Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legitimist line of succession to the English and Scottish thrones in 1714


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep.  MBisanz  talk 21:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Legitimist line of succession to the English and Scottish thrones in 1714

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Multiple problems with this article. PatGallacher (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Among the problems with this article are: -it is original research, -since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it is questionable whether even the "official" line of succession at any specific point is encyclopedic, never mind any rival line, -the term "legitimist" is dubious in this context. PatGallacher (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

AFD discussions have already lead to the deletion of similar articles, see Articles for deletion/Line of succession to James I, Articles for deletion/Line of succession to Henry VIII, and Line of succession to the English throne in 1701 was recently prod'ed without even going to AFD. PatGallacher (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Original reasearch, filled with meaningless crap. Tavix (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is most certainly NOT original research. Look at (for example) English Historical Documents volume 10, page 965, which presents exactly this information.  This is not the only print version of this information.  An example of an online version of this information is here.  There are frequent references in English historical works to the fifty-plus people who were excluded from the succession in 1714 when the Elector of Hanover took the throne; this is most certainly not "an indiscriminate collection of information". If the word "legitimist" in the title is considered POV, then the page can be renamed; that is not a reason for deletion. Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as noted by McFerran: if regular historical works treat with exactly this subject, it can't possibly be the kind of original research that we don't allow. Moreover, "legitimist" really isn't a POV term: it refers (if I understand rightly) to those who support the legal line of succession.  See, for example, the legitimists of France: they supported a line of the monarchy that followed standard laws of succession.  Nyttend (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (noting that I am a proud Scot). This is not original research and the reference cited is a reliable source. McWomble (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am the author of this work and it is certainly not original research. This line and references to it have been made numerous times in various sources I have worked in. Considering that there has not been such a line available on Wikipedia before, I thought it proper to include one. Legitimist is certainly not a POV and I do not see at all how this can be viewed as "original research" when every aspect of the page is historically accurate. If someone does not like the style of the page, feel free to change it, but I believe this page fits perfectly with Wikipedia content. – Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  10:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Since it's clear that more than one person cares about this article, but that other line-of-succession articles are still subject to being nominated, I'll ask, what is the purpose of charting this type of information? I'm asking this as a neutral question, with no intent to sound critical of this aspect of royal genealogy, but other people will ask the same thing.  Am I wrong in describing this is a list of 72 persons who were alive when Queen Anne died on August 1, 1714, with a ranking of how close to the throne each of them would have been at that particular moment (that is, if James Francis Edward Stuart had been crowned King)?  I get the premise, but I confess that I don't understand the significance.  Feel free to portray me as a dunderhead if there's something that I'm missing. Mandsford (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your description of the list is accurate. The significance is that - but for the Act of Settlement 1701 - each of the first fifty-odd people would have had more right to the throne than the Elector Georg I of Hanover (who actually got the throne). This situation is often referred to in historical accounts of the period.  Some people are interested in knowing exactly who these people were (especially considering the fact that they include the sovereigns or heirs of a number of European states).  I have not argued for the retention of other historical succession lists - but this particular one is widely referred to in published scholarship. Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I appreciate the explanation, and it does place this is context, which I hope will be added to the article. What I see is that (1) This is a line of people who were, in effect, barred from eligibility to the throne a law against Roman Catholic succession; (2) King George I would have been 57th in line had it not been for the law, rather than 1st; and (3) many of those first 56 who were disqualified were notable in their own right, with four of the first eight becoming monarchs in France, Spain, and Sardinia (the line for the 19th century Italian throne).  Adding to that the fact that it is referred to as part of historical scholarship (and some of those references need to be added as well), it appears to be an expansion upon an encyclopedic topic.  Mandsford (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If we are to retain this page then Jacobite would be a better term that Legitimist, the latter term is widely used in French history but not British history, and terms like this are question-begging and POV in some contexts. PatGallacher (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - sourced, discriminate, encyclopaedic, historically significant. TerriersFan (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The article deals with a legitimate issue, but I agree that "Jacobite" would be better than "legitimist". The constituional principle is that British Sovereignty rests in the Crown in Parliament.  That was the decision under the Act of Succession, which makes the Hanoverian line the legitimate one.  My first reaction was surprise that the Young Pretender and his Cardinal brother Henry did not appear, but I now see that it deals with persons alive at the accession of George I of England, who might have had a better right to the throne if Protestant.  I do not think that this is well-expressed in the introduction, but that is an issue requiring the article to be improved, not deleted.  REname and Keep.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.