Talk:Line of succession to the British throne/Archive 3

message: I was toying with succession boxes, and thinking would it be possible to insert a LOS box on the pages of those people listed as skipped, and then in the box, mentioning they would be in line, but are skipped? Something like this, using, for example, The Earl of St. Andrews:
Just a thought. Morhange 17:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me about these succession boxes, which I've stayed far away from.  Do they have to be maintained manually on each person's separate page?  If so, isn't that the biggest pain in the whole entire history of the universe? Chaucer1387 22:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would argue that it is inappropriate to include skipped persons in the succession boxes.  For various reasons (illegitimacy, papistry, marriage to a papist) these persons are not in line of succession to the UKGBNI throne. "No. 22 HRH The Duke of Kent" is followed by "No. 23 Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor".  It is, however, useful to have these persons listed on this page since in the case of the papists, their future children may be in line. Noel S McFerran 23:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that we shouldn't have these succession boxes.  john k 15:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  I think that they are useful for connecting sovereigns and who actually succeeded somebody else.  But I don't think that they are useful or necessary to show connections within a current line of succession. Noel S McFerran 18:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  I'm not sure what the best place to open this line of discussion would be, though. john k 20:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession Box for Skipped Persons 

message: (1) If Dona Eugenia isn't a baptized papist yet, someone should not just remove the word "skipped" but also get her a number in the list by replacing the colon with a .  I would do it, but this list is sooooo long (thanks in part to me) and in-one-piece that it's a bear to modify.
: Oops, sorry.  I forgot that this had to be done (and obviously didn't preview). Noel S McFerran 12:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reitwiesner doesn't mention such a child on his 2001 list. Noel S McFerran 12:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've removed "Shane". Noel S McFerran 12:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes (10 March)

message: I've been keeping track of some of this myself in a spreadsheet, and I've used a slightly different way to list people. For each person, I list who their closest common ancestor of Queen Elizabeth is, then I list the lineage since then. For example, Maud Behn's (#65 on the list) closest common relative with Queen Elizabeth is Edward VII of the United Kingdom. Maud's lineage since then is 3-6-1-1-2-1, which means that her descent from Edward VII is through his 3rd heir, Louise, Princess Royal and Duchess of Fife, through her 6th heir Maud of Wales, through her 1st heir Olav V of Norway, through his 1st heir Harald V of Norway, through his 2nd heir Princess Märtha Louise of Norway. This also means that she is a 2nd cousin, 4 times removed of Queen Elizabeth. Is any of this information useful enough to be worth adding? Zhinz 02:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, the case with the Snyders is Ileana was born and raised a Catholic, which took her  out of the line of succession.  I'm not sure what she is  now, but her husband and children are protestants. I agree that this stuff ought to be sourced.  john k 18:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Making information clearer

message: Is this section only supposed to include the heads of houses (or their nearest heirs in succession to become head of the house if the current head is not included)? If so, Margarita of Romania should not be included and I am unsure about Wilhelm of Schaumburg-Lippe as well. Charles 01:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The present wording ("these members of other imperial, royal or princely houses") does not suggest that these individuals are heads of houses or heirs of heads of houses. I think that the present set up is okay. Noel S McFerran 04:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Until today the headings in the table read "Country" and "Monarch"; I have changed these to "House" and "1st Member in Succession".  It would be a somewhat shorter list if we only included the individuals who are heads of their respective houses. Noel S McFerran 13:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Line of succession to the British Throne#Other imperial, royal or princely houses in the line of succession|Other imperial, royal or princely houses in the line of succession]]

message: Today I've made a few significant changes:
1. Prince August of Württemberg married November 14, 1868.  His daughter Catharina von Schenck was born April 18, 1865.  Her descendants are therefore not in line.
2. Prince Nikolaus Wilhelm of Nassau married July 1, 1868.  His elder daughter Countess Torby was born June 1, 1868.  Her descendants (including a number of illustrious individuals) are not in line. Noel S McFerran 01:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't original research, is it? Their illegitimacy was known? (Amazing given the century!) Doops |  talk 02:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it's not original research.  The dates are published in numerous printed works of royal genealogy. Noel S McFerran 02:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skipping descendants of born illegitimate, legitimated by subsequent marriage 

message: :Erik Bitsch died in 2005 and was finally taken of the list earlier today; he had been at about #1000.  No problem there.  He had children who were never added to the list.  Based on what I've seen here, it would seem that it is still appropriate to add them, right? Matchups 02:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Sometimes, with the families who are descended from more distant or deposed royals, you don't always find information on the family when a child is born or a member dies. Even if Erik is dead though, his children should still be on here. Morhange 06:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applicability to Bitsches 

message: I don't see descendents of Edward VIII on here. I realize he abdicated to marry an American but his lineage would still be very close to the royals. I'm surprised they'r not in the top 30 or so. Even after he abdicated... didn't he retain some title? Am I missing something?--67.62.103.180 14:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He didn't have any children did he? Ok... answer me this... if he had had a son or daughter... where would they fall in all of this.--67.62.103.180 15:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They wouldn't. When Edward abdicated, he renounced his claim to the throne for himself and his future descendants. He didn't have any children, so it doesn't matter anyway, but if he had, they wouldn't be in line. Morhange 15:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if, on yet another hand, he had' produced heirs and had not abdicated, one of those heirs would be king or queen today. Doops |  talk 15:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, and what if he'd had wings?! DBD 15:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that depends on whether or not wings are heritable. Doops |  talk 16:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Randomness over, if you look at his abdication notice:. It says he renouce the throne for 'himself and his descendents. This is why the whole Queen abticating to Charles is stupid. Lizzie Harrison 17:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't follow at all. You can certainly abdicate in favor of your own descendents; but Edward VIII didn't have any of these at the time. So the throne had to pass to his brother; and, once that was settled, the abdication notice quite rightly had to take into account the possibility of potential children born in future to Edward VIII; once it has been settled (as by Edward's abdication) that the throne will pass to a 'junior' branch the senior branch necessarily has to be explicitly lopped off lest it, by shooting again, give rise to confusion. The powers-that-be quite rightly wouldn't dream of accepting an abdication which didn't explicitly shut out as-yet-unborn heirs; but that doesn't mean they wouldn't accept an abdication in favor of already-born heirs. Doops |  talk 21:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, yeah, we all know that. Doops |  talk 13:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As royals, they have no surname so from birth they are only known by their forenames. LizzieHarrison 17:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That didn't even slightly answer my question.  My understanding was that peers generally sign by their peerage titles.   Which would be, again, "York," "Gloucester," and "Kent." That royals aren't known by a surname is largely irrelevant to this. Not that this is actually relevant to this page, but I just found it odd. john k 18:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What Lizzie meant is that, being royals, and signing with their given name, overrides being a peer and signing with their territorial designation DBD 20:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Edward VIII of the United Kingdom]]

message: The British Royal Family lists the first 40 people in line, and lists certain people along with their titles (Duke of York, Kent, Gloucester, Earl of Harewood, Wessex, etc) Those people without titles are listed as, for example, Mr. Peter Phillips, Miss Zara Phillips, Master Samuel Chatto and so on. Should we employ that here? Morhange 02:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we do, please be careful: it's Mr Peter Phillips with no period, British style. Matchups 02:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidently the Windsors haven't learnt "British style" yet.  Check the royal.gov.uk website; they use a period after Mr. Noel S McFerran 03:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the Royal website, they're not using a style, they're being correct! Mr. Ms. and Mrs. should strictly have dots because they are abbreviations. DB
I agree- use the punctuation, as is proper. Tim Foxworth 03:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Oxford English Dictionary disagrees with you.  A full stop (i.e. a period) is not usual in Britain. This is common in Britain with many abbreviations which include the last letter of the word abbreviated. Noel S McFerran 11:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is it really? I've lived in Britain all my life and I've never noticed this. Are you sure? Which edition of the OED are you using? Tomgreeny 01:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that (in British English) the modern style is for an abbreviation to have a stop unless, as Mcferran says, it's a contraction (i.e. the last letter is used) or an acronym, in which case there are no stops. Hence stops in the abbreviations Pres., Rev., etc. but not in the contractions Revd, Dr, Mr, nor in the acronyms NACRO, NATO, etc. This is, however, a matter of style, and (in my view, at least) consistency is the important thing. In the 1950s it was common to see, for instance, N.A.T.O., Mr., Dr. etc., and the Royal Household still use this form, although it is now generally considered to be old-fashioned. Incidentally, the implication of this 'rule' is that Saint is always abbreviated to St whereas Street can be St or St. as it may be interpreted as an abbreviation or a contraction. Phew! It may be for this reason that the Economist Style Guide demands that full stops are never used in abbreviations... Hope this helps. talkGiler 09:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think we should employ it here. For one, what one might think is appropriate may not be what any given individual in the line of succession might use (Miss/Ms, Mr/Master, etc). Charles 02:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My "vote" would also be no.  Noel S McFerran 02:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously not. It's not Wikipedia style. Doops |  talk 03:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really do-able as far as I can see... DBD 08:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It also avoids the minefield discussed above... talkGiler 09:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr/Mrs/Master/Miss 

message: Somebody just added eight  tags and I removed them.  The first six pieces of information (about rules) are provided on the main linked pages; the last two, about the current line of succession, are self-evident from the content of the article and do not need separate references. Matchups 01:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the somebody. This is a potential featured list. I have added  tags where I feel there is information that needs to be cited specifically. I won't change my opinion about the article until this is done. Todd661 07:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Deal with it" ?? Doops |  talk 15:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I will come down on the other side and say that having references here is not only unnecessary, but harmful.  I believe that Wikipedia (like many of the software I deal with) suffers from having the same information in multiple places.  The articles on the various acts of parliament should be the main, well-referenced sources of information on those acts.  The references for other articles should not repeat the primary or secondary sources cited there, but simply the wikilinks to the main articles.  Matchups 15:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fact" tags 

message: Just out of curiosity... is there anybody from the United States on this list? Seems like there must be. How many people would have to die before the U.K. has an American king? —Chowbok ☠ 21:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter, Hereditary Prince of Yugoslavia is American-born and currently 92nd in line. Craigy (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the descendants of Archduke Stefan of Austria-Tuscany, son of Princess Ileana of Romania were born in the United States, and are American citizens, but none of them are actually in line for the throne except Ileana Snyder's children. Morhange 23:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Americans? 

message: The article states that the newborn Spaninsh Princess, Sofia, will lose her place upon being baptized.  How does this deprive her of her place.  How do we know that she will choose to be a Catholic when she is older.  She may reject Catholicism when she is old enough (though this is unlikely)?  If she does, couldn't one argue that is she never professed a Catholic faith, she was never really a Catholic?  I'm a Baptist, and I don't consider a person to belong to a particular religion until he/she personally choooses it.  Emperor001 19:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your considerations and the applicable laws are different. Once she is baptized, she will be considered to be a Catholic. Once a Papist, always a Papist. That's the view. Charles 23:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, it's never been tested in court. You'd have to ask a British lawyer how they interpret the act -- it's possible that a kid who's never taken communion or undergone confirmation could get away with having been baptised by catholic clergy. Doops |  talk 23:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This is just a thought I had.  After all, parents can't choose their kids religion.  They can only raise a child in a religion but it is ultimately the child himself/herself that chooses.  I was just wondering if a person who was baptized a Catholic but then later rejects Catholicism before confirmation would still be inelligible as they never professed a belief.  Emperor001 21:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Baptism?

message: I know that to be in the line of succession, you must be a Protestant.  Other articles in Wikipedia also said that the monarch must be a member of the Church of England.  Does this mean that if non-Anglican Protestant inherits the throne, he/she must leave his/her current church to join the Chruch of England in order to stay king/queen or can the person remain in their church  and simply participate in a few Anglican ceremonies while still attending his/her own church services?  Also, if the former is true, does the heir/heiress lose his/her place if he/she refuses to forsake their religion for the Church of England?  Emperor001 00:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anglicans are a pretty tolerant lot. If anything, it's your OTHER church you might need to double-check with, to be sure they won't kick you out for entering into communion with the CofE. Doops |  talk 07:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it possible to be a member of two different denominations at the same time?  Were George I and II really Anglican and Lutheran at the same time?  Emperor001 21:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some would say that recent monarchs, including the present queen, are Anglican and Presbyterian at the same time — certainly Elizabeth doesn't just attend services in the Church of England and the Church of Scotland when in those respective countries, but receives communion too. Doops |  talk 22:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, the same is true of the first two Georges.  The Lutheran Church was established in Hanover in just the same way the Church of England was established in England and Wales.  My understanding, additionally, is that Protestant churches aren't terribly bothered about this kind of stuff, the way Catholics would be. john k 00:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion

message: Very informative, cheers to everyone who contirbuted  01:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great article 

message: Can someone tell me why Prince Andrew's daughters are ahead of Prince Edward and Princess Anne in the succession?  I thought all the men came before all the women and after that it was oldest to youngest, so wouldn't Edward and Anne and her children come before Andrew's daughters? Thanks217.42.18.124 13:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any group of siblings, it's first the oldest male followed by his offspring, then the next-to-oldest male followed by his offspring, and so on, up to the youngest male followed by his offspring, then the oldest female followed by her offspring, etc. So it goes Charles - Charles's offspring - Andrew - Andrew's offspring - Edward - Edward's offspring - Anne - Anne's offspring. To find out the order between Charles's children, apply the same rule again, etc. -- Jao 13:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about Andrew's daughters

message: What ifs are intriguing but a statement in the article in the section "Other monarchs..." has thrown me:
:Additionally, if full lineal primogeniture were applied retroactively since the creation of Great Britain, Queen Beatrice would be Queen of the UK.
:Now who is this Queen Beatrice? And does full lineal primogeniture mean that Catholics and those who marry Catholics are no longer excluded?
:Those who succeed by the current law are always older (and hence more senior) than their male siblings, its the sisters now who may by being older supplant their brothers. 
:By playing it out: George I is older than all his sisters, he reigns as before. George II is also older than all his sisters, he reigns as before. Frederick, Prince of Wales is also older than his sisters, and so descent of the crown flows through him, as before, but he died before dad and doesn't reign. Now we diverge: Princess Augusta Charlotte of Wales is older than her brother George III, and in our alternate reality would take precedence over him, and become Queen at George II's death.  Her eldest child was Auguste Caroline Friederike Luise of Brunswick-Luneburg (older than her brother), who died before mom so would not have reigned in any event, but she married Frederick I of Württemberg, apparently a Catholic, and had issue. Following that line of descent, their eldest child was William I of Württemberg, and assuming that William's marriage to his first cousin is not out of order, his eldest child was Marie (1816-1887) and we have no further details on whether she had issue. 
:If not, succession would flow through William's next child, Sophie of Württemberg who married William III of the Netherlands (she died before Marie and would not have reigned), and thence through Sophie to her son, Prince William of the Netherlands who died childless (and also predeceased his aunt Marie), to Willem Alexander Karel Hendrik Frederik (1851-1884) and dead ends there. The Dutch royal succession (Wilhelmina -> Juliana -> Beatrix (if she be who is meant by Beatrice) is not the same as the Brittish, because Wilhelmina was William III of the Netherlands' daughter by his second marriage to Emma of Waldeck and Pyrmont and the British succession is based on Sophie not William and his second wife.  So with the extinction of the lines of first two children of William I of Württemberg, we go to his 3rd child, Catherine (1821-1898), who would have been Queen following her sister Marie's death. Our articles don't tell us of her offspring, other than William II of Württemberg (did he have older sisters?). He had one surviving daughter, Pauline (did she have issue?).
::Catherine (or Katharina) of Württemberg married her cousin, Duke Friedrich Karl of Württemberg, and they did have issue: Duchess Pauline and Duke Ulrich, who died as a baby. Pauline married Friedrich, The Prince of Wied, and they did have children; their first child was a son, Hermann, who died before his mother, but who did marry and have children before his death. His first child was a son, Friedrich Wilhelm, he became the Prince of Wied, married and had children before his death in 2000. His first son, Alexander, renounced his rights to the family title and is unmarried; his younger brother, Carl, is the Prince of Wied now, and is married with three children, Maximilian, Friedrich and Luise. Alexander and Carl also have a sister, Christina, and a brother, Wolff-Heinrich. For more, see here and here. The Wieds are 520-530 in the present line of succession (but will move up one when Infanta Sofia of Spain is christened tomorrow. Morhange 23:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any event I would like to know who Beatrice is, or perhaps the line should be scrapped as being unsupportable?Carlossuarez46 22:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Doops |  talk 23:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's unsupportable – I've been writing an alternative history based on the question, and have found the same as Carlos... DBD 09:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: However, it may be interesting to know that Sophia's senior living full-lineal descendent is #546 HSH Prince Maximilian of Wied , or, George III's (i.e. the creation of the UK) is #155 HRH Princess Marie Cécile of Prussia . Anyone interested? DBD 00:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This all seems to have been satisfactorily resolved, but I'll just note that the Württemberg royal family was Protestant. john k 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll trust you on that, I cannot find where I read it that during the Napoleonic wars, when the Württemberg royalty sought refuge in Austria, that conversion was the price of sanctuary. Carlossuarez46 01:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What ifs

message: Throughout the page commentary on forthcoming births is given in italics. Personally I think it sounds gossipy and non-encyclopedic; but I've been overruled before and don't intend to make a big deal out of it. However, I'm more bothered by how much italicized commentary makes reference to upcoming baptism. This also has (to my ears) a gossipy tone; but it's also, more importantly, a more definitive claim than we should be making.
Stated briefly, I doubt whether baptism by Roman Catholic rite is enough, by itself, to remove a person from the succession. This is for two reasons: 1) An infant being baptized has no say in the matter. 2) In a certain sense, there's no such thing as "baptism as a catholic", just "baptism as a christian." See baptism: almost all denominations (including the three relevant here, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and the Church of Scotland) recognize each other's baptisms and do not rebaptize upon conversion — they reconfirm adults; they reordain clergy; but they do not rebaptize. For these two reasons, I think (although of course I am not a lawyer) a person merely baptized as an infant by Catholics would have a legitimate legal argument to make if ever denied the throne. Once you receive communion or undergo confirmation, you're out, certainly; but about mere baptism there's a doubt, especially when performed upon an unwitting infant.
That said, of course, my views are pure WP:OR and inadmissable; but so likewise are yours (dear reader). Alas, there's no court judgement or accession council action we can point to as precedent; and yet we have to have *some* convention to keep this page organized. What to do? Well, I'm fine with the page continuing to follow its current assumption, viz. assuming that RC baptism itself removes you from succession. But we should be more subtle about it, and not proclaim it explicitly in all those italicized notes. Don't mention forthcoming baptisms, in other words, just do the renumbering quietly when the time comes. Doops |  talk 06:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is inappropriate in an encyclopedia to predict the future. Noel S McFerran 18:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  italicized commentary 

message: In August 2006 I posted this message on the talk page: 
In the early part of the list (and in a few other later parts), it is common to describe a person as the "elder son" of somebody, rather than just "son". I started adding this to lower parts of the list - but then wondered if this is really useful. It certainly makes the descriptions longer (more often going to a second line). What do others think?
There was one response, saying "Since seniority can be inferred from the sequence, there's no harm in omitting it".
Unless there is widespread objection, I will go ahead and delete "elder" and "younger" etc. Noel S McFerran 22:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I DBD 23:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elder and younger, etc. 

message: Can we drop the numbered positions on other pages? One can see it here where it is more easy to update. When someone dies, any number of articles have to have the positions changed. Without the number, all that needs to be changed when someone leaves the succession is the articles of the people preceding and following them. Charles 21:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I heartily concur DBD 22:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I also concur.  I'm not sure, however, that even if there were a consensus here, that the editors of other pages would concur.  Noel S McFerran 22:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would wholeheartedly be willing to include a link to this section for each and every time a number is removed in the edit summary, something like, "Removed per discussion at Talk:Line of succession to the British Throne#Succession boxes on other pages". Charles 23:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless a technical solution to automatically update the number in the template from this article can be reached (and I suspect it can't, but I'm no template expert), dropping the numbers is the only way to go. Charles's suggestion for the edit summary is also good. -- Jao 08:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Succession boxes on other pages

message: I want to add in-line citations (one of the reasons for the article's failure to be a featured list candidate. However, what's the accepted format? I see several cases of footnotes in this article already. Will that look weird if the top 40 names all have a footnote to  on them, for example?
: Yes, that would be weird (your word, not mine) and, in my opinion, totally inappropriate.  That webpage lists the same information, but that does not mean that it is the source of this information. Noel S McFerran 01:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is the "source" theN? Zhinz 01:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In-Line Citations

message: Perhaps I missed them (I went over the list 3 times, but there are a lot of names), but I do not see the descendants of Prince Philip's sister, Princess Sophie.  I am looking in particular for Princess Frederike and her children surnamed Cyr.  They used to be around 240 or so.  Princess Frederike of Hannover should be listed as a descendant of Queen Victoria, no?  Norman231 23:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sophie's descendants start at HH Prince Karl of Hesse (b. 1937) (skipped under #432) and stretch to HH Princess Clarissa of Hesse (b. 1944) (skipped under #438) – they're listed under their paternal grandmother's section DBD 06:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't understand why Friederike and her children were skipped, unless they are Catholic, but unless there's a source, I'm leaving them in. Morhange 23:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't the Cyrs a French-Canadian Catholic family? Charles 14:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Are they? I wasn't sure. If they are, then feel free to add the skipped thing. Morhange 01:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: She uses her husband's surname. Noel S McFerran 12:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descendants of Princess Sophie of Greece 

message: I've undone the changes made during the edit 00:25, 13 September 2007 by 80.217.195.153 which reverted to an old version of the article and removed references, categories and re added elder/younger which was discussed on the talk page. Edits done since such as the link to Prince Heinrich Julius of Hanover's article changing of some flags the Galitzine edit, Consorts in the line of succession edit I added while doing the revert so are not affected and are still in the article. - dwc lr 16:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit by 80.217.195.153

message: Well, somebody's waded in and boilered us plenty! I've prepared Line of succession to the British Throne/Descendants of Prince Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh as a suggestion for the first sub-article – what do we think? DBD 12:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree. Splitting up the article will just make it more difficult to read - I think the list is fine as it is. It's long but factually accurate -Halo 13:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the length of the article is part of the point.  Few people will recognize at a glance how long this list is if it's split up into several sub-articles. Npdoty 00:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: When I visit an article called Line of succession to the British Throne I expect to see a Line of succession to the British Throne not a bunch of links to sub articles.Genisock2 14:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe that it is inappropriate to break up the article. Noel S McFerran 14:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I could see keeping the descendants of Queen Victoria in the main article and splitting out the rest into a separate article.  But I would oppose furher splintering. Matchups 02:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If there were a compelling reason to split I would say that Matchups suggestion is best, but I don't think that there is a compelling reason to split.  Sure it is long, but it is clearly and accurately presented.  Eluchil404 04:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we create the subarticles, but display them all on the main article – makes for much easier editing... DBD 13:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say we petition the Government to change the law of succession restricting it to descendants of George V, similar to what the Danes did.  It'd certainly solve most of the problems here...--Lec CRP1 14:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: So what? I don't think anybody is pretending there's a practical purpose to this list. Doops |  talk 20:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spliting the article 

message: I'm not too informed on this subject but just scanning through I found:
"#1268 Dwight Schrute (b. 1972), daughter of Dwight Kurt Schrute Jr."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.103.211 (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes its vandalism thanks for pointing it out. - dwc lr 13:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: I'm not disputing the veracity of the list, but it's far longer than any published list of the line of succession that I'm aware of.  Hence, we've deduced who's in the list and which positions they hold.  It's a fascinating exercise, but isn't this the very definition of original research?  Maybe my understanding of WP:OR is a little off.  --  JackofOz 03:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your understanding is on, personally, and that we don't realistically need anyone after the 100-150th positions. Charles 01:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This page is most certainly not original research.  Please see the references at the bottom of the article, particular Reitwiesner's work which lists all of the descendants (whether through legitimate or illegitimate lines, whether papist or non-papist) of Sophie of Hannover who were living in 2001. Noel S McFerran 02:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research

message: How notable are most of the people on this list? Several of the people seem to have articles solely because they appear on this list. For instance, Tewa Lascelles. I think some clean-up is in order and I mention it here because it seems to be the source of a lot of it. Charles 03:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a standard.  After a certain point, just being "on the list" shouldn't be good enough.  Do you have a suggestion for a cut-off point (of course, this wouldn't affect those who are notable for reasons independent of being "on the list")?--Pharos 08:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm of the thought that mayhap no minors not descended from George VI need have their own pages, unless they do something notable, and then, any cadet descendants other than George V's probably aren't notable enough a priori... DBD 13:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone whose information could justifiably be presented on their parents' pages or on a page for whatever House they belong to should not have an article here on Wikipedia. Also, individuals whose information is essentially a copy of their siblings, etc (some of the Nassau princes). Eight year old princes, etc, don't need articles just saying that. Charles 13:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, there are some articles up at Afd and it seems that people are defaulting to the line of succession = gotta have an article argument. It simply is not true and makes the lot of us look like overly-fanatic royalists. I truly think an ultimatum for notability ought to be made: Either everyone on this entire list should have an article of substance or the fact that this list exists can't be used as criterion for notability. Charles 02:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability should be determined independently of being on this list. Being on this list does not confer notability in and of itself.  Being mentioned on this list is the same as the thousands of people mentioned in all sorts of articles across Wikipedia who are not notable enough to merit their own article just because they are briefly mentioned in another article. The subject of this AFD is more notable than most of the people on this list, and her article was correctly deleted for lack of notability. NoSeptember 02:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I invite you then to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Victoria Marina Cecilie of Prussia and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Jean of Nassau for individuals who are just as non-notable. If these articles aren't deleted, which would be pathetic, I am thinking I might want to retire from royalty articles given that all I've ever wanted to do is help and follow the guidelines and policies even if my personal opinion differs. Charles 02:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. But I have also long ago accepted the fact that their are plenty of articles that exist that should not, and others that should that have been deleted. Inconsistency is nothing new at WP and I don't lose sleep over the fact that lots of things here are not as I think they should be. I just add my input in the hopes of getting the right outcome on some of them, that is all we can do. NoSeptember 12:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that since there are groups here which create policy and guidelines for royalty that we should create additional criteria to examine the notability of royals. Royalty = notability is a sloppy and wrong train of thought. Charles 14:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eloise Taylor (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatiana Iuel. Charles 17:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of the people on this list 

message: I'm not an expert in this field, so I don't want to edit the list directly. But shouldn't Paul Lambrino and his Stepbrother Ion be included in the list as skipped between Position 83 and Michael of Romania?--217.87.190.189 (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think all individuals of illegitimate descent are added, just the illegitimate ones themselves. Charles 17:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Paul and Ion are the sons of Carol Lambrino who has been recognised as legitimate by courts in Romania and France (he was conceived after his parents were forced against their wills to divorce - but they clearly continued to maintain some sort of married life together at least for a short time).  I know of no British legal judgement saying that Carol was illegitimate.  As far as I can see, Carol's sons are in line according to the Act of Settlement. Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the time of his conception and birth, would he have been illegitimate under British law? I couldn't see why there would be a judgement saying so, but it doesn't mean that it was not true. Charles 20:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the first place who(what) should approve marriage in Romania, under British law? --Motsu (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  At the time of Carol's conception, his parents considered themselves married - in spite of the fact that in 1919 a Romanian court had declared the marriage null. A Romanian court ruling in 2003 held that the declaration of nullity was invalid and that the marriage was valid. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the time of the Carol's birth though, was he not considered illegitimate? Surely a Romanian court can't retroactively put his issue in line of succession. Charles 23:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is "renewal" impossible if the court pronounces with illegitimate at the time of birth? In other words, only a pronounce of the court at the time of the birth determines? Answer for my question(who should approve marriage in Romania, under British law?) is "court AT THAT TIME", not current court? Muu.. I think that Mihai seemed to surely succeed to the British throne if Carol II(and above people) died in 1922, not Carol. True??? --Motsu (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Put it this way, someone who loses their place in line of succession or was born without it can't gain it. Charles 07:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, Charles. That's simple and clear. --Motsu (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  It is perfectly possible that a person could be born and presumed to be illegitimate (and therefore not in line of successsion), but that a court later determined that the person was actually born legitimate (and therefore in line of succession). Noel S McFerran (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  However, is not there a great problem if a foreign court can change it ANYTIME? For example, it is assumed that German court declare Sophia of Hanover's marriage in 1658 is invalid, today. Will we delete all of her descendants from this list, because they are illegitimate? Will British Parliament declare new monarch or republic? --Motsu (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a hypothetical question - and the response would be original research.  In the case of Carol Lambrino (Paul's father), his parents were married in 1918.  A Romanian court decided in 1919 that the marriage was null.  Later Romanian courts have repeatedly affirmed that the marriage was valid, and the 1919 court judgement invalid.  In addition, courts in Portugal and France have upheld Carol's legitimacy.  It is not reasonable to maintain that a 1919 Romanian court judgement is valid, but that all the others are not. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Noel. I understood your thought, I think. I wait for an agreement of you and Charles. The viewpoints of you and him are quite different. --Motsu (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Paul Lambrino]] 

message: please: no arguing in this section. just figuring-out
OK, Pat, hypothetical question. (1) Let's say that Prince Harry (currently third-in-line) married a Jewish women and converted to Judiasm to marry her. Tragically, however, she died, and in due course Harry reconverted to Anglicanism to marry a second time. Again tragically, imagine Charles and William died. Would Harry ascend the throne? Doops |  talk 13:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  However he would not ascend the throne if he was still a Jewish convert at the time the previous monarch died.  PatGallacher (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as I can make out, no.  However, that is not the situation we are discussing here, we are discussing members of the Greek Orthodox church who have never been members of any Protestant church and probably never regularly attended Protestant religious services.  In reality, given that official sources now list about the first 30 people in the line of succession, the authorities would have clarified the situation beforehand.  PatGallacher (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean "no, Harry does not become king"? john k (talk) 08:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say no.  In any case I question whether it is appropriate to ask me, and me alone, to answer various complex hypothetical questions.  For the purpose of the accuracy dispute over this article we are discussing one specific hypothetial scenario: if the next person in line, but for religious rules is a Greek Orthodox Christian, can they inherit by converting to the CofE before their coronation?  By my reading of the legislation the answer is no, and I note this is also the implicit answer by the one possibly reliable source which has been quoted.  That however is not the crucial issue here.  The crucial issue is that unless people can come up with reliable sources which suggest otherwise then this article is original research. PatGallacher (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems to be your contention that a person who is a descendant of the Electress Sophie of Hanover but who is also Greek Orthodox is not in line of succession (whether temporarily or permanently).  Please cite a reliable published source which says this about Greek Orthodox people.  Otherwise this is original research. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite a reliable published source which says that a descendant of Sophia of Hanover who is Greek Orthodox is in the line of succession.  Otherwise this is original research.  PatGallacher (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: C'mon, guys -- please don't jump the gun. Doops |  talk 13:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, that is my reading of the legislation and other sources.  At the very least, nobody has come up with a reliable source which puts forward an alternative reading. PatGallacher (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: figuring out exactly what Pat thinks

message: Do we have any sources for the (apparent) recent birth of the "Viscount Severn"? According to this, "Viscount Severn" is one of the courtesy titles of the Earl of Wessex, however that site mentions nothing of another child. Not even of the pregnancy of the Countess, which seems odd. However if this child is not sourced on the Royal Family website then I doubt that it is real. 
Can this fact either be sourced or removed, please. Jake the Editor Man  (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7148830.stm Chrislintott (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Chris, but it doesn't say about him being Viscount Severn. I'll put it in anyway. Jake the Editor Man  (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got that from the placeholder that used to be under Lady Louise Windsor's entry in the list, and link this entry. Chrislintott (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viscount Severn 

message: I've tried writing this comment several times and it always comes out sounding insincere, so I shall just write it anyway and hope it is accepted in the spirit intended.  I am an occasional Wikipedia user and editor who has just read this article and its related discussion for the first time.  As a community, we shouldn't indulge in undue amounts of self-congratulation, but nor should we back away from recognising when we create something truly remarkable.  This is one of those occasions.  It is without doubt an extraordinary achievement and has had me fascinated for hours.  So I just wanted to say something we perhaps don't say often enough: thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.43.102 (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you 

message: I'm going through linked articles and adding the Nth position to all current and extended members of the British royal family, down to the Fifes. After that,  I'm going to go through every other article and, where applicable, removing these listings from people who aren't members of other reigning royal houses. With numerous births and deaths, having to go through each and every time and change these numbers is a pain. For people after the Fifes, unless they are members of reigning houses or a current pretender to a throne, where it is mentioned they are Nth in line to the British throne, I'm going to remove the number and just mention they are in line. Morhange (talk) 07:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would remove the positions from every other royal article as it is applicable... It really is a pain maintaining those and they can go inaccurate for months. Keeping the numbers down to the Fifes though is reasonable. Charles 07:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was also a discussion on this very topic a few months ago and everyone, as far as I can remember, agreed, but I cannot find it in the archives. I think it might have been held elsewhere. Charles 07:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured reigning families, as they are more prominent, and there would at least be interest to see where they were in the line of succession. At least reigning monarchs/heads of house, I think. Morhange (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe interesting to some, maybe not to others, but it still has the issue of being inexact and then bothersome at times. It also isn't entirely relevant to who a person is, etc. The most I would do is say "so and so is also in line to succeed to the British throne" with an optional "and is approximately 750th in line". Charles 07:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hasn't made it to the archives yet, Charles. #Succession boxes on other pages. -- Jao (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my, thank you! Sadly, I can't use old age as an excuse because I'm not old! ;-) Charles 23:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd cut back even further, and stop after the Lascelles. Less work to maintain, and more logical (numbering all descendants of George V). Doops |  talk 13:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just figured the Fifes, since they were considered extended members of the BRF, since Maud was a princess, and there are just four more. I numbered the Norwegians, since they are a reigning family, although I think only numbering the king and crown prince/ss of reigning families and pretenders would be best, since it trims down significantly the maintenance. Morhange (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still though, it is more than needed, really. If the removal of the numbers can be, and is, justified for all other members of a pretender's family, why must we maintain these for the pretenders as well? It becomes inexact. Really though, pretenders may be important, but it is not because of the number they have in line of succession to the British throne. Charles 01:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think cutting out after Marina Ogilvy's children would be perfectly appropriate. Who wants to keep track of whether any new Lascelles's are born, or marry Catholics, or whatever? john k (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  N<sup>th</sup> position