Talk:List of heirs to the English throne

message: There are lots and lots of omissions here, including Henry VIII's sons and Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales. 195.137.79.247 20:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for catching the Henry Frederick omission. If you know of others please update the article, it is a new article and still has some errors I assume. Also, the official heir may have been in dispute in several reigns, such as Henry VIII's, Edward VI's, the early part of Elizabeth I's. The notes column can be used to indicate when the heir was in dispute. NoSeptember 13:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added the heirs to the Tudors and some more notes. As you can see it's all a bit complicated and I'm starting to think a narrative approach might be better than a table, as in (the presently incomplete) List of heirs of Scotland. I need to finish that one off before starting any more projects, though! 195.137.79.247 12:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we ever add a very long note, we can always include it as a footnote at the bottom of the page. So far the chart still looks fine with the notes that are there so far. NoSeptember 13:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest changing the "Notes" column to a row under those entries which have them. What think ye? DBD 21:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That could work too. Anyone who wants to be bold and arrange the article in what they think is a better format is welcome to do so. NoSeptember 00:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, my taking that suggestion to discussion was about equal parts soliciting opinion and not being bothered to implement it. Perhaps I'll do so later... DBD 01:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Omissions

message: With the death of the last of the King’s uncles, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, on 23 Feb. 1447 the heir is unclear. None of his uncles or aunts had any heirs so it is necessary to revert to his great uncles and great aunts, the children of John of Gaunt. Following this line, the line descends through his eldest daughter Philippa who married John I, King of Portugal. The heir is then Afonso V, King of Portugal.
If foreigners (especially foreign Kings) are ignored the line (as seems reasonable) descends through Elizabeth, second daughter of John of Gaunt. The heir is then John Holland, 2nd Duke of Exeter.
If, however, the Beauforts, legitimated children of John of Gaunt, were entitled to inherit the crown, the heir would be Margaret Beaufort, subsequently Margaret Tudor and mother of Henry VII (and source of his claim to the throne). I ignore this claim as the Beauforts were legitimated by Statute 20 Rec. II (1397), but were not thereby enabled to inherit the Crown.
I prefer the claim of the Duke of Exeter which is as shown but I think that there should be a note to why he was the heir presumptive.
Also in October 1460 the Act of Accord was passed by the English parliament. This drew up a new order of succession to Henry VI. Henry “should enjoy the throne of England for as long as he should live”, after which the throne would pass to Richard, Duke of York and his descendants, thus by-passing Edward, Prince of Wales. Therefore Richard Duke of York should be shown as Heir Apparent as of October 1460.
Does anyone have any views?
James  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.238.35 (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think foreigners or foreign Kings should be excluded. Being a foreign King didn't prevent Henry V from having himself made heir-apparent to France, John of Gaunt pressed his claim to be King of Castile, and Henry VIII felt the need to specifically exclude the King of Scots from the English succession through legislation - obviously being a foreigner or even a foreign monarch was regarded as no bar. Opera hat (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And yes, the Duke of York should be shown as heir-apparent after 1460. Also, during the Readeption of Henry VI George, Duke of Clarence was second-in-line (after the Prince of Wales). Opera hat (talk) 08:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heirs of Henry VI 

message: Couldn't anybody explain me, who was heir of Stephen between death of Eustace IV of Boulogne (17 August 1153) and Treaty of Wallingford (Nov.1153)? Thanks. --Worobiew (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heirs of Stephen 

message: I think this should be two separate articles: List of heirs to the English throne, for 1066-1707, and List of heirs to the British throne, for 1707-present. Both subjects being covered by the same article implies that the English-British succession is more important than the Scottish-British succession. There is already a pre-1707 list of Scottish heirs which is not even mentioned in this article. Opera hat (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split suggestion 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of heirs apparent and presumptive to the British throne which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 01:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: In the early years of Richard II's reign, his uncle John of Gaunt was heir to the throne. It is stated that he was replaced in this position by Roger Mortimer in 1386 Parliament, but the source given for this statement also points out that John of Gaunt was made heir again in December 1387 after the victory of the Lords Appellant against Richard II. It also gives no evidence that Richard ever subsequently regarded Edmund Mortimer (Roger's son) as heir, instead pointing out that the king then began to favour his heirs male, namely the dukes of Lancaster and York, as successors. The author gives compelling though not fully conclusive evidence that Edmund Duke of York was seen as heir to the throne until Richard's deposition in 1399.
I would suggest that Roger Mortimer be put as heir from October 1386 only to December 1387, John of Gaunt from then until c. 1394, and that the succession be marked as uncertain from then until 1399.  1911l41 (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heirs to Richard II 

message: The article currently states that there was no-one in the succession after Arthur Prince of Wales until the birth of the future Henry VIII in 1491, and "No recognised heir 1509–1511" and "1511-16". I suggest that Margaret Tudor may have been considered next in line at these points. See  which refers to 'her status as heiress presumptive in England" immediately after Flodden and  which says that the Earl of Angus "tactlessly remarked that as Henry and Katherine had no family (their 
first child, a boy, had died in 1510) Margaret was heiress-presumptive to the English throne.' Alekksandr (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Margaret Tudor?

message: The article currently states that there was no recognised heir between 1087 and 1100, during the reign of William Rufus. But see  "Further, an attempt was made to forestall a possible succession controversy by providing that if either of the brothers should die without a son born in lawful wedlock, the survivor should become sole heir of all his dominions.". David cites the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for 1091, which states "It was also agreed that if the earl died leaving no legitimate son the king should be heir of all Normandy, and in like manner if the king died, that the earl should be heir of all England.". Alekksandr (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Robert Curthose?

message: The page should be re-named List of heirs-apparent and heirs-presumptive to the English throne. As legally, the 'heir' is the monarch. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be heirs-apparent & heirs-presumptive 

message: The tables would be easier to read if the "no recognised heir" lines (and similar) had a different background colour. ---- Ehrenkater (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity of tables