Talk:Succession to the British throne

message: On the British Monarchy website, the line was updated to include "Ernest". Can you please add a "B" next to Ernest's name? Please 2601:40A:8400:5A40:40B2:A724:1286:D425 (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , thanks. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2023 

message: The new Counsellors of State Act 2022 appointed two additional Counsellors of State, bringing the count up to seven (until one of them passes on). This article should be edited to reflect that. 155.95.101.64 (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I think it was worth adding that just so that people aren't misled into thinking Anne and Edward are counsellors because of their position in the line of succession. Richard75 (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counsellors of State 

message: Aren't people more likely to come to this article to find out about the current line of succession than the history of the subject? Richard75 (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was about to make the same point. I think the line, which will be the most sought for section, is best placed at the top. DrKay (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Some people are interested in that, but others are historians or lawyers or whatever.  Current status is mentioned first to peak the interest of those curious in the "who's-on-deck" part, but then the history is explained more in depth. After that, the complete current situation is detailed in full. I think that's a better set-up. I think that even casual readers interested in learning the 25th-in-line should be able still to find it, right? —GoldRingChip 22:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me add… some readers (like me) will find this article by reading about the succession acts of the Tudor era and the issues leading to the Glorious Revolution and the Hanoverian succession. —GoldRingChip 22:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of sections 

message: I think it would be useful to complete the list to the point where all the descendants of King George V were listed.  This would include the descendants of his only daughter Mary, Princess Royal, the Countess of Harewood.  I would suggest including the Harewood/Lascelles line to accurately complete the list of King George V's descendants.  Thank you. 161.185.196.125 (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how that's possible without strong reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so we're clear, we're talking about the descendants of one person, to complete the hereditary line of George V.  This includes her six living grandsons and their descendants.  Surely there's a source thru Debrett's or Burke's.  The 7th Earl of Harewood was the first cousin to Queen Elizabeth II.  These are not distant relations. 161.185.198.114 (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: For a start, two of those living grandsons are not in line. Nor are their descendants. At least two of the present earl of Harewood's children are excluded too. It's not a simple matter. DrKay (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that you know all that, makes it seem that this is pretty easy and well known.  Don't let the Lascelles infidelities get in the way of the truth.  There have been illegitimates in the royal family since the beginning. 161.185.198.235 (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: And illegitimacy disqualifies someone from the succession to the Crown, so they wouldn't be on this list anyway. Richard75 (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

text: None of the people I mentioned are in law illegitimate. They are the offspring of married couples, so there's no "infidelities" to avoid. DrKay (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extension of List 

message: As this article is about the "British" succession, is it appropriate to keep expanding the details of the "English" succession here? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a serious imbalance between the weight given to the English and Scottish histories, which certainly needs to be addressed, but that should be done by expanding the Scottish section. The reason I added content to the English history section was because it started in 1485, as if nothing happened earlier, which was absurd. Richard75 (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive detail of English succession? 

message: I am going to go out on a limb here and respectfully suggest that the second sentence of this article contains a fundamental factual error. "Under common law [emphasis added], the Crown is inherited by a sovereign's children or by a childless sovereign's nearest collateral line." In strictly legal terms, that statement is not true. Succession to the English crown has never been governed by common law. Prior to the passage in 1534 of the First Act for the Succession, the royal succession was governed by a mixture of feudal custom, military might, and what amounted to public opinion. I suspect the original author of that sentence confused common law with common practice, but the terms are not synonymous. 
It must first be noted the common law developed only after Magna Carta (1215) and did so as an outgrowth of the specific terms of that charter. And since the common law did not exist until the end of the reign King John (d.1216), it cannot have governed the seven or so royal successions between 1066 and the death of John's successor Henry III in 1272. 
Similarly, feudal custom was not yet well established in England in 1066 when William of Normandy became King of England as a result of military conquest. This is evidenced by the fact that William was succeeded in England in 1087 by his second son rather than by his still-living first-born son. So we are already off to a bad start if one wishes to assert that the royal succession was governed at that early stage by either feudal custom or common law. 
Further, of the almost two dozen times the crown changed hands, fully half of those monarchs attained the crown by military conquest, usurpation, or treaty. Stephen of Blois, Edward IV (x2!), Henry VI (1470), and Henry VII each ascended the throne by military conquest. Henry I, Edward III, Henry IV, and Richard III each ascended the throne as a result of deposition and/or assassination of their predecessor. Henry II became king as a result of the Treaty of Wallingford, notably while his mother (who had a superseding claim) still lived. 
Those instances between 1066 and 1547 in which the crown passed peacefully and without incident (or at least mostly so) to the eldest son are Richard I, John, Henry III, Edward I, Edward II, Richard II, Henry V, Henry VI (1422), Edward V, Henry VIII, and Edward VI. But even then, feudal custom (not common law!) influenced the royal succession only after Henry III (d.1272). Prior to 1272, peaceful successions resulted from passive acquiescence by the people at large, not law or custom. And in two instances during that early period, a still-living king sought to bolster public support for their eldest son and thus the likelihood of that eldest son inheriting unchallenged by having him crowned as co-king (see the multiple but unsuccessful attempts of Stephen of Blois' to have his son Eustace crowned as co-king, as well as Henry II's similar efforts with his son Henry the Young King). 
It must also be noted that, since the Anglo-Saxon period, the coronation ritual has always included as its first formal element 'The Recognition.' In this part of the coronation, the candidate is presented to the assembly and the assembly is asked if they consent to accept the candidate as their sovereign. That is what governs the succession: the people, as represented in the coronation assembly, always have the theoretical right to reject the candidate presented to them. They decide based on a number of factors, but relative "popularity" (in the sense of a favorable or unfavorable held in relation to the candidate) is perhaps the most significant. See, for example, the instances in which a king became unfavorable in the public eye and was subsequently deposed or murdered (William I, Edward II, Richard II). All English monarchs have had to contend with the issue of relative public popularity and the waxing and waning of threats to their continued reign in times of lesser popularity.  
Quoting from my book manuscript: None of these changes from one monarch to the next were decided in accordance with any kind of law. No solicitors or barristers were assigned briefs, no litigation was filed, no law courts and panels of judges were convened, no evidence was heard, no arguments were marshaled, and no binding decisions were handed down. Even had such a process been followed, there was no mechanism in place to enforce any judicial decision. Instead, inheritance of the crown was decided largely by the will of the people as a whole, both nobles and non-nobles.
The royal succession did not fall under the governance of any kind of law until Henry VIII asked Parliament in 1534 to bar his eldest daughter Mary from the succession. But Henry's motivation for requesting that First Succession Act had far less to do with the succession than with an attempt to resolve the questionable nature of his divorce/annulment from Mary's mother, Katherine of Aragon. The Act was principally intended to declare Mary illegitimate as a further way to reinforce in the public mind that his marriage to Katherine had been non-canonical and was therefore void (an effort that notably failed when Mary ascended the throne in July 1553 to great rejoicing and despite still being statutorily illegitimate. Leaving her in the line of succession despite the divorce/annulment would have opened the door to accusations that the marriage had in fact been fully legal. 
The unintended but ultimate outcome of the passage of the First Act was to confirm that the issue of the royal succession was governed by the will of the people as a whole as that will is expressed through their representatives in Parliament. And since 1689, the royal succession has been governed in exactly that manner: by the will of the people as a whole and as that will is enshrined in Parliamentary statute law through statute law passed by the people's representatives. See the three Exclusion Bills of 1679-1681, the English Bill of Rights, the Settlement Act of 1701, the Succession Act of 2013, and others.
Now let the Wiki-games begin! DesertSkies120 (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Royal Succession and the Common Law