Talk:Line of succession to the British throne/Archive 11

My preference would be to Savannah Phillips from the list. However, I'll accept that being 12th in line has some degree of notability in itself. By the time one reaches the 50th in line that notability has severely diminished, and by the time one gets to the 100th we are dealing with notability in the realm of homoeopathy. John lilburne (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Your preference would be to remove Savannah Phillips from this list? Based on what? That would completely contradict the official list on the British Royal Family's website. There's already been several people arguing that Albert and Leopold Windsor should be included based on their inclusion on the official list, now you want to remove someone for being "non-notable" despite their inclusion? I'm still not sure what you're basic notability on. Notability in general, or their notability in regards to the British line of succession? So what, do we follow Wikipedia guidelines at the expense of completely disregarding the primary source for the first 40 or so people in line? Isn't that part of the issue people had with this article in its lengthier version in the first place? It seems to me that you're suggesting that we remove people who are seen "non-notable" like Savannah Phillips and the non-titled descendants of the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent, for example, and that we do it by disregarding the official line of succession on the British Royal Family's website altogether.

talk

) 09:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to construct a strawman from the first sentence, make sure it hasn't been burnt already in the second sentence. Savannah Phillips is NOT notable other than by virtue of being 12th in line, and unless she does something of note, her notability will gradually leak away as others are born to people higher up the tree. 12th is probably notable, 100th is not. That is the point, the notability is purely dependant on how high up the list they are. Notability by virtue of simply being 100th on the list is infinitesimally smaller than notability by virtue of simply being 1st on the list. It would come as no surprise to learn that notability by virtue of being on the list drops away significantly once you get past the great grandchildren, and nieces and nephews of the present Monarch. By the time one reaches the 100th in line notability by virtue of being in line is negligible. John lilburne (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that the "list of baronetcies" is just that, a list of titles, there is an article for each which lists one or at most two names, one of which at least has an article in his own right. It does not delve off into 10 cousins removed who might conceivable obtain the title if a nuclear war occurred and they were 3 miles inside a mountain. John lilburne (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Collect, read

This is really not a list of the sort contemplated by NLIST. It's something very different to have a school article with a notable alumni (many of whom aren't) section and a page outlining the order of succession to the British throne. Everyone on this list (even when it goes out to 1000 or so entries) is subject to the general notability guideline "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The one exception being people who were just born. But even then they are likely to have significant coverage as a result of where they are in the order of succession. There is an enherant oversight to the guideline: Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. as it relates to Royalty. They are all notable because of who their parents are. If that were the case, we might as well delete the page for every English monarch since

WP:LISTN again. It clearly states Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. ---- Selket ^Talk

21:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I may be wrong but I think you'll be hard pressed to find significant coverage in reliable sources that the 1000th person on the old list is the 1000th person in line for the British Throne, or indeed that they have any connection to the British Royal family. If I look at the nearest one to the 1000th Count Folke Bernadotte (1896-1948) the first extent biography has no mention of him being part of the British Royal Family at all, and neither does his wp article either. John lilburne (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Granted, and that's an argument for not having the list go out farther than the reliable sources go. I agree with the OR concerns raised above. I thought we were talking about Savannah Phillips. -- Selket ^Talk 22:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Per my iterated suggestion - look at about number 500 (descendant of Queen Victoria). "Daisy Knatchbull" is not notable enough for a separate article (posited) but ... is found on over four hundred websites, primarily mentioning QV, that is, specifically connecting her to the Royal family. Folke Bernadotte is not a QV descendant. Meanwhile, the Royal Family of Sweden has a "Princess Victoria" named after guess who? The interconnection of the various families is pretty well established as far as I can tell. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

On a wall in

Alexandra Knatchbull who apparently is notable for being on this list (talk about circular references) and who is rumoured (according to WP) to be an item with Prince William (does Kate know?) John lilburne (talk

) 23:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Timothy Knatchbull -- noted in The Times as a relative [9] and The Times does not cite Wikipedia, by the way. Also [10]. [11] family referred to by Prince Charles - and story notable enough for The Times. [12] Alexandra made The Times. [13] the woods are full of that family in The Times, and noted as relatives of the royal family. Dang - I thought the lot was not notable. So we have The Times as a reasonably reliable source - do you find that rag unreliable on this sort of matter? Collect (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Times is Murdoch, as I don't patronize any NI business, I wouldn't know how reliable they are one way or another. But nevertheless your points raise a number of questions. Do any of the articles mention that they are 500th in line for the throne or just that they are related? From the URL name it looks like the Alexandra is a social event listing. BTW do you not think it odd that we have an articles like the Alexandra one, that is nothing but untrue gossip? "family referred to by Prince Charles" is everyone that Charles talks about encyclopedically notable? John lilburne (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(re:selket's first comment) I believe - though I am not sure - that

talk

) 09:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely that every monarch is going to meet GNG. That's my point. I was saying that the idea that notability is not inherited doesn't really work for royalty. Each one was important because his/her father/mother was important. Saying that people directly in line for the throne (where cited by reliable sources) can't be included if not notable for something else is like saying that 2010_BCS_National_Championship_Game Shouldn't be able to say that the referee was John McDaid. Should Survivor_(band) be purged of it's list of band members? (p.s. actually, probably yes, but that's because of the reliable sources issue not notability. Bad example, sorry) -- Selket ^Talk 16:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not completely following Selket's line of reasoning.. but monarchs aren't notable because their parents were notable; monarchs are notable because they were monarchs.

And as Kevin says,

WP:LISTPEOPLE, which Kevin also stated above.. by this exception, Savannah Phillips should stay (since she is "especially important" in the list's group, being number 12 in line). Mlm42 (talk

) 16:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this very subjective. If you include someone who is 12th in line but not 51st {asuming you could find a reliable source to say they were 51st) where do you decide to draw the line and more importantly who decides!!! It seems the policy is as clear as mud. Lewisdl (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hence the reason for all the discussion; the policies are written with the assumption that editors will use their good editorial judgement in interpreting them. If I understand correctly, the consensus above was that we should only be including people for which we have a reliable source stating their exact number in line.. this seems like a relatively non-subjective place to draw the line. In particular, it's where the monarchy's website stops their listing. Mlm42 (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with MlM42. Go out as far as we have reliable sources. That will make them notable enough for inclusion on the list. I view this as parallel to people with single event notability. Even if they are not notable enough for their own article, they are notable enough to be included in an article on topic X. -- Selket ^Talk 16:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a real shame to strike that section regarding monarchs and consorts in Europe that are in the line of succession at some position. This list changes very rarely and should be very easy to maintain. I also liked the statistics at some point in time. Pacomartin (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact the complete list of 2000+ people changes surprisingly often, and I doubt anyone would describe it as "very easy to maintain". But anyway, we cut down the "complete" list for several reasons, primarily original research concerns (due to lack of reliable sources stating the precise positions in line), and BLP concerns over non-notable people. On the other hand, these issues could be avoided by writing a section in prose about other monarchs who are also in the British line of succession - as long as we don't claim to know their precise position in the line. Mlm42 (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of putting words in Pacomartin's mouth, I think the comment about the list rarely changing and being easy to maintain was about a list of foreign monarchs and consorts in the British line, rather than about the entire line. LarryJeff (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here's a radical idea. Hear me out here. I've been seeing the same old faces fighting about this article for years now. For what? Wikipedia is one site. It's not the be all and end all of knowledge. It's plainly obvious by now that the naysayers are never going to leave this subject alone, so why don't the advocates of the long list just take it to another Wiki and do all the updating there? Then those of us who like the long list can go to that site and the people who hate the long list can edit this as far down as they want or scrap it altogether. Whatever! At least this way, everyone gets what they want. The energy the advocates have put into this could've been better spent making a new Wiki purely on the subject which those with the interest could rally around, instead of fighting a war of attrition here. Wikipedia isn't that important.

Let the flames commence. -- Analog Kid (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Good advice. TFD (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. Wikipedia isn't the right place for this information, but that's not to say it shouldn't exist elsewhere. Mlm42 (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion Mr.

'The Great'... this topic could be its own wikia, where the community interested in it could set new rules for sources, notability, etc.... or have no rules whatsoever.Cander0000 (talk

) 03:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Out of all the counter arguments about this article, this one is the most idiotic. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia--there's no real limit to it's content. Certainly this article is more important than a list of the Prime Ministers' cats. Suggesting we take it elsewhere is ridiculous, as is the idea that Wikipedia isn't the right place for this article. Why not? The line of succession to an extant monarchy, probably the most well known as well. It's odd to see how much opposition there is to this article and not lines of succession for former royal houses, several of which have no sources at all.. 174.252.56.216 (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC) (Morhange)

Actually what I find sad is Wikipedia did a major survey to find out the reasons the amount of contributions has dropped drastically, and the history of this article could be a prime example. Enthusiastic contributors are being pushed out, contradicted and overruled by pedantic wikilawyer types. Basically the wiki article about the survey gave that very reason for people dropping out. Williamb (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That's an argument for changing the Original Research / Synthesis rules. Not for breaking them in this particular case. To be honest, I've never been completely happy with them, but there's a slippery slope once you relax them. -- Selket ^Talk 15:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

They are core to the project - annoying at times but I think vital - and you'd lose a lot of editors if they went, and a lot trust. And in this case there are also BLP issues.

talk

) 16:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh there is definitely a need for a website that can chronicle all the descendents of the Electress Sophia and give reasons why they are ar might not be in the line of succession. Actually giving them a precise number is IMHO almost impossible as people are added and removed at least every two days on average.Wikipedia probably isn't that site. Lewisdl (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The original research barrier has always confused me. It seems to imply that research = fake rubbish. If the research deals with proveable facts, I would have thought that would be more important to an article. The majority of published citations on Wikipedia will have their origin in research that someone's conducted at some point in time, so why is it seen as a bad thing?

For an example, I can prove that a certain minor celebrity wasn't born with the name Wikipedia claims is their birth name. However as it doesn't seem to be referenced anywhere else, it comes under research, so the article continues to display incorrect information as fact. How is that better? -- Analog Kid (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As Selket says, the argument being made here is against the

WP:IAR) to it. This talk page isn't the correct forum to debate the WP:NOR policy. Mlm42 (talk

) 02:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies. It was just something I'd wondered about. I thought as the issue had been brought up here many times, there would be a number of insights on it. However as you say, a discussion for elsewhere. -- Analog Kid (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia--there's no real limit to it's content. I know that this mantra is oft repeated but WTF? Each bit of information has an associated cost. It might not be the cost of paper or any other material thing, but there is a cost. The cost is in making sure that it is correct, that it isn't vandalized, and that it is maintained as new information comes along. A 3000 long list of names that purports to be some ordering of succession to the British throne, with an attendant list of 1000s of more names that are adjunct to it, has a massive cost. John lilburne (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You're attributing negative arguments to me that I've never made. I merely suggested that Wikipedia isn't that important for all the bother you guys have been having. It's not as if the long list somehow becomes invalidated and no-one will ever see it again if it isn't specifically included here and only here. This is one site. It might be the site that's generally used the most when people look for information on things, but I seriously doubt anyone interested in this research is uneducated enough not to know that there are perfectly valid and reliable resources out there other than Wikipedia. Why not create such a resource, set your own rules and give Wikipedia Churchill's Victory sign so to speak? If they don't want the list, it's their loss. Seems an obvious solution to me. -- Analog Kid (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"Other stuff exists" is not always a valid argument. Actually, in my view there are problems with alleged lines of succession to deposed monarchies, and some of them should be deleted or better sourced, I have started on this myself. PatGallacher (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, whatever makes you people happy, since you seem intent on erasing the combined effort of other users and culling an article that, for a large chunk of especially the descendants of Queen Victoria, had a long, varied and valid list of sources. No idea what this "massive cost" apparently is, and I think it would be pretty obvious that over the duration of this article, it has been meticulously maintained by a group of people, including myself, making sure updates are made when necessary. Yeah, "other stuff exists" but what makes this article any different from the lines of succession for the various presidencies? Just as with this article, I highly doubt anyone beyond the first person on any of those lists will ever succeed to that office, but the list is there anyway.

But whatever, I'm done making arguments here. I've contributed a lot to this article only to see it destroyed by people on some kind of bizarre crusade with half-assed arguments, so whatever you people want to do, go ahead, I'm not going to stand in your way.

• • • Basically Gallacher has won and has default control over the article. The people that spent 5 years working to make an article get nothing. Williamb (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

PatGallacher is only enforcing the consensus established in this archived BLP/N discussion. Mlm42 (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • There was no consensus. this was shoved down our throats. Williamb (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There was certainly no consensus to keep the long version. I think, if you feel you can establish consensus to get the long version back, then you can take action by getting input from the wider community (via an

WP:BLP policy says we have to stick with the shortened version (when there's a dispute, biographical information about living people must be removed until it's resolved). Mlm42 (talk

) 00:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If I could make a side point here? If the list has been permanently fixed to its current length, I'd say there's a strong argument for dispensing with this article altogether on the grounds of redundancy. There's now very little here that's not already included or can't be inserted into the general Succession to the British throne article. The long list warranted being seperate, this as it stands just exists to add an extra 25 names to what's already elsewhere on the site. -- Analog Kid (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Although if Alan or anyone else want to launch any of the

talk

) 03:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please bring back the full content original content of the page. it is relevant, and frankly deleting 80% of the page is a destruction of the hard work od wikipedians. wikipedia should preserve information, not destroy it.

Herbriz (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for storing telephone directories and similar content. It is perfectly normal that abuses of this sort are corrected sooner or later when the wider community becomes aware of them. Hans Adler 12:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I've disabled this editprotected request as there is dispute, at best, over it, certainly not consensus for. This is not a policy-based argument, but rather an appeal to principles that are not

what Wikipedia is. Happy‑melon

14:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The long list is amusing. It has no practical use and, of course, it can't be perfectly accurate, but it also is perfectly harmless. The short list isn't fun at all.174.20.55.73 (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about being "fun" or "amusing". As an excyclopedia, it's first and foremost purpose is to correctly and precisely talk about things of encyclopedic value. The long list failed all three, and I also doubt your definition of "fun"... -- DevSolar (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a less pretentious view of the matter. And, after all, as DevSolar points out correctly and precisely, Wikipedia is just a "talking excyclopedia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.55.73 (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

one of the sticking points in extending this list is the lack of sources that actualy number the Lascelles. I have found a source on line listing those people in positions 46-60. It is at http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/british-royals/35-succession/48-scott can this be considered a reliable source? Lewisdl (talk) 09:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The title "unofficial royalty" says it all, and this appears to be have been copied from the former version of this articde. This is the sort of loop we have to be careful about, as with Norman Wisdom and the White Cliffs of Dover. PatGallacher (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

So what if it's Unofficial. The lists in Debretts and Whittakers are no more "official" than this list. If the website changed its name by dropping the unofficial what difference does that make to the information contained.Its still a list which correctly identifies the first 60 in line. Lewisdl (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That source cites two other sources: the monarchy's website, and this Wikipedia article. So no, it can't be used as a reliable source for this article. Also, it looks like a

reliable sources noticeboard, where I suspect you'll get the same answer. Mlm42 (talk

) 16:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the list at royal.gov.uk is also "unofficial". It's descriptive, not prescriptive (it's also incomplete and, as has been noted before, contains errors). It may be a useful source, but I don't think it should be regarded as "the official list" nor should other sources be rejected on the grounds that they're unofficial. Alkari (?), 9 June 2011, 21:33 UTC

For what it's worth, since the Act of Settlement 1701 there has been no "official list". However, we can't cite a source that cites Wikipedia as a source. -- Selket ^Talk 23:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

But the site doesn't cite Wikipedia as the source of its information. It merely says, incorrectly, that there is a more complete list on Wikipedia. Lewisdl (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

True, but looking at the site it's more likely than not that they did use Wikipedia as their source. PatGallacher (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You have no evidence that they used Wikipedia as a source at all! You could just as easily say that the Official website used Wikipedia. In truth we no idea how any of the sources mentioned in the article compiled their lists.Lewisdl (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Even if they don't use Wikipedia as a source, for us to use them they have to meet the standards laid out at

talk

) 22:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

An older version of the Royal Family's website even includes the Earl of Harewood and his oldest son, but I guess that's not a reliable enough source.

talk

) 14:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah now that I can agree is not acceptable because it doesnt show him as 46th. Savannah Philips would not have been born so all the positions below her would be wrong. Of course we all know he is still in line and we all know that he is 46th but unless something actualy shows him as 46th its synthesis or original research to deduce that he is Lewisdl (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Because the additions of births/deaths change, you will always have people rising and falling in the line--I've said this time and time again, the BRF's official site didn't list the Duke of Gloucester's granddaughters or Lord Nicholas Windsor's sons (whether they are in line or not) for several months after their births. As the eldest female-line descendant of George V, the Earl of Harewood follows the Duke of Kent's family. There are constant references to him being in line--at the time he was born, when he got married, when his son was born and he's been shown on older versions of the official website. It's absurd to call the NUMBERING original research when it's a basic fact--the descendants of George V's daughter follow the descendants of his sons. The Earl of Harewood is Princess Mary's eldest son. He follows Princess Alexandra and her descendants. What happens when Prince William, Lord Frederick Windsor and Zara Phillips have children, or the Gloucester kids have more children, or Peter Phillips, and Princess Alexandra moves down the list--will she then be removed from here? She doesn't stop being in line just because she's lower than 40th. Will we have to wait until William and Kate's first child is added to the official list before we can update this article?

It's like User:Lewisdl said above: Should William and Kate have a child everyone will know that it will follow William in the line of succession AS SOON AS IT IS BORN. However we will not be able to update this article until it's actualy published in a "reliable" source that the child is 3rd in line. So eventually a reliable source mentions that the child is 3rd in line but fails to mention Harry is now 4th and Andrew is now 5th.

You shouldn't need to sit around waiting for the webmaster of the BRF's site to update the page--William's first legitimate child follows him in the line of succession. Once William has a child, James Ogilvy will likely no longer show up on the official site, but that doesn't mean he's no longer in line--simply that the official site just does the top 40 people. Baby Cambridge will push him down to 41, but he is STILL in line. The sad thing is, you can't even call the official site reliable considering it completely contradicts itself listening the Duke of Kent's daughter and her children before her brother's children.

talk

) 04:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of, instead of going after THIS article, why aren't more people up in arms about the

talk

) 04:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

This page claimed for 2,000 persons that they currently hold a certain honour, claimed for a few hundred more that they do not hold it for various reasons, and called some of these people "illegitimate" or otherwise exposed details of people's family life that are unlikely to ever become important. All of these people are living by design.

WP:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. It must have been clear to you that the closed season would finish at least when that project would have ended, but given the enormous scale of the violation and the effort put into something that ultimately had to be deleted, it was certainly reasonable not to wait. Hans Adler

05:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's BS. The Lascelles and the Fives are not "private" people, nor are the members of the Norwegian RF; the former two are British nobility and their dates of marriage and years of birth for their children are listed on various nobility websites, Debrett's for example, and the Norwegian RF are certainly not private either--there is nothing to "expose" here and this not some detailed entry on their family life--it's marriage, births and deaths, not their addresses or social security numbers (or whatever the British equivalent would be). The history article has absolutely NO references--what is the source, for example that

talk

) 01:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Morhange, I undestand your argument, and using that line of reasoning, maybe a case could be made that extending the list a bit further isn't necessarily original research. But I think the main argument here goes like this: editors largely agree that we should not have the full list (largely for BLP concerns, as Hans mentioned). So how do we decide where to cut off the list? Answer: only include people whose exact position is stated in a reliable source. This ensures Wikipedia editors aren't synthesizing information from various sources to draw their own conclusions about the line (even when those conclusions are relatively "obvious"). Mlm42 (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

My question still stands. When the next child is born, and Princess Alexandra's son is moved down one spot, will he be omitted from this list, despite the fact that he isn't listed anymore on the official site? When William's first child is born, likely he or she will be added fairly soon to the official site--what about Debrett's? Debrett's doesn't even list numbers, so therefore, by your reasoning, should be disregarded as a source. Leopold and Albert Windsor aren't included by Debrett's--but by the royal family's website, which includes them behind their aunt's children, even though this is incorrect. So neither of these sources seem to be "reliable" by the standards put forth here. One lists incorrect ordering information, the other omits Nicholas Windsor's sons and doesn't have numbering at all. If the conclusions to the numbering are "obvious" then why do we have Albert and Leopold listed where they are instead of following the official site and putting them before Lady Helen Taylor and her children? If the boys aren't included on any other list but the BRF, and they are listed after the Taylors, should we not be following that? Wouldn't it be original research to list them before their aunt, if the primary source does not do so?

talk

) 20:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If editors here broadly agree that there are mistakes on the monarchy's website, or that it isn't quite up to date, then should we be allowed to fix those mistakes? I'd say yes. Does this mean we shouldn't be allowed to use the monarchy's website? I'd say no. Does this make a logical gap in the original research / synthesis argument, which justifies adding more names to the list? I'd say absolutely not, because (judging from the recent discussions) that's not what the Wikipedia community wants. Hopefully that answers your questions. Mlm42 (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question about Princess Alexandra and her children. The Earl of Harewood was listed until a few births meant he went below the 40 that the website lists. When this happens in the future with James Ogvily or his mother, do you propose we remove them the way the Earl of Harewood has been removed? After all, them not being on the list means they no longer have a "source" for their number.

talk

) 23:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we should be listing her children right now anyway, since they don't appear on the monarchy's website. Mlm42 (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think that is an excellent compromise I suggested it myself a few weeks back. Fix the list to an arbitrary number 50, 75, or some other reasonable number. Although the further you depart from the official list the more chance there is of error, at least if the list is kept to a reasonable number it won't be egregiously so. Then knock them off as ones are born or bring them back if a whole branch convert to Catholicism or die off. A top 50 or top 100 in line for the throne is more defensible than the 2500 plus hangers on that was here before. John lilburne (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggested earlier in the page to at least list all the descendants of Edward VII--the Royal Marriages Act explicitly states that it only applies to male-line descendants and female-line descendants who marry British citizens--which is why the RMA page lists the female line descendants of the

talk

) 21:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article for two weeks due to edit-warring.

Thank you for locking the page on the current version which is well sourced and does not need warning tags. unlike the one some people seem to be trying to restore which contained a huge unsourced and unreliable / useless list which many of us have been asking to be removed for years. It is rather inspiring to see progress made on wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"useless list" - "many of us have been asking for removal" - "inspiring to see progress made", I see a lot of POV wording here. My view is that it is a shame that the extensive list is removed now. A lot of conscientious work was put in it by many people, and it has been used and referred to extensively. However, only a few decided to remove it. It is for example well known that the members of the Norwegian or Dutch Royal house are in line to the British throne, but now I cannot find that back anymore in the list. It was a real valuable tool. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it was my opinion. I have suggested before that there should have been two articles. This one, with a basic list as we now have, and the extensive line of succession list (clearly linked in the introduction and top of this article) which goes into the huge detail of research which is useful to some people but irrelevant to most readers of this page. Surely a new page could be created with that now this one has been fixed? BritishWatcher (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The page as it currently stands should be merged into

talk

) 09:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe it is a good idea (and I would be in favour of such an idea), but the long list per se was not the reason of the discussion. Anyway, I think (but that is of course my personal view) that some people have a problem which such detailed and conscientious works which they heedlessly label as useless and

Wikipedia:Cruft. Why not put that kind of crusader behaviour in the removal or restructuring of really unimportant articles, like List of Pokémon characters or the list of cats of the UK prime ministers? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk

) 10:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Im fine with long lists, provided there is a reasonably short and reliable/sourced list which gets linked to from other articles. Im not against a proposed merger of line of succession/succession to the British throne suggested above but the primary article people get directed to from other pages should be to this short list that is presently on the article. Not to that extended list which i accept will be of interest to some, but not most people. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

85% of all information on Wikipedia is not of much interest by most people, but the fact that you anyhow can find such vademecum is the real power of Wikipedia. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The admin may or may not have protected at the

My position was, and remains, that the article was too long, but that consensus is in essence compromise, and I suggest that QV is the reasonable compromise. When in doubt, try to find something between the two sides' positions. Collect (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Either the article should attempt to encompass everyone who might be in the line of succession to the British throne (as before) or it should restrict itself to those who have been explicitly listed as being at a certain number in the line of succession to the British throne by a reliable third-party source (as at present). Opera hat (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record: I think the article (or a supplement thereto) should include everyone descended from Electress Sophia, as a fully-cited genealogical statement, with reasons why certain of those listed may or may not be in line based on interpretation of various laws, and then leave it to the reader to interpret those laws. At present the article implies that Lord Harewood is not in the line of succession, which is ludicrous as he has in the past served as a Counsellor of State, which he couldn't have done if he hadn't been. Opera hat (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

synthesis - and current consensus is that they do not - then I don't have any problem with the list expanding to encompass anyone covered by them. But it is very important to make the distinction between a source saying that person X is "a descendant of Sophia of Hanover who is not a Catholic" and "in line to the British throne"; it is unacceptable synthesis to conclude that one implies the other. Happy‑melon

21:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"the article should contain exactly as many entries as can be reliably and verifiably sourced" is a good statement. Clearly some do like the list or its length, but the source is what counts. Nothing shold be put in without a source; and a person should not be excluded as a catholic without a source. I would like to see this point in arbitration. Alan Davidson (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The

Arbitration Committee does not hear content disputes: they will not agree to rule on that question. Happy‑melon

15:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Alan may be attempting to define the

RfC question, as per Scott Mac's suggestion. If we do have an RfC question (which I'm not sure there's a need for, given a neutral reading of this discussion and that at BLP/N), I think the question should be about the issue of requiring or not requiring reliable sources which explicitly state the number of the position of people in the line of succession. Mlm42 (talk

) 17:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not have a link so that people can press it to show the the extended line of succession like the show ancestry link on many articles. This would be a nice compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.111.29 (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Find an MP willing to introduce a private members bill to have the line of succession be Elizabeth II and her heirs. Will make the list much smaller and gets rid of the{sticky legitimate/illegitimate debate. Probably involve less effort than the discussion concerning this list's truncation has involved. [As an aside, seems odd to exclude the descendants of Mary, the Princess Royal (Lascelles). There is no question who is in line and who isn't. Sources of who they are, when they were born are abundant. No, none of them are numbered, but we already know the sources provided here aren't quite in order. Also, the Countess of Southesk was at one point a Councilor of State and hence, in the line of succession. It would seem logical to extend the list to her descendants (The Duke of Fife, etc.) Stop the list there pending reliable published sources. Unless of course, the Swiftian proposal above should receive Royal Assent.]Bagbyb210 (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I am sure that should The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge produce a daughter before a son politicians will very quickly move a new act of succession to allow the daughter to precede her brother in the line of succession. That would also be the ideal time to limit the line of succession to say the descendents of her majesty Queen Elizabeth II and also remove the bar on catholics. However if the Duke and Duchess produce a son I can see the whole thing being put of for at least another generation by which time the number of people eligible to suceed will have at least doubled.Lewisdl (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The succession act would have to be amended in all 16 countries where the Queen reigns. They are now trying to modernize the act, but the Canadian government has refused to accept the proposed changes. Even then, there would be no limit to the list of heirs. Another issue is that the privy councils "elect" the monarch, they do not have to follow the Act. Tony Benn for example says he intends to vote against any candidate presented to the U.K. Privy Council. TFD (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The extended list could be put on to the Royal Family Wiki site. It seems difficult to copy and paste the list onto this site, but maybe someone could do it. This site is the ideal place for such a list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.111.29 (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's really ridiculously easy to move the list on to another wiki. Click on the history tab, click on a past revision where the long list was included, click edit in that window, cut/paste all the contents of the edit window on to whatever other wiki you want to copy it to.

talk

) 19:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not. I just tried to paste it to thi spage (where the IP edited recently), but even after setting the Wikia edit box to code view it seems to mess with the code I paste in. And when I pressed preview it seemed to choke on the huge page. For Wikia the list may have to be split. Hans Adler 21:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that it was absolutely right to reduce this list to what could be copied from the monarchy website or Whitaker's Almanack or Debrett's, two important and respected reference works. Recently, some people have raised BLP objections to the list. However, as I and some other Wikpedians have been pointing out for some time, this list depended heavily and unnacceptably on original research, for these reasons.

1. The main source appeared to be Reitwesner's list of the descendants of Sophia of Hanover as of 2001, some have questioned if this is a reliable source, but let's assume that it is. It is purely a snapshort, no systematic attempt is being made to keep it up to date, there must be births and deaths taking place all the time, people were relying on snippets of information they were picking up here and there. Although much on Wikipedia does involve trying to hit a moving target, this one is a good deal more difficult to hit than most, because of the obscurity of the information onvolved. By comparison, after the recent

2. Reitweisner wisely said that this was only a list of descendants, he was not judging who was included or excluded on religious grounds. This is an absolute minefield. By my reading of the relevant legislation Greek Orthodox Christians are excluded, some people disagreed. Wikipedians were often jumping to conclusions about people's religious affiliations based on family background, but in these increasingly secular times we cannot assume that people practise any religion or were ever baptised by any church. There is also the awkward issue of when children become classed as Catholics or Protestants for the purposes of this law, is it e.g. on baptism, confirmation? Judging by the way it has handled some recent births, the British monarchy website seems to include infants base on their parents' decision on how to bring them up, but this has never been officially clarified. There have even been some theological discussions about whether a child can be e.g. baptised a Catholic, or if they are just baptised a Christian.

3. There have also been some very complicated discussions about whether some people are regarded as illegitimate because of the provisions of the Royal Marriages Act, which I'm not sure I follow fully myself, but another minefield.

4. There is also some dispute about whether

5. Finally, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Listing people way beyond anyone who has the slightest chance of inheriting the British crown even in the event of a major terrorist attack is not encyclopedic. In a sense it is unfortunate to lose the product of a large amount of effort, if people want to continue this on a genealogy website they are free to do so, but not on Wikipedia. PatGallacher (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Very well put Pat.

I have been researching the descendants of the Electress Sophia for many years. in an attempt to find out who was "Last in Line" I found the the original content extremely useful for my own research and cross referenced it with William Addams Reitwiesner's 2001 list along with many other "Royal Genealogy" websites. There were errors in many of them including the Wikipedia Article and Reitwiesner's list. I have updated WAR's list with infornmation that was available up to 1st jan 2011 and this list is available on the WARGS website at http://www.wargs.com/essays/succession/2011.html.

I would have to agree with every point that Pat makes. Such lists can only provide a snapshot. They can answer who is first, and they can indicate who may be last but there are numerous problems in between. Reitwiesner made no attempt to exclude people on religeous grounds nor did he take account of the Royal Marriages act, though IMHO he correctly excluded the King of Romania.

In the 10 years between the last two lists it has grown by nearly a thousand names. That probably means that there have been nearer 2000 changes, for example 1500 births and 500 deaths, or put another way the list changes on average 4 times every week. I actualy think it changes at an even greater frequency as the rate of births and deaths actualy listed in later years is lower than would be expected. The conclusion has to be drawn that there are many people still listed who have actualy died and that similarly there are many births no-one has the slightest idea about.

Reitwiesner's list can be informative about a persons realtive position to another I dont think it can be used to determine a persons actual position in the last save for the first 50.

So although I think it is unfortunate that so much work by a number of dedicated people is no longer readily available to wikipedia readers I have reluctantly to agree with the decision made to curtail the list (That doesnt mean that I agree it should stop where it does). Lewisdl (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your as-of-2011 list - it's been really rather a long time since I was taught Latin, but I've always thought it was "legitimatio per matrimoniam subsequens" - have I been wrong this whole time? Opera hat (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

My Latin never covered that much , I merely used the same term that WAR used in his previous lists. Lewisdl (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Going by the inclusion of Nicholas and Leopold Windsor on the British monarchy's website's list, and a few other points, it looks as if children being brought up as Catholics are being excluded at the point they undergo confirmation, but it would help to have this clarified.

Also, people have sometimes claimed that the article is obliged to do what it says on the tin, i.e. put forward the complete line of succession to the British throne. Implicit in this argument is the claim that there is a finite line of succession, consisting of all the Protestant descendants of Sophia of Hanover. However, if the descendants of Sophia of Hanover failed then the succession could fall back on common law, and go to the other descendants of James VI and I, who are the descendants of Henriette Anne, youngest daughter of Charles I, or the other children of Elizabeth of Bohemia. When the present succession law was drawn they were excluded because they were Catholics, but the sheer number of such people now means that some of them could have become Protestants. See

She was passed over because the marriage of Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine to Marie Luise von Degenfeld was invalid. Opera hat (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No. As I understand it the act restricts the line of succession to the heirs of the body of the Electress Sophia. Should a situation arise whereby all the heirs are deceased Parliament would have to draw up another act of succession. What that act would say would be up to parliament to determine.Lewisdl (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This hinges on the issue of whether the divorce which ended Charles I Louis' first marriage was valid. I don't think the word "restricts" appears anywhere in the Act of Settlement. Not sure Parliament would have to draw up a fresh act of succession, I understand it that the new monarch is proclaimed by the Accession Council. We are getting into some complex issues and original research here. PatGallacher (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The Act laid down that only Protestant descendants of Princess Sophia - the Electress of Hanover and granddaughter of James I - are eligible to succeed. Subsequent Acts have confirmed this. To suggest anything else is original research, and to speculate as to what might happen to the succession in the extremely unlikely event of the heirs of the body of Electress Sophia dying out is

outside the scope of Wikipedia. Opera hat (talk

) 19:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Elector Palatine's second marriage: if it was regarded as valid, why was she only given the title Raugravine rather than Electress, and why did their children take their titles from their mother not their father? Opera hat (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Charles Louis' second marriage was morganatic. His children from that marriage could neither inherit his title nor would they have been considered eligible were the Act of Succession to apply to them. Bagbyb210 (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, I don't care nearly enough about this subject to wade into the eternal battle over whether to include a full list or not. But if we don't, the article certainly needs to make that fact absolutely clear up front, and provide at least an estimate of how long the actual list is! Until my edits today, the article seemed to imply that the list was limited to 62 people, which is embarrassing. Remember that we are writing an encyclopedia for NON-experts; they're our audience. Doops | talk 23:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The limit on the length is the sources. And there is no full list. 02:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)TFD (talk)

Oh, certainly. That's what my edit was trying to make clear. Doops | talk 03:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed ", but according to the estimates of various genealogical authors and amateur researchers, there are at present nearly 2000 people in the line." because it was uncited and seemingly inaccurate. I've seen amateur researcher attempts at tracing the line that go much beyond 2000 pages, the sentence as it stood implied that it terminated somewhere around there.

talk

) 02:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, some lists seem to have about 6000 names, but those are ones which ignore the Roman Catholic exclusion question. This article, before the trim, had roughly 2500. But if that level of specificity isn't justifiable, how about 'several thousand'? Doops | talk 03:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the Wall Street Journal (here) has recently reported that Karin Vogel is the last person in the line of succession, according to a "fairly confident" Dan Willis. Quite a few sources cited the (inaccurate and out of date) factoid that "if 4972 people died, she'd be queen". If you want a more accurate number, just say that Willis claims there's 1899 people in line as of 12 June 2011 (see here). Of course that's a personal website, so it's unsuitable for listing names (per BLP policy), but we could use it for numerics. Also, he doesn't list Albert and Leopold Windsor. Mlm42 (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The writer of the WSJ article Paul Sonne contacted me by email on the 26th August. He had learnt that I had updated WAR's List and wanted confirmation that Karin Vogel was still last in line. i spoke to him by phone that evening and informed him that according to my research and understanding of the rules governing the line of succession she was. Unfortunately he had already filed his story so was not able to correct the numbering.

His email reads as follows:-

From: Sonne, Paul [14] Sent: 26 April 2011 18:42 To: '[email protected]' Subject: Quick Phone Call

Hi David

I’m a reporter at The Wall Street Journal in London, and I’m writing a story about royal succession and see you have updated Bill Reitwiesner’s list. My story is due to run tomorrow, but was wondering if I could catch you for a quick phone call in the next hour or so.

Cheers

Paul

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Paul Sonne

The Wall Street Journal

[email protected]

Twitter: @paulsonne Lewisdl (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The article says that the line of succession follows descendants of Sophia, but actually it follows the "heirs". Considering that Edward III has an estimated millions of descendants, it would be a long list. TFD (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, the Act says "heirs of the body".

talk

) 21:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Numbers nuke the accuracy of the list for a number of reasons scattered amongst these talk pages. Past the very highest on the list, the numbering gets quite dubious the further one goes down. Figuring out who is last is an easy enough task but assigning a number to that individual is challenging, the birth and death rates of those included in between notwithstanding.Bagbyb210 (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed a mistake on the page. The sons of Lord Nicholas Windsor are listed as having places depite being baptised as Catholics. I don't agree with the Catholic ban, but it exists. I also think that the complete list should be bought back. It's an interesting geneological record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Needtosay (talk • contribs) 23:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There have been many discussions about this questions on the present talk page. Apparently it is not clear whether legally there is a difference between Anglican and Catholic baptism, and whether begin baptised Catholic in itself is sufficient to become a 'Papist' in the relevant sense. The Royal Family websites lists them as still in line. Hans Adler 13:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"Is Catholic" has been considered to happen at confirmation, not at birth nor Baptism. That has been the standard editing formula when the page was longer.Bagbyb210 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

But is there a source for this, or is this original research?

talk

) 19:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

We do not have a source for this explictly, but we do have the British monarchy website. PatGallacher (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I know everyone wants sources, but past revisions of the Royal Family web site would seem to suggest that ineligibility begins at either marriage to a Catholic or confirmation in that faith. The wayback machine http://wayback.archive.org/web/ provides a means to investigate these types of changes. And yes, I know that past numbering scheme does not get around the original research objection raised in earlier discussions.Bagbyb210 (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)