Talk:Line of succession to the British throne

message: For this article, are regular editors agreed that we continue using 'Henry' in the Tree list and Gallery, for Wiiliam's younger brother, per diff?   Qexigator (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest we call him Prince Henry "Harry" of Wales, so that people stop editing his name every week. Is that too coloquial? 109.103.87.237 (talk) 07:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not as lowbrow as Hank. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind which we use, but I don't really like the Henry "Harry" idea. If stupid people don't understand what a nickname is, that's their problem. We don't have to pander to them. Richard75 (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince Henry/Harry 

message: Note B of the 'Tree list' links to The official website of The Britiish Monarchy, said to be 'retrieved 24 March 2015'. But, given that the link now continues to show no more than 16 (as mentioned in a discussion above), is it time to remove the 'B' from all who follow, down to 55?  Qexigator (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The line continues with the eligible descendants in the nearest collateral line, namely, descendants of Elizabeth's younger sister Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon (1930–2002) followed by those in the next collateral lines, descending from Elizabeth and Margaret's grandfather George V, which descend from younger brothers of the Queen's father, George VI: Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (1900–1974) and Prince George, Duke of Kent (1902–1942). After that, the next collateral line descends from Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood, only daughter of George V, followed by the other eligible descendants of Edward VII and earlier British monarchs, back to George I.
Qexigator (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Not necessary, imo. We already discussed this upthread anyway. Debrett's and  Whitaker's Almanack expand on the list anyway. Personally, what I find mindboggling is why, if the BRF website chose to limit their list to descendants of the Queen, did they not include Zara's daughter. Odd. Morhange (talk) 02:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we take it that you agree that note 'B' does not apply to her nor those coming after her? Boggled, as in Love Among the Chickens by P. G. Wodehouse? Perhaps all parties (Mr & Mrs T, Mrs T's ma & pa, and gran and gramp) prefer it that way? Or maybe, influenced by film rights or other celeb prospects? Or maybe they feel it passes the point from the line of royal duty to vacuous trivia? Or the point from being 'royals' to mere 'commoners' or 'ordinary people'? One thing is clear at this stage: she is never likely to be among the first six, but it is not impossible that some day she or her issue may succeed as monarch, as a result of predecessors becoming RC and/or death of predecessors. Maybe that's a boggling supposition? Qexigator (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

text: The line continues with any eligible issue of Princess Anne now living or after born, followed by the eligible descendants in the nearest collateral line...  
Qexigator (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd cut it off with all of the direct descendants of Queen Elizabeth. It looks odd to leave off Zara Tindall's daughter when you've included the children of her older brother in your list. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If truncated, this article becomes pointless. It would just duplicate the list in the main article. 81.156.202.12 (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Bookworm: It may look odd to anyone who notices, perhaps relatively few of the readers of the article, but if the rationale is 'wot is listed on Monarchy site', that would be that. We may not know the reason why (if not a mistake) but... well, see above. Qexigator (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, IP, not at all pointless: it is the best way I have seen of presenting the information, in a way that a simple list and descriptive text does not. And it shows anyone who wishes to use it as a model for constructing a continuation of the list, based on the current list if they wish, or to make stand alone lists for the collaterals, working up and down the lines as far as they like. Wikipedia has no copyright in any of this. Qexigator (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is hardly improved by making it less informative! The anonymous IP's point is that the first 17 are already listed on another article, and so this article only exists because it goes further. We are not obliged to confine our list to whatever happens to be on some other website's list. Anyone who wants to know who is next in line after the 17th would very likely come to Wikipedia, so why disappoint them? This article was accurate in March, and it still is. The source cited went further than 17 when it was retrieved and that is good enough. Richard75 (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is unrivalled by other Wikipedia articles or other websites, such as those linked at B, D or W, in the manner and convenience of the information it presents, whether naming  no more than 16 as shown above and heads of collateral lines, or continuing to name more than 50, as in the current version.  But, if it is now time to remove the 'B' from all who follow 16, will D and W suffice as sources for 17 onward? Whatever B showed in March is no longer there by the link, but if, as we must, refer to D and W as at latest date of publication, we must not fail to note that at B's latest date of publication it stops at 16. Qexigator (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

text: +But now see, linking Note B to the version current before B dropped the names that are after 16 in the present version. Qexigator (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Updated version has removed Note B from those after Mrs T. at (16).   Qexigator (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Yes, the recent revisions have removed such problems as there might have been about sources and presentation of the information. Qexigator (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note B after 2 May 

message: +A version of the Tree could be retained with 1-16, and listing only the heads of the collateral lines thus:
* King George V (1865–1936)
** King George VI (1895–1952)
*** Queen Elizabeth II (born 1926)
**** (1) The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales (b. 1948) 
***** (2) Prince William, Duke of Cambridge (b. 1982) 
****** (3) Prince George of Cambridge (b. 2013) 
****** (4) Princess Charlotte of Cambridge (b. 2015) 
***** (5) Prince Henry of Wales (Prince Harry)  (b. 1984) 
**** (6) The Prince Andrew, Duke of York (b. 1960) 
***** (7) Princess Beatrice of York (b. 1988) 
***** (8) Princess Eugenie of York (b. 1990) 
**** (9) The Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex (b. 1964) 
***** (10) James Mountbatten-Windsor, Viscount Severn (b. 2007) 
***** (11) Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor (b. 2003) 
**** (12) The Princess Anne, Princess Royal (b. 1950) 
***** (13) Peter Phillips (b. 1977) 
****** (14) Savannah Phillips (b. 2010) 
****** (15) Isla Phillips (b. 2012) 
***** (16) Zara Tindall (née Phillips; b. 1981) 
***** Any other eligible issue of Princess Anne now living or after born. 
*** Any eligible issue of The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon (1930–2002) 
** Any eligible issue of The Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (1900–1974) 
** Any eligible issue of The Prince George, Duke of Kent (1902–1942).
Editors may wish to consider whether this could resolve what some may see as a dilemma. Qexigator (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd cut it off with all of the direct descendants of Queen Elizabeth. It looks odd to leave off Zara Tindall's daughter when you've included the children of her older brother in your list. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If truncated, this article becomes pointless. It would just duplicate the list in the main article. 81.156.202.12 (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Bookworm: It may look odd to anyone who notices, perhaps relatively few of the readers of the article, but if the rationale is 'wot is listed on Monarchy site', that would be that. We may not know the reason why (if not a mistake) but... well, see above. Qexigator (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, IP, not at all pointless: it is the best way I have seen of presenting the information, in a way that a simple list and descriptive text does not. And it shows anyone who wishes to use it as a model for constructing a continuation of the list, based on the current list if they wish, or to make stand alone lists for the collaterals, working up and down the lines as far as they like. Wikipedia has no copyright in any of this. Qexigator (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is hardly improved by making it less informative! The anonymous IP's point is that the first 17 are already listed on another article, and so this article only exists because it goes further. We are not obliged to confine our list to whatever happens to be on some other website's list. Anyone who wants to know who is next in line after the 17th would very likely come to Wikipedia, so why disappoint them? This article was accurate in March, and it still is. The source cited went further than 17 when it was retrieved and that is good enough. Richard75 (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is unrivalled by other Wikipedia articles or other websites, such as those linked at B, D or W, in the manner and convenience of the information it presents, whether naming  no more than 16 as shown above and heads of collateral lines, or continuing to name more than 50, as in the current version.  But, if it is now time to remove the 'B' from all who follow 16, will D and W suffice as sources for 17 onward? Whatever B showed in March is no longer there by the link, but if, as we must, refer to D and W as at latest date of publication, we must not fail to note that at B's latest date of publication it stops at 16. Qexigator (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

text: +But now see, linking Note B to the version current before B dropped the names that are after 16 in the present version. Qexigator (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Updated version has removed Note B from those after Mrs T. at (16).   Qexigator (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Yes, the recent revisions have removed such problems as there might have been about sources and presentation of the information. Qexigator (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming heads of collateral lines only after '''(16)'''

message: Further to the above, given that the sequence of the collateral lines remains constant, we may surmise that anyone  linking to the pre-26 May version and  noticing a change in the list number there compared with any later version (whether no more than the line headed by the monarch, or, as now including collaterals) would be aware or able to deduce that the change had resulted from a later event, such as birth or death, or gain or loss of eligibility. Charlotte's birth has been the first event, and is clearly mentioned in the article. 
But the purpose of the article could be well served by adding a section logging such events as they occur in the future. This would give the informaton while avoiding SYN and OR.  Qexigator (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section for logging changes 

message: Note 3 about Albert and Leopold Windsor (and may be Louis) puts their position in some doubt, and therefore the 'Tree list' number of all that follow. Would not the integrity of the information in the article be better served if they stopped at (16)?  Numbering stems from as far back as the start of the article in January 2003, but currently, the main use for these list numbers is to correlate with other lists, primarily the shorter list at Succession to the British throne. If the numbers stopped at 16, the list's topnote could give a simple explanation, such as:
:The numbers in the list are the position of the persons named in the line, as shown by the official website of the British Monarchy."Succession"
Qexigator (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That could be a reason to stop at 23 I suppose. But I don't think there is any need to delete Princess Margaret's descendants too. Richard75 (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Only the unsourced list numbers are here in question, not the names of the persons as listed in the current version. Qexigator (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 3: a problem of numbers