Talk:Line of succession to the British throne/Archive 1

message: That was bothering me too.. I removed a group of people per this article in the Guardian: "Christopher Habsburg (b 1957) and his children, his siblings, their descendants and his paternal uncles, aunts, and their descendants are not shown in most order of succession lists because his grandmother Princess Ileana of Romania's marriage to a Roman Catholic. Christoph's father, the late Archduke Stefan of Austria, Prince of Tuscany, became an American citizen and he and his family use the surname Habsburg."
:I believe that the Snyders in that line may in fact be Protestant.  The Hohenzollern-Sigmaringens are certainly Catholics. john 23:46, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your comment about Catholics 

message: This article was originally "List of Succession to the British Throne", but I renamed it "List of succession to the British throne" so that it follows our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization).
Now it has been partially renamed back to "List of Succession to the British throne" (and the redirects were not updated, by the way).  Why?  Why should "succession" be capitalized?  It's not part of a proper noun as far as I can see.  If no one can defend the capital, the article should be renamed "List of succession to the British throne" again. Indefatigable 18:07, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming convention and capitals 

message: With all this talk of who is and is not Catholic, I think this page is verging on primary research. Would it be better to find an authoritative source for the succession, rather than playing what amounts to a guessing game? Onebyone 00:16, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it is problematic.  But certain families are certainly Catholic - the Hohenzollerns (not the Royal House of Prussia Hohenzollerns, but the Hohenzollerns of Hohenzollern), the Habsburgs, and so forth.  That Ileana Snyder and her family are not Catholic I get via alt.talk.royalty, from poster Marlene Koenig, who has written a genealogy of the descendants of Queen Victoria, and who  should know.  I've certainly not done any primary research, but it is probably true that an authoritative source would be difficult to come by. john 00:37, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validity and Authority 

message: A discussion about the red links on this page is here: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates#Line of succession to the British Throne, comments about this issue anyone? NoSeptember (talk) 21:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your recent disambig-ing of several names is part of what's wrong with red-linking. You've called several people "nobles" who aren't nobles at all (at least not in the British sense of the word). Doops |  talk 18:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: red links

message: While I understand that we don't want to have false positives, the actual alternative links being created are awful.  Louise Mountbatten (Mountbatten)?  How does that distinguish her from Louise Mountbatten?  And referring to Victor Berger as a royal is rather questionable.  I'd suggest using birthdates for those people who are only significant for their place in the British line of succession - or, as somebody else suggested, we could just remove the links for totally insignificant people. john k 6 July 2005 05:05 (UTC)
In addition, the link to Elizabeth Ward redirects to Elizabeth Gracen, Miss America, actress, and nude model.  I was all ready to add the succession template to her page before I realized the birthdays didn’t match.  I agree with the link-of-the-day discussion that the always-red ones should just be unlinked; it’s ugly, and there’s too much potential for accidental conflict among the commoners. crism 02:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I ran across the very same issue and questioned its validity.  Either Elizabeth Gracen's URL should be altered away from Elizabeth Ward or the ones lower in the list (perhaps after the first few dozen) should be de-linked.  Also check the link for David Cook.  Although the year of birth matches, I would assume its linked by coincidence of having a common name.  Other examples include Alexander Fraser (leads to a disambiguation page where none of those listed are the Alexander Fraser in the list).   B Cas 06:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: I know the remove of over 500 was recently added, so is assumed to be fairly accurate, however I worry that this list is now more than a little unmanageable.  What sources do we have to know that any of the listed individuals haven't died, had further children or (shudder at the thought) become Roman Catholic?  Why are there not better sources listed in the external links section so that we can all check this ourselves?  The official site of the Royal family only has up to 39th in line. -- Francs2000 | Talk  15:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validity checking 

message: Congratulations to those who have devoted such industry and staggering learning to this.
First thought: Paul Theoroff's Online Gotha will normally at least show who is alive and dead and is up-to-date on descendants.  
Second thought: Since this is entitled Line of succession to the British Throne, would it be possible to number those actually in line of succession but to include in the list, without numbering, those who have been skipped.  This could be quite transparent and helpful for making future corrections.   
 00:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations and 2 thoughts 

message: Out of curiosity, when additions are made to the list, someone is going to have to go through and manually change all of the stub articles that say "So-and-so is currently Nth in line to the British throne" each time a new birth/death occurs. This probably won't be much of a problem for those low on the list, but for example, when Prince William has his first child, that is going to require edits in a lot of articles. Wouldn't it be better to just delete these and only say that they're in line? 156.63.85.17 13:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true; and even without taking your argument into account those stubs should be deleted anyway. A spot in the British succession is not by itself enough noteworthiness for an article. Doops |  talk 19:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stubs 

message: Should the current jacobite heir Franz of Bavaria convert to Protestantism would he be ahead of Prince Charles in the line of succession (Senior heir of Charles I)
:No.  The line of succession is based on the relationship of the individual to the present monarch. -- Francs2000  16:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jacobitism

message: which probably would slot in at ~63rd place.
Should probably wait with update until the name is announced on Monday. 17:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New norwegian heir born... 

message: I just want to say great job to all who contributed to this article.  Amazing work!!!  Prsgoddess187 16:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great job 

message: This article contains an exceptionally large number of red links, which is widely regarded as bad practice.  I bet you that the large majority refer to articles which will never be created, and if they ever were would be regarded as non-notable.  I recognise that there are a handful of exceptions e.g. grandchildren of a Swedish king.  See the AFD discussion on Estella Taylor for some issues here.
:The vast majority of people in this list are not and will never be notable. If any of them does invent a better mousetrap and get written up we can always manually link to him/her then. (After all, given the confusing and unintuitive disambig names we were suggesting, it is unlikely that a new article, unconnected with this list, about many of these folks would have landed at the "right" address to turn the red link blue!) Doops |  talk 16:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Red links etc.

message: Bold attempts to fix the red-link problem are being reverted. Shall we have a formal vote to settle the matter? Doops |  talk 19:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's. Craigy  (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure if articles were ever created for those who are currently "red-linked" then they would find themselves re-linked on this page, but for now, why not leave them out until they do become notable? Or better still, if you know of any people in the line that don't have an article and deserve one, why not create a few? Craigy  (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  red links vote?