisdiction? I wonder what you think the purpose of Australia's and New Zealand's legislation was if those countries are still governed by British law. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Has anyone here been making such an assertion? Or is the question whether there are sources for the assertion? Qexigator (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If I wasn't clear: Do you have a source to affirm the following? "[T]he UK act... [T]he gender and marriage parts... operate in one way or another in all the realms..." -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not the UK act as such, but the implementation of such provisions in the realms pursuant to the Perth Agreement, to some extent by reference. I had thought that anyone taking part in this discussion had grasped what it was about by now, and leave quibbling aside while we wait to see how the argument goes in Quebec when the hearing eventually proceeds. Qexigator (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that's true. But, it's not how your comment read. This place is to discuss article content. We can't have inaccurate content. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that your edit is somehow "more accurate" is protesting too much to gain credibility, to put it mildly, and reveals a pov less than neutral. Qexigator (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's only you defining a fact as a point of view. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Everyone can see how unusual it is to claim that, as a matter of fact it is "more accurate" to propose "The 16 Commonwealth realms share the same person as monarch" than to propose "The monarch of the United Kingdom is monarch also of the 15 other Commonwealth realms", particularly as the former includes opinionated comment, the latter is factual only. The persistent repetition is undue and distorts the even tenor of the article. Qexigator (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In agreement, Qex. It should read as the "The monarch of the United Kingdom is monarch also of the 15 other Commonwealth realms". GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't say my edit was "more accurate". I said your edit was inaccurate. The monarch of the United Kingdom is the monarch in right of the UK--the sovereign in her UK council, parliament, and courts. To say that monarch is also monarch of the 15 other Commonwealth realms is to say the "other 15 countries" are still subject to British sovereignty (literally under the British sovereign). The correct way to describe the Commonwealth realms is 16 countries sharing the same person as their respective monarch. One person occupies 16 different offices; monarch of the UK is just one among them. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know that "everyone can see how unusual..." but I can and do in this case. I concur with Qexigator and GoodDay that, in this context, the version referring to the "United Kingdom" is accurate, reads better and should be used. FactStraight (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, FactStraight. My hope is that all parties will find my latest edit acceptable. And now, I feel this discussion has run into the sand, but has stimulated some improvements to the article. Qexigator (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Context is irrelevant. The claim that the monarch of the UK is today monarch of any country other than the UK is flat out wrong.
 * That said, Qex's edit was basically fine. The only problem was "any alteration in the laws determining the line of succession is by agreement of all" says the unanimous agreement is what alters the laws. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note third paragraph tweaked to follow wording of the Perth Agreement more closely, and the PA "Statement" is now reproduced there. Qexigator (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

+Also, note link added to 'Crowns' in words taken from the PA "Statement". In view of the difficulties (much discussed on this and other Talk pages) experienced in crafting words to encapsulate the concept of the distinct and separate monarchy in each realm under their respective constitutions, editors will be able to appreciate first, the subtlety of the wording used in the official statement, and secondly the convenience of being able to make an inline link to another article which gives an extended explanation of the meaning of 'Crown' in that particular context, while 'crown' is also being used in the article to refer as a customary figure of speech, like 'the throne', to what, at an accession, passes to an heir or successor upon a demise of the crown or vacancy due to some unusual event such as abdication, capital execution, deposition, flight, or slain in battle by a rival claimant, all but one of which are exemplified by the events covered in the current History section. Qexigator (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms -vs- 16 Commonwealth realms
For goodness sake, the article is called Succession to the British throne, not Succession to the Commonwealth thrones. Therefore, I've restored United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms in the content. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Optimistically, the added links and image may help readers/editors understand the point without resort to an optometrist. Qexigator (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Nothing in this article could possibly lead readers to be confused about its subject. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've restored United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms.... Please respect WP:BRD & get a consensus 'here' for the changes you desire. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't "restore it", you added it.
 * Are you going to once again refuse to address responses to your statement and simply revert? I suggest you don't. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If I'm going to be threatened? then I won't restore the corrections, again. However, your edit-warring, to push a PoV on this article. I'm asking you to 'stop it'. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How about instead of that kind of red herring, you address the point I made. Or, how about this question: What's the discrepancy between the article title and both the start of the third paragraph in the lede and the "Commonwealth realms" section?
 * (Your problems in the past were caused by this kind of tendentiousness coupled with repetition of a personal opinion instead of answering questions or giving reasonable arguments on talk pages). -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I made a compromise edit. Heck for bid, if the UK was put before the other Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed your compromise edit, too. I'm grateful we were able to reach across the divide, at this article :) GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

But we must remember that this article is called Succession to the British throne & so the content must reflectively show this. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I already asked you what the relevance of the title was to this discussion and you declined to answer. There's no discrepancy between the article content and its title. I gave the UK prominent mention, you were fine with it, but (as per usual with you) you've flip-flopped and now have a problem with it.
 * Your recent edit is repetitive in the lede ("United Kingdom" is written twice in close succession and the second time for no reason other than to write it) and nonsensical in the "Commonwealth realms" section ("each of the other" to what?). Just put it back as it was, please. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  01:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'm sure you'll agree there's still no doubt this article is about succession to the British throne. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  01:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be the United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth realms... However, since I'd be possibly dragged off to ANI or something, if I edited it in?? There's not much wiggle room for me, here. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be... Yes, yes, you keep saying that, but you can't ever say why. The United Kingdom hasn't designated itself or been designated officially by anyone as Prime Realm. (Goodness, even the Queen herself twice addressed the UN not as "queen of the UK and those other places", but as queen of all her realms.) Only you and a few other Wikipedia editors have given it that special status and we all know that kind of thing is contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:V. It really is past time you provided a reliable source that says the UK has primacy among the Commonwealth realms. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's little point in our continuing this discusson between each other. Wee shall agree to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So, no source. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * None that you'd accept. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Straw man. I didn't ask for one I'd accept. I just said it was past time you provided a reliable source that says the UK has primacy among the Commonwealth realms. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't claimed that. I've claimed that the UK is unique among the Commonwealth realms. Elizabeth II lives in the UK & will likely be buried in the UK. Considering official residences, she's spent a lot more time at Buckingham Palace, then (for example) Rideau Hall. The UK doesn't have (nor require) a governor-general. Elizabeth II's coronation took place in the UK. International common-usage, favour using the UK. GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You give it primacy when you single it out and name it exclusively. Where the Queen spends most of her time has nothing to do with succession arrangements among the Commonwealth realms (and many other topics). So, just more straw man arguments. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We're not going to convince each other. It's best to allow others to weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 03:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It would be best for you to provide a reliable source affirming the UK's supremacy among the Commonwealth realms. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't claimed such a thing. Now, let others weigh in please. GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You did when you gave it supremacy in the part of the article relating to all the realms together. It's blatantly obvious you're using arbitrary aspects unique to the UK to justify the prime position you keep giving it among the realms, contrary to all the reliable sources that affirm the realms are equal to one another, as states. Canada has more land mass, for instance. Tuvalu has the smallest population. That's as irrelevant to succession arrangements among the realms as is the fact the UK is where the Queen was born. So, though I thank you for finally making at least an attempt at an argument to justify your edit, it's only, at best, original research. A reliable source is still required. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's how you see. Not how I see it. Now, once more, allow others to weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't disallowed them. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Besides Mies, does anyone else have any objections to my adding United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth realms, into this article's content? From what I've read, the article title & article content seems to focus primarily on the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking afresh at the article, I feel that on this point the present version is acceptable as it now is. The Perth Agreement and the legislative changes have been part of the continuing evolution of the monarchy in a way which tends to bring more to the fore the Commonwealth realms as a particular grouping of 16 independent countries of the Commonwealth. For some looking to Wikipedia for information, that is a simple fact of numbers, just as there is a certain number of members of UN, of states of USA, of states of Australia, of provinces of Canada and so on. It may be that in some places attention is called to the issue by persons, motivated politically or otherwise, to advance or oppose the republican or anti-monarchist cause. But it is also a fact that the Perth Agreement and legislation has confirmed that the Crown exists in 16 separate, independent, sovereign states, each with a monarch of that realm, and each with a line of succession under the law and constitution of that realm. The article makes abundantly clear that the monarch and the order of succession originated historically in England/Great Britain/UK and that the other 15 have attained independent realmhood as members of the Commonwealth and of the United Nations and international relations generally. To my mind, the editing of this and related articles must not neglect the tone and content of the PA official statement reproduced at the end of the Perth Agreement article. Qexigator (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The
The Manual of Style says that the provisions in Manual of Style generally apply to section headings, and one of those provisions is "Do not use A, An, or The as the first word, unless it is an inseparable part of a name (The Hague) or it is part of the title of a work (A Clockwork Orange, The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien)." DrKay (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Guidance must always be applied with discernment to particular cases. It's not worth an edit-war, but the definite article would, I feel, be editorially correct here. Qexigator (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

History section tagged
The tag has the useful warning Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. It also appeals for citations to reliable sources. Much of it has been there from the early days of the article, and it is unlikely that anyone with sufficient knowledge of the subject would find much fault in it as it stands. It is the sort of thing that a competent and knowledgeable lecturer could be expected to deliver with only the sketchiest notes. Certainly, the article would be improved if citations were added, and all the information must be somewhere, in out-of-print standard textbooks or earlier editions of Encyclopædia Britannica, but the labour of finding it is likely to make the task unattractive. Meantime, here are some Wikisource links: Qexigator (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * History of England (Froude), from the fall of Wolsey to the defeat of the Spansh Armada.
 * Macaulay's History Of England From the Accession of James II to the death of William III
 * A Child's History of England by Charles Dickens
 * A Short History of England, by G.K.Chesterton
 * Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People
 * Public School History of England (1892)by W. J. Robertson, Authorized by the Education Department of Ontario.

+Perhaps the (unsourced) History section should start at the Tudors, given that the present line stems from the Stuarts after the Tudors, who, after Henry (VII) killed Richard III on the field of battle, ''claimed the crown not on inheritance but by right of conquest. The Act of Parliament passed in 1485 which recognised Henry VII as the Sovereign did not assert that he was entitled to the Crown by inheritance but rather, merely acknowledged the fact that Henry ruled over England (per'' the article). Henry's lineage and rise to the throne is described in Henry VII of England: Henry declared himself king retroactively from 21 August 1485, the day before Bosworth Field.. S. Chrimes, Henry VII, p. 50.< /ref >

Would it be acceptable to delete the subsections before the Tudors: House of Wessex / House of Denmark / Anglo-Saxon Restoration / Normans and Plantagenets /  Houses of Lancaster and York? Qexigator (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

+I am much inclined to go ahead with this, unless others have reason against. Qexigator (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

+Please note that the tag ...Unsourced material may be challenged and removed re-applied the tag that was first applied in July 2011 to a part of the present merged version which derived from the unmerged version and remained virtually intact and unsourced ever since: Qexigator (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 21 May 2015, Tag applied to 'History' section
 * 19 May 2015, Line of succession to the British throne Redirected and merged with Succession to the British throne.
 * 19 May 2015, Tag to whole article removed
 * 16 May -19 May 2015, Merge discussion above.
 * 5 July 2011, Tag to whole article dated July 2011, 'History' section then headed 'Development', has remained virtually intact and unsourced.

Now done. 08:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Royal Marriages Act 1772
I do not think that the present article on the succession takes sufficient note of the exclusions in the 2013 Act to the repeal of the Royal Marriages Act 1772. Sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 3 listing those exclusions should be summarised here as they are in the Wikipedia article on the 1772 Act. I note for instance that although the Hon James Lascelles followed the provisions of the 1772 Act for his first marriage in 1973 he did not do so for his second marriage in 1985. It would, I think, be difficult for him now to claim that he was not aware of those provisions at the time of that second marriage and as a result [by Sub-Section 5(c)] his son, though legitimate, is not in the line of succession (as has been stated by various authorities). Are not all those excluded from the succession by the 1772 Act still excluded by Section 3 (6) of the 2013 Act? Perhaps someone should now publish a list which excludes all those stemming from marriages in contravention of the 1772 Act. AnthonyCamp (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC).
 * Maybe, or not, but I do not see James Lascelles anywhere in the article. If you see a fault in the text, please identify the words or sentence/s in question. Qexigator (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought the article was about the Royal Line of Succession, not "The first 55 in the Royal Line of Succession". AnthonyCamp (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC).
 * Is there a fault in the text? Qexigator (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * AnthonyCamp is bringing to the attention of those who monitor this article a concern that he has about clarification he believes should be added to the article. And reasonably so. He has not alleged that there is a "fault" in the text, which is a distraction from the point he created this section to express.FactStraight (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that the purpose of a Talk page is to improve the article, not to make random remarks, if there is no fault to be made good by a constructive revision, what is the point of those comments? Qexigator (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Anthony, if you can improve the section in anyway you see fit. We'd welcome it. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome like any other which is correct, on topic and not undue, or SYN/OR, or disruptive. Qexigator (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

1801 merging of the GB & Ireland thrones.
I removed the link to Great Britain, as Ireland (and latter Northern Ireland) aren't located in Great Britain. When info is added about the Irish partition, then we should link to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland & latter United Kingdom, concerning British monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

cog-/ ag- natic
The adjective 'cognatic' in the article stems from 3 November 2012, but, given that the distinction between agnatic and cognatic has no relevance to this article's topic or content, the article will be better without its intrusion. The legislation mentions heirs of the body, and the official explanatory documents mention only "male preference primogeniture" without the cog/ag distinction., nor is the distinction in the linked article describing the common law rules of descent. At most let it appear in a note, if duly veriified, free from the main text. Qexigator (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The term is used redundantly or vaguely, always suggesting that women are eligible to succeed to a specific throne, but often without it being clear by which formula of primogeniture; absolute, semi-Salic or male preference. Use of any of those terms is therefore preferable for the sake of precision. FactStraight (talk)

Proposal to remove unsuitable construct
I propose deletion of the recent edit which has inserted an image of an editor's construction with the caption "Succession to the British throne - family tree (2015)". In my view, this does not improve the presentation of the article's information, in respect of its content or the visual presentation. Points made in discussion with the editor are:
 * One purpose of the article is to avoid confusion with genealogical trees and other topics such as members of the royal family or House of Windsor.
 * There is an important difference between what is commonly known as a "family tree" and the enumerated list of persons in line of succession, which in the article is called the "Tree list".
 * The image Shakko has constructed and inserted tends to confusion, not clarification.
 * The minuscule face-images of persons in the construct are unnecessary. The article already has images (suitably sized for visibility) of the first six in line, which the Queen and Parliament have taken as the persons near enough to be within range of a realistic prospect of succession. (When new-borns enter the line higher up, others cease to be among the current six, or, as any of the current six cease for any reason to be in line, others will move up and become one of the six, but genealogy is unaffected, and succession to the throne, and to the monarch's duties and responsibilties which go with it, is uniquely determined by the Act of Settlement and other legislative enactments, and is distinct from succession to titles and to property in the British royal family.)
 * Everyone in the Tree list with an article is linked, and images can be seen there by anyone interested. Qexigator (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, the current list in the article is the version of family tree, it is even done with template:Tree list, but nobody will remove it "to avoid confusion with genealogical trees", isn't it? )) I did next version of image with numbers, and you can do the right caption. It is the easy and quickly way to see who is who from the list. I belive the visual data should be in articles for readers who is more "visual" people. Maybe you have some ideas how to make this illustration better? --Shakko (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The advantage of the tree list is that it is easily read and easily updated. The file will become outdated relatively quickly, is more cumbersome to alter, and is too small be read or seen clearly without clicking on it. DrKay (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hal alert
Editor's may wish to note that in King Charles III (play), Henry is spoken of in the family as "Harry". The play now showing in London is as well performed as it is written: excellent. It is scheduled to transfer to Broadway, from 10 October. Unhappily, this can be expected to stimulate those who wish to put Harry for Henry in the article. Qexigator (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * But we have Harry already. It's well known that his legal name is Henry, but that's hardly ever used and even our article is Prince Harry.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see what's happening now. But really, why the insistence on using the formal name Henry here, when we're happy to call him Harry everywhere else on WP?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe we know well enough that "Harry" is a pet name, but inaccurate, see formally Prince Henry of Wales, and see Prince Harry of Wales (Blackadder) and Prince Harry (Birmoverse). It is comparable with the diminutive form of his name, Prince Hal, for the young Henry V before his accession to the throne. Qexigator (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean by "inaccurate". Are you accusing the Prince of Wales, the Queen and the rest of the Royal Family of "inaccuracy" because they prefer the form "Harry" in all but the most über-formal of contexts?  If it's "inaccurate" here, then it's equally "inaccurate" at Prince Harry, and it too must be changed.  Is that what you're proposing?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For the title of the article about him, the WP:commonname guideline is probably in operation. That guideline doesn't apply to this list where formal styles are used. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. Where did we agree that formal styles were to be used in this list?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  01:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In the article, it seems. Silence can equal consensus. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Nicholas Windsor's children
Why are Lord Nicholas Windsor's children listed as having a right of succession to the British throne? Weren't they roman catholic and thus had forfeited that right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.41.44.222 (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The 2015 Whitaker's Almanack lists all three boys in line after Amelia and before Helen Taylor. There is an explanatory note saying that Nicholas's children remain in line if they are in communion with the Church of England. Because they are minors it is not clear whether they would be excluded because they are not yet confirmed Catholics. Jacob Rees-Mogg has argued in Parliament that baptised Catholics were excluded by the anti-Catholic legislation because one point of that legislation was to exclude the Catholic babies of James II; however, Whitaker's (and Buckingham Palace, which used to list the children in line) seem to be taking a more inclusive approach--interpreting the law so that as few people as possible are excluded. Someone who was baptised Catholic as a baby but not confirmed could still be in communion with the Church of England if they choose to be, but someone who undergoes Catholic confirmation after the age of majority would be excluded. DrKay (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)