Talk:Line of succession to the British throne/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

For the two children born this year to the Crown Prince of Denmark - what does NN mean? 124.191.181.82 (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

NN means that they are not named. There is a latin expression but it escapes me at the moment. The twins probably do have names by which their parents identify them already but as yet they haven't been christened so the names are not official yet. hope that helps Lewisdl (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The current list shows shows King Michael being excluded from the line of succession because he married a catholic and his descendants are then listed from position 91.

I think this is incorrect for the following reasons

Prince Michael's father (King Carol II)was maried first to Joanna Lambrino and their descendents are listed immediately above King Michael. Although this marriage was later annulled by the Ilfov tribunal. This annulment was deemed illegal. King Micheal's Mother's marriage to his father was therefore bigamous and King Michael should therefore also be excluded from the list because he is illegitimate. However his wife is not. Therefore his children do have a position in the line of succession but much much further down. Lewisdl (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't the line through Carol II fail to qualify anyway because his mother, Princess Marie of Edinburgh, married a catholic? The children were brought up in the orthodox faith, but I can't find reference that Ferdinand converted before marriage. I can't seem to find Michael's wife in the succession at the moment, but the same would apply to her. Or is this another Kent situation? --Analog Kid (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope, Marie's children are included regardless of whether or not their father was Catholic. As long as the children are raised as something else, they (and future non-Catholic descendants) are included. See the children of Prince Michael of Kent, Prince Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands, Ileana Snyder, etc

Sorry just seen the article above NPOV please ignore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewisdl (talk • contribs) 15:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been doing some extensive research into the descendents of the Electress Sophia and actualy wonder whether it is ever possible to complete a list such as this.

It is 10 years since William Addams Rietweiser published his list of people elligible to inherit the throne as of the 1st January 2001. That list contained 0ver 4800 names. A new list of people eligible to inherit would have over 5800 names on it. A net increase of over 1000 people in 10 years. the actual number of people entering or and leaving the list is probably nearer 1500. Or nearly 3 a week. That means that the list would have to be edited and more importantly to be renumbred every two days on average.

Over the next 10 years this increase will only accellerate. Given also that there are now some pretty obscure lines where it is difficult to get accurate information immediately, it makes it, IMHO, very difficult to have a definitive up to date list of people elligible to inherit the throne. Add in the complication of religeon and I would say it is nigh on impossible.

Perhaps its time to take a new approach.

I think the best anyone could ever hope to acheive is to have a list such as WAR produced showing who was in line at a particular date. Every 5 years would seem reasonable. That list would remain static and of course gradualy go out of date. To over come that problem additions or deletions from the list could be listed in either chronological order at the bottom of the list with an indication of how they would effect the succession, or perhaps in the order they effect the succession. If such an approch had been addopted back in 2001 the Birth of Savannah Phillips would be top with just an explanation saying that she was now between Peter Philips and his sister Zara and everyone else listed below moves down a place. Similarly with a death the date the person died could be given and a note saying everbody listed afterwards moves up a place.

Does that sound like a sensible approach? Lewisdl (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why absolute up-to-dateness is so important. We should update as we find reliable sources that tell us of births, deaths, marriages to Catholics, and so forth. If the list is not, at any given moment, 100% accurate, I don't see why that is a particularly serious problem. john k (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed It's not essential to have an absolute up to date list. But a list that is up to date at a particular given time could be very useful. Firstly it wouldn't need any editing (unless of course subsequent information comes to light which shows it was wrong at that date) and secondly as suggested in my post above a list of subsequent births and deaths would be very easy to manage.Lewisdl (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Very useful for whom? Are we suggesting that we have different articles showing the complete Line of succession as at various selected times? Which times, and who would choose them? How is this encyclopedic and not simply a resource for private research? Why would it be important to know that, as at 1 January 2010, Benedictine Hermannsdorff von Frackelfeldt was 1,317th in line, but by 1 January 2015 she'd slipped to 1,398th? Really, this is going from the absurd to the insane. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok lets take this one step at a time Jack. Firstly do you agree it's impossible to have an accurate up to date list? personally I dont think it is. You of course may have an entirely different point of view. But if it isnt what are the alternatives. Plough on with a list that we accept will be inaccurate or come up with something different. I personally would prefer the latter.Lewisdl (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether it's possible or not is not the question. I've made my position very clear, that we have no business even having this list in Wikipedia, beyond a certain point. Exactly where that point is, is open to discussion, but it's way less than the full list. Anything after that is like fussing over whether the 1 millionth digit in the decimal expansion of π is 3 or 7. That may be a matter of some moment to a small number of pure mathematicians, but for everyone else in the world it's a matter of supreme indifference. Same with this full Line of Succession. If a small coterie of individuals care to know and work on these details, that's nice for them and more power to them, but let them conduct this activity away from Wikipedia. The relevance of this rant is that I don't even agree to having one complete list on WP, let alone potentially a whole suite of them. Hence my strong objections to the expansion mooted above. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

we will have to agree to differ Jack. I can't see how you can have an article entitled line of succession to the British Throne without it showing the complete line....right down to the end person currently Karin Vogel. Yes it's very long and growing more rapidly as time passes but until new legislation is passed to reduce the line, and there is no garuantee that it ever will, it is a situation we are stuck with. Cutting the line to 30, 60, after the descendents of victoria or anybody else is purely a random action.Lewisdl (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

We have an article on Nuclear physics. How can we contemplate having such an article without providing everything a nuclear physicist could possibly ever want to know, in all of its glorious mathematical and theoretical detail? That article is FAR less detailed than this Line of Succession article, and occupies FAR less space, yet I hear no complaints. It provides links to related subjects and to external sources of more detailed information. That's what an encyclopedia article does. It does not purport to present the entire subject in one article. "A situation we are stuck with" - yeah right! We are not victims here; we get to choose what information we provide to our readers. Is there any single place outside Wikipedia that presents to the reading public a list of names headed "List of Succession to the British Throne" or similar, that gives the entire list? Just one? No, not even one. None of them have ever laboured under this compulsion of which you speak. They stop at a reasonable point, because such a list is meant to to be indicative of all reasonable possibilities and maybe the first few extremely remote ones. Anything after that is purely theoretical and is of no interest to anyone, and there are no angry mobs wielding torches commandeering the streets demanding they have the full list of names. If there is zero demand for the full list except in the minds of certain Wikipedia editors, why is there this supply? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Reitwiesner's list? Listed the entire succession as of 2001 including Catholic but excluding illegitimate descendants.

talk

) 22:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That's one list out of how many others that don't feel compelled to go into such extraordinarily irrelevant detail. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the list, the demand is not zero. I am one; but add to that the more than 12,000 people who accessed the page in the last 30 days. The article ranked 5985 in traffic, and as there are more the 3.5 million article, this puts it in the top 1%. Alan Davidson (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I wonder how many of those people came here to laugh at how needlessly detailed it is (see, for example, the links from Digg or Cracked.com at the top of this page). Mlm42 (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Page views is no measure of anything except they wanted to to look at the article. We do not know which details of the list they were interested in or focussed on, but I'd bet pounds to peanuts they were mainly interested in those at or near the top of the lsit, not those at or near the bottom. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Lewisdl, I'm not sure how your suggestion of having the list in the format of "as of" X date, and then adding changes in a separate list below it would improve the article. We would still have all the same issues keeping up with the changes, and it seems that format would actually be harder to follow since we'd have to scroll up and down to see where a particular new person fit in, or check to see if someone has been added to the deceased list. Actually, I just re-read your original post in this section and I think I understand now--you mentioned the need to renumber the list for every addition/deletion, but we don't have to do that. We aren't typing the actual numbers next to each name, the numbers are generated automatically. LarryJeff (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a great WIKI editor but if the list is numbered automatically ( using an LI tag???)that makes things a great deal simpler. However I still stick to my point about having it set at certain dates like the beginning of a decade. It is IMHO impossible to say that the list is 100% up to date at any given time. Births and deaths are occuring at the rate of 3 a week. However most are detected/reported within a year or so of them happenning. by having fixed dates you know that the list was as accurate as it could be at that date. I'll concede that even this isnt fool proof as W.A.Rs list of 2001 still missed some births and deaths that had occured before 1 Jan 2001.Lewisdl (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This is kind of fun. Every other week or so someone new pops up and points out how ridiculous this article is - with always the same people defending it with always the same arguments. As for demand... going through the interwiki links, other language WP's provide anything from 13 to 318 entries, with an average of 78.6 entries and a median of 55 entries. Apparently that's enough for anyone except the hobbyist royalty genealogists here that are probably laughing their backsides off that they are able to continue this OR folly, being linked all over the web for anything from "longest article" to "most stupid WP page". Yes I know, "it's the law" and "we have sources for every change" and all that. Just for the sake of repeating it all over again, "the law" is only interested in #1 on the list at the point the reigning monarch dies (while I admit the yellow press is probably interested in the first 20 or so to send their paparazzis after). And there are no sources whatsoever to prove that this list here is the line of succession at any given time... -- DevSolar (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

why is the article so long if it is only supposed to talk about people from Britain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.36.146.92 (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It isn't only supposed to talk about people from Britain. The line of succession is limited to those people who are descendants of the Electress Sophia. Her Children were German (Hanovarian} and never stepped foot in Britain. Her descendants have married into most of the Royal Families of Europe.

The line is finite i.e there is someone who is first and someone who is last. Lewisdl (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There has been considerable discussion regarding several issues with this article. In some cases the issues are fairly complicated. But I think my main concerns have not been adequately addressed, and I'd like a few more opinions. Let me summarize the situation as follows:

1. This list heavily uses
   WP:SYNTH
   , in that the rules for the line of succession are applied to update the list, without any reliable source actually publishing an updated list.
2. It is unclear how exactly we should interpret some of the rules, because different sources appear to use different rules.

For this reason, I think that to choose a single numbering of the line of succession (and hence to even have a list) violates

The two rules in questions are the (poorly worded)

To expand on these points, I'll repeat some of what I said in previous threads. The Roman Catholic rule is that "Anyone who is Roman Catholic, becomes Roman Catholic, or marries a Roman Catholic is permanently excluded from the succession." Sounds easy enough; but the problem is that one of the article's main sources (Reitwiesner 2001), states that "these clauses have never been invoked to prevent someone from succeeding to the Crown, so their precise meaning (as far as the Succession is concerned) has never been determined." Indeed Reitwiesner includes Roman Catholics in his list, but we do not. The problem is also brought to light with the problem of Albert Windsor - currently 30th in line, according to our list. Albert was baptised Roman Catholic, yet the Monarchy's official website lists him as in the line of succession. So it's not clear whether children born to Roman Catholic parents are removed from the line at birth, at baptism, or at confirmation. Since it's never been tested, we don't really know. Mlm42 (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This is all problematic. I've suggested in the past that we include all descendants of Sophia, except those for whom we have reliable sources that they are Catholic. But that creates a situation where well documented Catholics like Lord Nicholas Windsor or the King of Spain are excluded, but poorly documented likely Catholics are included, even if we're fairly sure they are not in line. I'm not sure whether

WP:SYNTH really applies here. Are we synthesizing sources to push a novel hypothesis? I'm not sure that we are. But there are definitely serious problems with the list as currently conceived. Removing the numeration, maybe for everyone past the Duke of Gloucester's descendants, might be a good start. john k (talk

) 06:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

When I say we are applying WP:SYNTH, I mean the bit where it says ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." In updating the list, (i.e. adding or removing entries) without having a source that gives a full list, we are synthesizing sources: "A" says that number 105 in line has their first child, "B" says children get a place in the line of succession, and therefore "C" the child is in the line of succession at 106, and number 106 becomes 107, 107 becomes 108, etc. all the way down. Even if no source says explicitly that the child is in the line, we may deduce that they are; and we may further deduce everyone below is shifted down by one. This is okay, because other sources have published the same argument before. We are using WP:SYNTH is a very big way. The problem is that different sources publish different arguments regarding the grey areas I've pointed out, and it's POV to choose one. Mlm42 (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

A better one would be to accept that you don't know what the position is and to remove everything after No 30 onto some genealogy site outside Wikipedia and to replace it with a simple statement about the known problems in the interpretation of the two Acts of Parliament. AnthonyCamp (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)..

There are known problems in interpreting the RMA, certainly. I'm not convinced there are known problems in the interpretation of the Act of Settlement. Could you point to some reliable sources that address such purported problems? john k (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If the late Mr Reitwiesner is "one of the article's main sources" can you not also accept his statement (quoted above) that the "precise meaning" of the appropriate clauses "(as far as the Succession is concerned) has never been determined". AnthonyCamp (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC).

It seems to be pretty generally accepted, though, that marriage to a Catholic means removal from the succession (witness

Autumn Kelly's conversion to Anglicanism before marrying Peter Phillips) and conversion to Catholicism likewise (Lord Nicholas Windsor). Does the confusion arise over those who have been born Catholic, such as Albert and Leopold Windsor? Might a Catholic-born heir have the option of converting in order to succeed, like Henry IV of France only the other way around? Opera hat (talk

) 18:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That would seem to be where confusion arises. If you look at the wording to the act, the things that disqualify you are 1) marrying a papist; 2) professing the popish religion; 3) being reconciled to the see or church of Rome; and 4) holding communion with the see or church of Rome. I'm not sure which of those things would apply to an infant who was baptized Catholic. An infant couldn't profess the popish religion, but I'm not sure about the last two. john k (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

OK then. Leave in italics anyone with the superscription XMP, and restore to the line anyone who previously had the superscription XP unless a separate source can be cited for their conversion to Roman Catholicism. Of course, most of the people labelled "XP" at the moment have themselves married Catholics, which would have to be separately cited again before the XMP superscription could be applied to them. Opera hat (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't think we should source the people currently with an XMP superscription? john k (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes. That too. Opera hat (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it not quite bizarre that anyone should think that if a minor who had been baptised a Catholic inherited the throne, that the throne would become 'dormant' until that child made up its mind what religion it wanted to be! AnthonyCamp (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC).

Could not someone put in a written request to the official BRF website to ask them to clarify the line of succession? We know it's not 100% accurate because of the placement of Lady Helen Taylor and her children, so why not contact the webmasters to help sort it out?

talk

) 05:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I know that several people have written asking for a correction - months ago! The website is full of errors; cf. this discussion. Noel S McFerran (talk)

A poll

I suppose I could have been more clear, but the specific question I wanted comments on, was whether people believe it is possible or impossible to improve this list (whose subject is the "Line of succession to the British throne") to a point were it satisfies NPOV, without shortening it dramatically. Mlm42 (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Impossible - my reasons are explained at the beginning of this section. Mlm42 (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Impossible - as anyone who reads this discussion can see.AnthonyCamp (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC).
• Impossible: The sources simply aren't there. Not to mention that the only way to improve this list by any significant margin is to make it readable and easy-to-understand (i.e. to shorten it significantly). —Half Price 19:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Possible. Whether or not someone is descended from Electress Sophia is verifiable and (I would have thought) uncontroversial. The NPOV part seems to involve whether or not someone counts as a Papist and what impact this has. This conflict could be avoided by just noting (and citing) whether or not someone is a Roman Catholic, summarising some of the arguments about what this means at the head of the article, and leaving the reader to draw his own conclusions. As to the length, there's no reason why remoter or more boring descendants can't be put behind those show/hide things, to avoid bothering the casual visitor with a ridiculously long page, but retaining the information for readers who want to know. Opera hat (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This would mean removing the numbers from anyone past the point where their inclusion or not gets arguable - which would probably coincide nicely with the cut-off point on the Royal Family website. Opera hat (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Just to be clear, do you believe that the only possible way to satisfy NPOV is by removing the numbering beyond the first contentious point (i.e. very early)? Mlm42 (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't say it was "the only possible way", just that I haven't thought of any other ways myself yet. I await others' comments. Opera hat (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• Totally biased question This is like asking "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" The people who regularly make content edits to this article haven't agreed that it violates NPOV. Noel S McFerran (talk)
  • I'm not sure you speak for everyone who regularly make content edits on this article. One possible response is "yes I believe it is possible, and in fact I believe it currently satisfies NPOV".. so I don't see why the question is biased. Mlm42 (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• My solution for this page would be to move it to something like
  talk
  ) 13:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That seems like a reasonable solution to me. Mlm42 (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That would be a VERY different article from the present one. Instead of beginning with Charles, William, and Harry, it would begin with Edward Harold Birkbeck, his children, and siblings - the descendants of the eldest illegitimate son of William IV (none of whom are in the line of succession). Charles, William, and Harry wouldn't even appear in the first hundred people listed. That's assuming, of course, that sons and their descendants are listed before daughters and their descendants. If, on the other hand, it were considered appropriate to list children and their descendants in birth order (regardless of gender), then the list would begin with the Dowager Princess of Wied and her children (presently nos. 694 and 552-556). While a list of the living descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover, is interesting, I'm not sure that it warrants a Wikipedia article. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, you could have Living legitimate descendants of Sophia of Hanover, and it could list it in the traditional succession order for convenience sake, but I don't see why we couldn't just do what Opera Hat suggests instead. john k (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Opera hat's suggestion is fine too.
        talk
        ) 08:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Possible - more or less what Opera Hat says above. john k (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Should we remove the numbers now?

Based on the responses above, it seems to me that the idea of removing the numbering from everyone in the line after (approx.) number 30 (as per Opera Hat's suggestion), is gaining consensus. Is that a fair interpretation? Mlm42 (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally I don’t see the point in removing the numbers. It’s well known the Habsburg’s, Bourbon’s, Wittelsbach’s etc Catholic families so they are listed without numbers. Other families’ religions are also known. It’s a rough list of course it’s not 100% accurate but I don’t think it’s that much of problem that all the numbers after 30, or whatever random number is chosen, should be removed. I certainly don’t envy the people that would have to change thousands of listings to remove the number code if it’s agreed to remove them, which is unneeded in my view. - dwc lr (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

But what about the Albert and Leopold issue? Mlm42 (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

My personal preference would be to consider them excluded on the basis that they were baptized in the Catholic Church, and to treat the royal website's inclusion of them as a mistake, especially since they obviously would not come after their aunt if they were in the line of succession. But I'm not sure we can do that because there don't seem to be any reliable sources on the subject. ETA: google searching, I found this forum thread, which quotes from a column by Richard Kay in the Daily Mail on Albert's birth to the effect that that he would only remain in the line of succession until his baptism. Kay also managed to successfully place Albert as 26th in line for the throne, rather than the 32nd that the royal website's nonsense would have had it, so I'd say he's already demonstrated himself a more reliable source than the royal website. john k (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with their exclusion. - dwc lr (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with DWC. Of course it gets trickier once you move to the non-titled non-QV descendants, but most are still easy to interpret. For example, the only issue with removing numbers at 30 is Albert & Leopold Windsor. Beyond that, for a large chunk of people, their religion is known. The Duke of Kent, his daughter and her descendants, Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella, Princess Alexandra's children and grandchildren and the Gloucesters are Anglican, the Lascelles are Anglican/Protestant (or disqualified due to illegitimacy) the Fifes are Anglican, the Norwegian Royal Family are Protestant aside from Princess Ragnhild's youngest daughter and her child (see this article which verifies the inclusion and Protestantism of a large chunk of George V's descendants (born by 2002 or earlier) The Romanian RF is Orthodox (iirc, Princess Irina's children are Protestant) while Princess Ileana's descendants are mostly Catholic, etc. So honestly, the main issue with the first part of this list is whether or not Albert & Leopold qualify. If we could find out from some kind of official source whether or not a Catholic baptism means in infancy (which discounts the Windsor boys) or only upon confirmation like with their cousins (were the Kent grandchildren raised and baptised Protestant?) then we would have a simple solution and a fairly accurate list, at least where Queen Victoria's descendants are concerned.

talk

) 12:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think saying "these people's religion is well known" is good enough - we need actual citations to reliable sources for each person (or at least for the family for children). john k (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well in theory one could cite from an Almanach de Gotha or Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels as these publications list the religion of titled families. For instance I added The Count of Toerring-Jettenbach and family the other day. Now I have no idea of the top of my head what religion the family is, so I looked at a AdG it says Catholic, so I added them as skipped. - dwc lr (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That would seem like a perfectly reasonable source. john k (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The norm is this article (not always followed perhaps) is to include people in line, unless there is some evidence of papistry. E.g. the Windisch-Graetz princesses are excluded, but the McEwens and Weston-Bakers (about no. 1715 onwards) are included because there is no evidence of papistry. I could ask their cousin (whom I know) - but that would be original research. Noel S McFerran (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What constitutes such evidence, though? What evidence do we have that, say, Ferdinand Zarbl is Catholic? john k (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I knew a couple of members of the families currently listed in the 1720s at University, and they are very definitely Catholic. But, as you say, in the absence of "reliable third party sources" one can't list people as Catholics just because one knows they are. It might be easier to cite marriages in Catholic churches, as more likely to be published than confirmations. Proof of baptism as a Catholic wouldn't be sufficient to exclude someone, as the Royal Family website shows. Because of all this difficulty with sources I think it would be easier not to exclude anyone, and remove the numbers for that reason. Opera hat (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

So I gather there is no consensus here to remove the numbers.. I find this unfortunate. Mlm42 (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of including italicized entries? They are excluded from the line therefore their descendants are also. If that is right, what is the benefit of listing them?

The article currently includes a number of statements like "The bloodline of Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll (1848–1939) is extinct". This article is about the current line (i.e. the living) and normally does not list dead people (with the exception of a few individuals needed to show the family relationships of the living). Since the article is not a genealogy of all the descendants of Sophia, I suggest removing these bloodline statements - with the exception of the few which refer to illegitimate descendants (replacing these with a statement saying the descendants of the illegitimate children of X are not included in line). Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Alan Davidson (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I asked

It is reliable to say what the succession line was on 1 Jan 2001, to use that list and say it also the succession today then it would not be reliable, but other sources have been used to update this list on Wikipedia not just a ten year old list. I don’t understand the obsession with trying to see to it that this list is cut to a random number. - dwc lr (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm only trying to get this article to conform to Wikipedia's standards. Reitwiesner is a

self-published source, as far as I can tell. Mlm42 (talk

) 03:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Of particular interest is the sentence: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." (emphasis is not mine) Mlm42 (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think he is an "established expert", maybe I am mistaken though. - dwc lr (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Anybody who says that Reitwiesner was not a reliable source (he died last year), just doesn't know anything about royal genealogy. Reitwiesner was the most respected royal and presidential genealogist of his time (at least in North America). It was he who was called upon to research the genealogies of major presidential candidates and potential royal spouses. When newspapers reported that Obama (for example) was a 12th cousin of somebody else famous, you can bet that the source was Reitwiesner. Unlike those of us who merely "play" at royal genealogy, Reitwiesner was a master of original research. Reitwiesner is not being used as a source for an article about a living person, but as a source for an article about the line of succession; that's not what

Wikipedia:Use common sense. Noel S McFerran (talk

) 03:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Noel, are you suggesting that this article should be an exception to the

verifiability policy? Mlm42 (talk

) 16:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that at all. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy, "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". None of the particular prescriptions of this policy are absolute; they have to be weighed against other Wikipedia policies. There are five Wikipedia pillars which stand above individual policies. The fifth of these is "Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules on Wikipedia are not carved in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule." Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Is royal.gov.uk a self-published source? Opera hat (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I would imagine so as it’s the Royal Family’s own site. It’s probably impossible to present a line of succession at all if people want to fanatically follow the “standards”. - dwc lr (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPS begins "Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published ..." The section is clearly about a source written and published by an individual (as opposed to an organisation). Noel S McFerran (talk

) 00:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

How many other genealogists have an article about their death published by The Washington Post? The Post thought that he was a reliable source; two wiki-editors without any expertise in this area think otherwise. Guess who I believe? Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Reitwiesner was, in my opinion, an industrious collector of material from secondary sources, but his published tables have almost no authority as they cite no contemporary sources in the way that, for instance, you will find in L'Allemagne Dynastique. He was interested in pure genealogy but the effects of religion and the Royal Marriages Act largely escaped his attention. The insistence that 29 is a 'random number' completely hides the fact that it is at this point that the list of those in the line of succession becomes hypothetical because nobody knows how the Acts of Parliament would be interpreted. Consequently the list has no value beyond that point. AnthonyCamp (talk) 09:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC).

Reitwiesner, although highly regarded as an expert in the descendants of the Electress Sophia (amongst many other things), still wasn,t perfect. His 2001 list omits people who should have been included and includes people who were already dead. However the same applies to this list on wikipedia and many other "descendants of" lists available on line as well. It is , IMHO, virtualy impossible to have a completely up to date list. All that can be realistically achieved is a list that contains all known descandants at any given time. Lewisdl (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

— Lewisdl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have also started this discussion, regarding Reitwiesner as a reliable source; in particular with respect to information about living people. Mlm42 (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Today

I'd appreciate it if people expressed their preferences. Thanks! Mlm42 (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm personally in favour of option 4 (would also be okay with option 3 or option 5). I think converting to prose is a good compromise, because information about the different lines can remain in the article (while not striving to be exhaustive), the issue of being of Roman Catholic or not can be more properly explained, and the NPOV numbering problems would disappear. Noel pointed out that we already have a prose article Succession to the British throne, but this article does not discuss details of the current line of succession (it's more about the rules, and its history). If a big change like this were to be made, then it's probably best to start such an article in user space, and then transfer it over. Mlm42 (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm personally in favour of leaving it as it is. The title of the article is the line of succession to the British Throne. That line has a beginning and an end. It would be great if the article was up to date but that is nigh on impossible. But what is important is how the various marriages between descendants have affected the line. There are very few sources that have that information so Wikipedia is a great If incomplete resource. Lewisdl (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Other editors may be interested to learn that Lewisdl's only contributions to Wikipedia have been on this talk page. Mlm42 (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Other editors may be interested to learn that Mlm42 has only ever made four contributions to this article (although he has contributed to many other articles). Any Wikipedia editor (including Lewisdl and Mlm42) can comment on a talk page. Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Lewisdl: as you say that keeping the article up to date is "nigh on impossible", and that "what is important is how the various marriages between descendants have affected the line", why do you still support the article definitively stating, as it presently does, that (for example) Christopher Steffanowski is 1409th in line, when he almost certainly isn't? Why do you favour option 1 over option 3? Opera hat (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps Mlm42 should take a second look at the article Succession to the British throne; for the past three months it has included "details of the current line of succession" (up to number 20) - which is largely what Mlm42 wants this article to be (except that he arbitrarily wants the list to end about number 60). Perhaps if somebody added forty individuals to the other article he would be satisfied (?). Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe I wasn't clear about what I mean by "converting to prose".. I mean having sections like "Descendants of Frederick, Prince of Wales", and discuss people who are notable for other things (i.e. those that have a Wikipedia article), and how they fit into the line - without assigning them a number. Mlm42 (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• There is general Wikipedia consensus that every article on Wikipedia should be changed. There is never a perfect article. Even with historic figures, there are always new publications which have to be considered. This article is no different; it should continue to be edited and improved. This may include additions and removals (as people are born, marry or die), corrections (whether minor or substantial), improvements in citations, and even format changes (e.g. JamesyWamesy's current mission of improvement). Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Noel, I take it you are in favour of option 1 or 2, then? By the way, you have already disclosed that you may have personal relationships with people in the line of succession; if someone has personal relationships with people in the line of succession, then they may have a
  WP:LISTPEOPLE). Mlm42 (talk
  ) 19:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• What an absolutely preposterous suggestion! Nowhere on the vested interest page does it include "editor's mother used to attend the same church as the cousin of somebody listed". With a list of over 4,000 people - many of whom are quite prominent, it's not hard for an editor to have met some of these people. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with number one. Keep as is. Note that there is already a descendants of George V article. Alan Davidson (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So there is. Which is presumably intended as an argument against 5 and 6. What are your objections to 2 and 3? Opera hat (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• I definitely think it needs better inline citations. Everyone on the list should have a citation as to their descent and (if in italics) their religion. The removing-the-numbers idea is one I've previously supported. This is partly because of the lone (but vocal) opposition of AnthonyCamp - he seems to be the only person who differs from what is otherwise pretty much the consensus on Catholic/RMA exclusion, but he does make a good point, that nobody really knows how these Acts would be interpreted if it ever came to it. It's also because in the remoter lines it would be extremely difficult to find a published source as to Catholicism either way, so whether to leave someone out of the numbering or not becomes almost arbitrary. Opera hat (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

And also by that stage, to attempt to be as exact as to assign an actual number to an individual (as opposed to just saying "if they are in line then they come after so-and-so and before such-and-such") is ridiculous. Opera hat (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Opera hat, you'll notice there is even opposition to add more inline citations. Mlm42 (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside all the other problems for one moment, one of the clean up tags on the article is "confusing". I find it confusing myself, and I don't think I'm immodest when I say I'm far more knowledgable about the subject matter than the average visitor. One of the things I find confusing are the section headings, which are used to indicate the descent from Sophia, but nowhere is it explained that Frederick, Prince of Wales, for example, is the father of George III. There is also considerable repetition of lines of descent, and the connection between the headings is not immediately apparent. I would like to suggest re-organising the article along the lines of a mock-up in my sandbox

I definitely like the idea of having better sectioning. It would also be nice to see links like

See also:

Line of succession to the Norwegian throne

Inserted where appropriate. An advantage of having much of the list replaced with prose, is that we could mention things like how the Line of succession to the Norwegian throne differs from to the British one (Ingrid and Sverre are swapped, because there's no male-preference in the Norwegian one). Mlm42 (talk

) 17:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I definitely concur that improvements are possible (and needed) in the sectioning and section heading. However, I would prefer to put off this project for several weeks (at least). We still have an incomplete change in the formatting of parents and children (begun by

DrKiernan would, in my opinion, merely add to these criticisms. Noel S McFerran (talk

) 23:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually like DrKiernan's section headings, because they show how the various royal families are related. This is something that readers are likely to be interested in; and I don't think it's original research to point out who is in which royal family. The original research comes from claims of illigitimacy, or removing people from the line because of Roman Catholic-ness. Mlm42 (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The article currently contains a section entitled "Statistical tables" which includes the number of descendants of George I and Victoria in specific years as well as certain other trivia (e.g. when the first Danish prince was in line). Since this material is not primarily about the current line of succession (i.e. the presently living), I suggest removing this material, copying some of it to other pages (e.g. Succession to the British throne, History of the British line of succession, or the articles on George I and Victoria. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, for the reasons stated, I agree. Alan Davidson (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not hearing any objections after five days, I have moved the section to the article Succession to the British throne. Noel S McFerran (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• The term ^XP is inserted after a name to show that the individual is excluded from the line because he is a papist.
  DrKiernan suggests that we use the term ^XC and the term "Roman Catholic". The law, the Act of Settlement, uses the term "papist". I think that we should use this term, with an explanation. Noel S McFerran (talk
  ) 00:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because the Act of Settlement does something, doesn't mean we have to. I think the more normal term is "Roman Catholic", so it makes sense to use it. Mlm42 (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Catholic is less confusing to the casual reader. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I prefer "Catholic" since by removing "papist" we can shorten the explanation and "papist" can have negative connotations.

talk

) 09:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"Just because the Act of Settlement does something, doesn't mean we have to." What an extraordinary statement in reference to an article about a legal topic. It would be usual to use the terms used in the law (even if they have "negative connotations"). What about a

Maronite? Neither one would describe himself as a "Roman Catholic" and yet is definitely excluded on account of holding "communion with the see or Church of Rome". Noel S McFerran (talk

) 10:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any Ukrainian Catholics or Maronites in line.

talk

) 08:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The monarch must be in communion with the Church of England and the Church of England is both Catholic and Reformed. I remember being bidden at school (though not much since, I'm afraid) to pray "for Christ's Holy Catholic Church, that is, for the whole congregation of Christian people dispersed throughout the world". Excluding someone as a "Catholic" doesn't make much sense when the Church of England regards itself as Catholic. Opera hat (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Then perhaps we can still use ^XC but in the legend specify "Roman Catholic." -JamesyWamesy (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Should we list people with
  substantive titles
  as:

"The King of Smithland" or "Bob, King of Smithland"

"The Prince of Brownsville" or "Pat, Prince of Brownsville"

"The Duchess of Jonestown" or "Tanya, Duchess of Jonestown". Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think substantive titles are fine without the name as that is the way the person is properly referred, as noted in the "Titles and Styles" section of each person's respective wiki page, eg.
  The Prince of Wales. -JamesyWamesy (talk
  ) 03:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• I think the piping should be removed to reduce the size of the page in virtually all cases. For the ones that I did earlier, I don't believe these are substantive titles. For example, Peter is not The Hereditary Prince of Yugoslavia; Yugoslavia does not exist and the monarchy was abolished 30 years before he was born. Maria Vladimirovna is not The Grand Duchess of Russia, she is a Romanov princess and her son is a Prussian prince, not a Russian grand duke. Andreas Leiningen is not The Prince of Leiningen; Andreas Fürst zu Leiningen is his name. These so-called "substantive titles" are merely diplomatic courtesies to me.
  talk
  ) 09:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Someone else had started with "The Prince of Wales (The Prince Charles)"; "The Duke of York (The Prince Andrew)"; "The King of Norway (Harald)", so when I put my new formatting in place, I did the same with everyone I thought had a substantive title, even if it was in pretension. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• What about the Counts of Wisborg and Rosenborg? Is it proper to list them as "Carl Oskar Bernadotte, Count of Wisborg" / "Axel, Count of Rosenborg" or as "Count Carl Oskar Bernadotte of Wisborg" / "Count Axel of Rosenborg"? Both seem to be used within and outside of Wikipedia. Which should we use? -JamesyWamesy (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I propose several changes in the way we do inline citations with superscript codes:

1. place the code at the very end of the name (i.e. after the birth year)

2. if the person is excluded (and therefore italicized), do not italicize the superscript code explaining the reason or the source

3. place a superscript code for exclusion before a superscript code for the source, and separate these codes with a slash, e.g. ^{XM / W}

4. separate multiple codes for sources by a space, e.g. ^{XM / H W} (but only cite multiple sources if really necessary

5. if appropriate, add volume and page numbers after the superscript code for a source, e.g. ^{W 345}

See

And which source shall be used for the illegitimacy claims? Mlm42 (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Only two days ago I wrote "In virtually every case where this fact is noted there is information in a reliable print source giving the date of birth and the date of marriage of the parents. It is not original research or synthesis to see that one date precedes the other (cf.

Wikipedia:CALC#Routine_calculations which specifically cite's the example of calculating a person's age. Noting that somebody was born to two people who were not at the time married to each other is merely citing a fact; it is not making a moral judgment on the individual or his parents. Noel S McFerran (talk

) 00:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

But the problem comes Noel when there is no record of a marriage at all. I have found numerous recently born descendants where I cant find any marriage of their parents. In the more well known descendants it's well documented wether the parents married but in some of the more obscure descendants its almost impossible to be sure that a couple never married. Its easy to assume that because we cant find a marriage that the children are therefore illegitimate but that may not be the case.Lewisdl (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with citations in the normal way, like this?
 The Lord Gnome^[1]
 E.J. Thribb^[1]

1. ^ ^{a b} Willis, p. 94

Would it take up too much space? Opera hat (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The superscript citations were first (I think) used to show reasons for exclusion; I personally think that it is more useful to have this information right next to an individual's name, rather than a link to the bottom of the page. It would take approximately twice as many characters to do this ^[1] (22 characters with a short name like Willis, but you have to have an even longer first citation) rather than ^{W 94} (12 charactes). Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and on the point about those clamouring for citations taking responsibility for adding them - in the first place, not everyone has ready access to multiple volumes of GHdA, and secondly, the onus is on someone changing an article to provide evidence for their change. Otherwise anyone else is perfectly justified in deleting it. Opera hat (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the volume/page numbers are too much. I've never seen any other article do this inline. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying you've never seen an article specifying page numbers to references? I thought that was pretty standard fare these days (per

WP:CITE). Mlm42 (talk

) 02:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure I've seen it as a footnote, but inline it looks to cluttered in my opinion. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

What the inline citations should be saying

I think there are two fundamental pieces of information that should be provided with each line. Firstly, a reference which actually justifies their position in the list (this is essentially genealogical information, and is probably just a Willis page number). Secondly, if they are excluded from the line of succession (i.e. they don't have a number), then there should be a source justifying this. Notice that simply saying "XP", isn't enough; we should be giving an actual source; otherwise it's original research. Mlm42 (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And that is exactly what the GHdA citations supply. But (as can be seen from above) some people don't want the specificity of volume and page numbers. Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

By "some people", you're referring to JamesyWamesy's comment above? Mlm42 (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think JamesyWamesy is objecting to the the volume and page numbers, just their appearance inline. I think it's important the volume and page numbers are there, but I suppose it's just a matter of personal preference whether they appear inline or in a footnote (unless there's some wikipedia guidance that says otherwise?). As Noel McFerran seems to be the one doing all the work at the moment, I'd say however he chooses to do it should prevail - it must be a bit annoying to laboriously add all these names, only for a load of people on the talk page to say they don't like it and tell him to go back and do it again differently. Opera hat (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't matter much to me how the citations look; the important part is that however they look, they provide the reader with the necessary information. Mlm42 (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, a source would be needed to justify removing people due to illegitimacy, of course. Mlm42 (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Split into two pages

There is ongoing concern about the length of this page. There is also ongoing concern about the need for more specific citations. These concerns are in conflict with each other (i.e. more citations means a longer page).

It has previously been suggested that the page be split into two. I think that the major objection has been the difficulty with continuous numbering between the pages. In fact, it is possible to have continuous numbering between two pages. Here is an example:

naming conventions

. There would be a redirect from the current page name to "Line of succession to the British throne: 1".

I suggest that the break occur between the descendants of Frederick, Prince of Wales and his sister Anne, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange (i.e. around the 1106/1107 mark); this is the closest major genealogical break to half-way.

In responding to this suggestion, please do not comment on other concerns about this page (adding citations, removing numbers, changing names); they can all be left for another discussion. Are you in favour of splitting the page as outlined above? Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment The page is already split, twice. The first 20 names are at
  talk
  ) 07:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• There are other pages which have a tiny amount of content duplicated from this page (less than 1% and less than 5% respectively). But that counts as another concern. Noel S McFerran (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• No, it is the same concern. I am against splitting the page as you suggest as it simply creates two awful articles out of one awful article, but I might consider splitting it another way, which creates one reasonable article out of the mess of this one.
  talk
  ) 09:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• No split Alan Davidson (talk) 09:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• No JamesyWamesy (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• No. I don't really see the problem with a long article myself. The main objections as far as I can see have been to do with the length and scope of the list rather than the length of the article (if you see what I mean), and just splitting it wouldn't overcome that. Splitting would also make the second, less notable part more vulnerable to future deletion. Opera hat (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• No. Agree with Opera hat Lewisdl (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

List of other royal and princely houses

There was formerly a page List of other royal and princely houses in the line of succession to the British throne; this page was created in 2007 with content spun-off from this page. I say "formerly", because today an editor has replaced the content of that page with a redirect just to the Line itself (which is basically an underhanded way of deleting the page without discussion). While I personally don't see the need for this information, I think that others should be made aware of this action. Here's a quick link to the former content. Noel S McFerran (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Honorifics

• Should we include honorifics such as HM, HRH, HSH, HG, etc.? Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I think it would be good to get rid of them. A) It would shorten the page. B) As DrKiernan notes, it fails to comply with
    MOS:HONORIFIC. C) Sometimes the proper honorific is hard to find as not many sources include them in their lists of successions/family trees. -JamesyWamesy (talk
    ) 03:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I think they should all be removed, as unnecessary for the purposes of the page, but the ones I removed are not official anyway. They are titles of pretense.
    talk
    ) 09:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• I have certainly thought about this in the past and am somewhat open to the suggestion myself. One concern I have however is that all the other
  Belgium). Noel S McFerran (talk
  ) 10:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Should the honorific "The Hon." or "The Honorable" be removed? Noel S McFerran (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Should the honorific "The" before "Lady Firstname Lastname" be removed? Noel S McFerran (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• I dont have a problem either way. The honorifics are of interest to some people but could be found from other wikipedia sourcesLewisdl (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• I tend to think that they should generally be included, as they are useful pieces of information - certainly this is the case for the ones in currently existing royal families, and I think also for the so-called "titles of pretense" when they are widely recognized by other royal families. I think removing the "The" in most cases is fine, but that "Hon." should be kept. john k (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"male-preference cognatic primogeniture"

In the article, it states:

It is restricted to the legitimate Protestant heirs of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, and is order by male-preference cognatic primogeniture.

However, on the

cognatic

article page it seems to state that "male-preference primogeniture" and "cognatic primogeniture" are in fact one and the same thing:

"Male preference primogeniture" (also known as "mixed-female succession" and as "cognatic" primogeniture) allows a female to succeed if she has no living brothers and no deceased brothers who left surviving legitimate descendants.

This therefore makes the phrase "male-preference cognatic primogeniture" used in this article confusing as it is somewhat tautological. Should it not instead be "male-preference/cognatic primogeniture" or "male-preference (or cognatic) primogeniture"?

talk

) 01:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This is incorrect, as I understand it. There is male-preference cognatic primogeniture, where males and females can succeed, but males precede females, as in the UK; but there is also absolute cognatic primogeniture, where males and females can succeed, but based strictly on birth order, as in Sweden today. john k (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The term I'm familiar with to describe the British and similar systems of inheritance is simply "male-preference primogeniture". What does the "cognatic" add? I noticed some years ago that as Continental monarchies began to abolish restrictions on female inheritance, their preferred term for this was "cognatic primogeniture", whereas the usual term in English was "absolute primogeniture", cognatic not having been commonly employed to describe succession rules. The use of "cognatic" then began to be included in any term which indicated a form of succession that allowed females to inherit. I think it's a clumsy mix and would prefer that "cognatic" not be used in English, since it's an over-literal translation for terms that have long-accepted English equivalents. FactStraight (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"Of" or "Von"

Most people in this list have their titles translated to English. I had changed the Barons of Holzhausen, but it has been changed back to von Holzhausen. I understand if it is a proper last name, but if it is a title refering to a location, shouldn't the preposition be translated to English as well? -JamesyWamesy (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

In the case of European titles below prince, there are very few contemporary English-language sources which translate von (or zu, or de). Google Books: "baron of holzhausen" (4) "baron von holzhausen" (56). Wikipedia should follow the general practice of other English-language works today. It may get murkier with mediatized counts especially with the ones who have a prince at the head of their house, e.g. the brother of the Prince of Quadt, is Count Bertram of Quadt (or Count Bertram von Quadt); but that's a pretty small number. Von/zu/de should be normative with titles below prince (with the occasional exception). Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Names like "Schaffgotsch gennant Semperfrei von und zu Kynast und Grieffenstein" should not be translated into English. Opera hat (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I, too, agree. Most continental noble titles were part of the name (Spain being a notable exception), and WP policy doesn't call for translating surnames unless an English version is obviously more common (e.g. "Orange" rather than "Oranien", "von Furstenberg" rather than "zu Furstenberg"). Most current English texts (aside from some genealogical and monarchist websites) don't translate the particule unless the family reigned at some point post-Napoleon (the exception being for families whose particule is indecipherable to the average English speaker, e.g. Chinese, Hindu -- even Hungarian and Bohemian nobility, by literary tradition, usually employ the French de rather than the English "of". The Scandinavian af and av are close enough to "of", I think, to be left untranslated. Burke's Guide to the Royal Family (1973), notes on page 185 "that for all reigning or formerly reigning families the word 'of' has been used (e.g. Prince of Schleswig-Holstein), but for other families the words 'von', 'zu', 'de', etc, have not been translated (e.g. Prince zu Hohenlohe-Langenburg). The only exceptions to this rule are the Princes of Battenberg and the Princes and Dukes of Teck, families which have become so closely allied to the British Royal Family that it would be wrong to give them a German style." That seems an appropriate authority to follow here. FactStraight (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 90.220.10.168, 3 April 2011

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

90.220.10.168 (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: no request. If you have a request please add it where indicated and re-activate the template. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 10:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from AWasielewski, 5 April 2011

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

could you link the name Wasielewski in the list to the wasielewski wikipedia page. It´s just about the brackets around wasielewski so that the link ist there. Thanks

AWasielewski (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I cannot find any page Wasielewski and there are three of 'em referenced in this article. You're going to have to give me more information. If you add the required info, change the "answered=yes" to "answered=no" in the template above to reactivate this request. Sorry! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 00:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Graphical representation

There is currently a

Graphical representation of succession to the British throne. If that article were deleted, it is possible that the graphics from that article would be merged with this article (that's one of the suggestions). Editors of this article might therefore have an opinion. Noel S McFerran (talk

) 08:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well now this article is gone. That means there is no graphical representation. In my view a distinct loss. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the consensus was to merge, so parts of previous versions of the article (which haven't been deleted) could be merged into this one, if someone wishes to add it. Mlm42 (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

But this article to too large to add anything that is not the actual list. For example, the surplus material towards the end of the article has been removed. This article should be a list, and an appropriate place for grpahics would have been ... an article stating here are the graphics. Alan Davidson (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If it is felt the graphical representation is needed, it could be included by creating a subpage, like

Wikipedia:Transcluding like this {{Talk:Line of succession to the British throne/Graphical representation}} which would mean the content at the subpage would appear in this article without increasing the latter's size. Opera hat (talk

) 23:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the same thing couldn't be done with most (all?) of the list itself. Compare

List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1832, where all the actual lists of MPs are in subpages. Opera hat (talk

) 23:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added the graphical representation to this article. As long as Alan Davidson remains an active Wikipedia editor, presumably this graphic will be updated as appropriate. Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

My view was that nothing more should be added to this page. But the decision on the Graphics page was to merge, and if it is to be here I will maintain it. But, there were three other graphics take it up to position 217 (the descendants of Prince Alfred the second son of Queen Victoria). Should we add those? Alan Davidson (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that the graphical representation of the first ninety people in line has some usefulness and am grateful that Alan Davidson has created (and maintained) it. I don't think that the other graphics are necessary. But I do not feel strongly about this matter, if others have a contrary opinion. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Karoline Matilde Vlangali-Handjeri

Karoline Matilde Vlangali-Handjeri was born on 6 October 1900 at Noer, Germany and is currently 1119th on the list (and the oldest person). The Wikipedia site for

Living Supercentenarians has insuffiecient evedence to list this person. I can find no evidence of a recent birthday (110 or otherwise). Does anyone know about this? Alan Davidson (talk

) 04:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment (2)

Should every entry in this article be supported by an inline citation to a

BLP? Mlm42 (talk

) 02:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Responses

• Comment. WP:BLP is non-negotiable... if conforming to it makes the article too long, we can think about changes in the presentation that will shorten it... one suggestion would be to break the list up into several numerical sub-lists (1-500, 501-1000, etc.) Blueboar (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've been considering suggesting a split for the last couple of days because I noticed that the

talk

) 08:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I don’t think it is a pressing matter for inline citations but maybe it would be an improvement. I don’t have the time right now to do the work myself however, but I see Noel McFerran has asked whether you are prepared to add ^W to the people listed by Willis, is this something you could do? - dwc lr (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, Willis is only a genealogical reference. It doesn't put them in the male-preference order, it includes Roman Catholics (and doesn't mention whether or not they are Roman Catholic), and it includes illegitimate children (and doesn't even mention whether or not they are illegitimate). The family tree itself it not contentious.. it's the claims of illegitimacy, in particular, (and the Roman Catholic issue) that are important with respect to the BLP policy; so Willis doesn't help here. Mlm42 (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Surely any citations to Willis should include

page numbers? Opera hat (talk

) 19:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, every entry should be supported by an
  SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS}
  23:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• No, not immediately I think that our priorities should be:

1. finish adding the names (there are only a few hundred more)

2. complete the new parentage formatting (which will reduce size)

3. decide either way on DrKiernan's suggestions regarding honorifics, name and title, and ^XP vs. ^XC

4. look at better section headings

Inline citations for particular entries should continue to be added gradually with a more timely emphasis on individuals whose religion is not what might at first be thought; over time we'll get to a stage where there are inline citations for an increasing number of entries. Usually, however, nothing is being challenged (other than by people for whom this is a hobby). Some of the time spent by editors on talk page discussions could better be spent adding and correcting content in the actual article. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. And Reitwiesner is unsuitable, especially for claims of illegitimacy, per
  WP:BLPSPS. Mlm42 (talk
  ) 16:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. Establishing that the people listed should be listed is more pressing than tweaking the format of how they are listed. Opera hat (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC's are not a vote; I recommend placing large notes so as not to burden the page with a zillion sources. Otherwise anything challenged should provide a source, but a face value I think its doubtful to cast the whole list as suspect somehow. 07:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• RFC Comment: Yes, all information should be sourced. It isn't such a huge burden to do so, since in order to put material here one has to first find it somewhere, the somewhere then being the source. Is it an urgent problem if #215 on the list lacks a source? No, s/he can be tagged with ^{[citation needed]}. --Dailycare (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. But let me qualify that. I am amazed at the complexity this page has developed since the last time I looked at it, maybe a year or two ago. The system devised for the first couple hundred people, with all the little Bs and Ds and Xs and Ws, distracting as it is, seems to me to be sufficient for source verification (and the editors who thought this complex system up are to be commended for mind-boggling attention to detail). If the same system can be expanded and extended to the other 2000 (!) folks on the list, that would be as good as line-by-line citations of the ordinary sort, IMO. But one way or the other, I think WP is duty-bound by established policies to show verifiable and reliable sources for every single person in this monumental list. Besides, it keeps honest people honest. There's actually a principality of Salm-Salm? Textorus (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this comment, there are many ways to skin a cat and as long as the information is verifiable, it doesn't strictly matter which format is used to represent it. For stylistic reasons it's preferable that a uniform way is used throughout the article, and optimally a way similar to other wiki articles. --Dailycare (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. To remain credible the sourcing has to be reliable. Jnast1 (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yes BLP concerns, hoaxes, inaccuracies, etc. But you don't need to use {{cite whatever}} in every single entry (I suspect that the page wouldn't even load, due to all the templates). Using the trick of the little letters ^B, ^D, etc should be enough. You could also cite the pages in the source, for example page 150 in source B ^B:150. You can also make a bibliography section and cite the books using "(name_of_author, year_of_publication) p. page_number" for example "^{(Leigh, 2005) p. 150}", I don't remember the name of this style. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. Per
  original research. Random example: This article claims that one Claudia Frisch, born in 1966, is number 2101 in the line of succession. This requires a reliable source that states clearly that she is number 2101 in the line of succession. Obviously that reliable source will have a date, which is necessary since of course this information changes all the time. So the article needs to say things such as "As of November 2004, Claudia Frisch was number 2101 in the line of succession".
  As a practical matter, and to avoid synthesis by putting things from various sources next to each other (e.g. "as of 2004, A was number 1501; as of 2006, B was number 1502", which creates the impression that B comes after A in the succession -- which may or may not be true), all names should be taken from the same list published by a reliable source. (Of course it may make sense to do the earlier positions twice, once from a long but slightly dated list, and once from a more recent short list.) Hans Adler
  20:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Your comments show what a joke the fixation with adding a "reliable source" to every fact often is in practice, if what one cares about is accuracy, rather than the appearance of compliance with academic norms. It is obvious that any source that states that so-and-so is 2101st is only going to be reliable for a day or two, if it ever was at all, and every death changes the ranking of everyone below that person, making all those "reliable" sources unreliable, so there is no practical point in adding such citations. Common sense (banned in academia, I know), states that a proactively managed list that updates for births and deaths as they happen is going to be more reliable than a bunch of random references to out of date newspaper articles.
  • Both sides in this debate need to get real. The people keen to maintain the list should cut it to a reasonable number (100 or 200), and those of you who labour under the false belief that a proliferation of footnotes demonstrate accuracy should leave them to it, and go and actually add some sources to an article on a serious academic subject instead of wasting time playing games with policy that are never going to improve the quality of wikipedia's content in any meaningful way. Alex Middleton (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Comment Of particular interest are the entries which have been removed from the line, due to either being illegitimate, or being a Roman Catholic. Claims of illegitimacy of living people should be made with care, and currently the article's main source is this self-published website, which might be unsuitable, per
  WP:BLPSPS. Mlm42 (talk
  ) 02:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The article's main source is not Reitwiesner - that is merely the article's main online source. Most people don't have ready access to the print sources which include all the names in Reitwiesner.

If Mlm42 wishes to add ^W to the thousands of people listed by Willis, then perhaps he should do the work. I have already added similar inline citations to hundreds of entries. Other editors, however, have expressed concern that this adds to the length of the article. Noel S McFerran (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says that "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." This page almost always provides the following information about living persons:

• name (and title) commonly used
• birth year
• parentage (i.e. listing the parent who is descended from Sophia)

None of those things are quotations, and only very occasionally could those three facts be controversial enough to be challenged. For at least 95% of the people listed, this information appears in one single print source, Willis; it is usually also available in other print sources. For over 90%, this information also appears in more accessible online sources.

One piece of information appears for a very small number on the list:

• being born to parents who were not married at the time of birth

In virtually every case where this fact is noted there is information in a reliable print source giving the date of birth and the date of marriage of the parents. It is not original research or synthesis to see that one date precedes the other (cf.

WP:NOTOR

).

There is another piece of information which appears for a large number on the list:

• being Catholic, or marrying a Catholic

In the case of the majority of names on the list, the religion of the family is noted in reliable print sources such as the GHdA; where an individual differs from his family this fact is noted (often even citing conversion dates).

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." It is hard to see that the information on this page could be cited as tabloid, sensationalist, titillating, or possibly harmful. Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding sources for religion of families as a whole - are there actually any citations to the

Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels in the article at the moment? Opera hat (talk

) 01:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's recall this archived discussion about Emily Shard's claimed illegitimacy. There has been a "citation needed" tag next to her name for quite some time now.. do we have a reliable source which states she is illegitimate? Considering the BLP policy, I think illegitimacy is something worthy of an inline citation to a reliable source. Her biography also lacks a source for this information. Mlm42 (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

A Guardian article noting they are excluded.[1] - dwc lr (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That Guardian article is based off of this self-published website; I wonder if this is a valid way to avoid

WP:BLPSPS.. in any case, I would prefer it if people were to respond to my RfC question. Mlm42 (talk

) 15:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It's no longer self-published onced it's cited in the Guardian. The point isn't that self-published sources are always unreliable, just that we're not in a good position to judge whether they are reliable. The Guardian is a reliable source, full stop, and whether they gather their information from a self-published source is irrelevant. john k (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Mlm, holding an RfC about a contentious issue is a bit like herding cats. :) Everyone has an opinion, but at the end of the day some poor admin has to close it, so it's important to make sure the replies are clear. For example, you yourself haven't said whether you're yes or no, or support/oppose. And threaded replies are better moved to this section, so that the Responses section is clearer, with each person allowed one response. Just my two cents.
  SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS}
  23:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Is it fair to close this RfC, with the result of "Yes"? Mlm42 (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from WinsorHerald, 23 April 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} WinsorHerald (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

please add the following two codes between the succeeding codes below.

•  Lord David Alexander Earl Kitchener (b 1970)
•  Lord Mathius Alexander Earl Kitchener (b 1993)

Separating coding between these making the preceding the 576th 577th of the list for the British Line of Succession to be accurate.

•  Baroness Emily von Gemmingen-Hornberg (b 1998)
•  HSH Prince Metfried of Wied (b 1935)

the code should look like this after editing.

•  Baroness Emily von Gemmingen-Hornberg (b 1998)
•  Lord David Alexander Earl Kitchener (b 1970)
•  Lord Mathius Alexander Earl Kitchener (b 1993)
•  HSH Prince Metfried of Wied (b 1935)

These people are not in line. They should not be added. Noel S McFerran (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: You need a Reliable Source for what you want to add.

Plenty of established editors of this article are blithely adding information all the time without citing reliable sources. Opera hat (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Opera hat. Why doesn't Noel need to supply sources when he adds content to the article? Mlm42 (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Where is the source for the numbers?

It appears to me that this mega-BLP article has been patched together from various sources. Otherwise the above RfC would hardly make sense. Now it seems extremely unlikely that various sources that appeared at various times conspire to result in a list that just happens to have every number just once -- no gaps, no double entries. The logical consequence is that the numbers can't be from the sources but are the result of counting after an error-prone process. In other words: The numbers, at least in the later part of the list, are almost certainly original research and also wrong.

I would like to check that I haven't missed anything important before I report this article to the original research noticeboard. Hans Adler 20:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read this talk page (including its archives) before you initiate discussions which have been conducted numerous times previously. Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations specifically says "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources." Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not even mathematical proofs are allowed as routine calculations, and what is being done here is a lot more error-prone. Hans Adler 21:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read the words "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers ...". This is a Wikipedia policy which is "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". If you know of an error where a particular person has mistakenly not been listed, please add the name or mention the error on this talk page. (BTW, I'm not an ardent number supporter; but nor do I think they violate policy). Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in

WP:CALC

that permits compiling a huge database out of various sources, and then performing a routine calculation on the result that will only be correct if all the details are correct. Let's see if your list is properly verifiable or if it contains unverifiable original research about living people:

The list claims that Oda Böhnert (b 1959) is at number 2473. I don't believe this. Last week she was at number 2476. Now she is at 2475, and she is very happy about this because she likes numbers that are divisible by 5.

Um, wait, no, sorry, I made a mistake. Oda Böhnert is actually at somewhere below 1200 and is very proud of that fact. I think she would be very unhappy if she new that you have more than doubled her position! Hans Adler 22:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Mr Adler is absolutely correct that this page is constantly being updated. Every week people are born or die, and somewhat less frequently marry a Catholic. Other corrections are also made. The reason that Oda Böhnert went from 2476 to 2475 last week, is that on April 28 Georgina Kennard (formerly no. 1865) died. It did take until May 1 for this fact to be corrected here; but The Telegraph did not have an obituary until two days later than that (on May 3). I think Wikipedia is doing great when it beats The Telegraph. Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

But Oda Böhnert is at 2473 rather than 2472 because Karoline-Mathilde Vlangali-Handjeri is ahead of her at 1119. As noted above, Karoline-Mathilde Vlangali-Handjeri is almost certainly no longer alive, which would make all the numbers from 1120 onwards inaccurate. I dare say there are numerous other examples which would increase this inaccuracy. Opera hat (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to claim that "Karoline-Mathilde Vlangali-Handjeri is almost certainly no longer alive", then please provide a reliable published source to support that claim. Your personal opinion on the matter is not enough. Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Touché - the criterion for inclusion is

verifiability, not truth, and all that. But really, I hardly think you should get to play the "sources for everything" line here. Your revision of 3.04 on 2 May 2011 regarding the marriage of Audrey de Young may be true but was totally unsourced, and that's just one example. Opera hat (talk

) 23:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

But that's not what the list claims! The list claims 2473.

And I note that you didn't even try to respond to my second point. I claim that you cannot show that she is not currently at number 1183.

And the reason is of course that this list goes far beyond anything that can be found in reliable sources. I often find myself defending a little bit of original research when it is necessary to build a good article. But what we have here is just absurd.

An analogous thing in mathematics would be a mathematics article about a theorem that was proved by Wikipedians and is not to be found in any reliable source. An analogous thing (in a different sense) in geography would be a list of all English mountains, ordered by height. I can understand why some people find it entertaining to produce such completely useless compilations of data, but they have no place in an encyclopedia. There are a number of tricks that one can use to do basically the same thing and get away with it. But this list is just a shameless policy violation. Hans Adler 23:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hans, pressumably if there were a reliable source which listed the complete list, and one day someone was born and another reliable source stated they would be inserted in the line at a given position, then it's not really original research to shift everybody below the new addition down one space - because that could be considered a "routine calculation". The problem here is that no reliable source actually gives a complete list that resembles our list; and those sources which do attempt to give a list aren't completely consisted with each other. And I agree, I think it is absurd how immune this list is to the policies and standards of Wikipedia. Mlm42 (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This WSJ article says there are nearly 5,000 before Karin Vogel, currently listed last in the WP article at 2,000-something. I'm confused. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It is difficult to understand the fuss here. This is a list; the article does not state that the person at position 1000 is the 1000th person in line. (If there was then such a sentence should be remved or qualified). The article is updated continuously. This week they were 3,628,816 Wikipedia articles in English. It will be different tomorrow as knowledge is added. The number is just a log todate. Nevertheless, I would like the numbers to remain. Alan Davidson (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely with

talk

) 01:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If the person at position 1000 is not supposed to be the 1000th person in line, then what is the number 1000 signifying, if anything? Opera hat (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree with Alan Davidson here. Readers who come to this page will observe that the person next to number 5 is in fact fifth in the line of succession. They will deduce that the person next to number 1000 is supposed to be number 1000 in line. This is the problem with the numbers, and the list in general; it's original research. I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to make this point for four months. Mlm42 (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no disagreement between this Wikipedia article and the WSJ article. WSJ says of Karin Vogel, "She was 4,973 in line as of 2001, according to Mr. Reitwiesner's research, though his list included Catholics, who are technically ineligible." This list does not include Catholics in the numbering (which follows the general practice including that used by the "official" royal.gov.uk website). If you add up all of the excluded Catholics, you'll see that Karin Vogel is now closer to 6,000 (because of births in the last ten years). Here is another instance where a well-known newspaper thinks that Reitwiesner is a reliable source - but certain Wikipedia editors without any subject expertise think that he isn't. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, a little while ago I asked at the

self-published website) is appropriate for this article (which should obey WP:BLP). The answer was clear: Reitwiesner should not be used in this article (archived discussion here). Mlm42 (talk

) 17:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

But Reitwiesner is NOT a self-published website. Reitwiesner is dead; he is not the publisher of his website. His website is published by Christopher Challender Child, Director of Publications of the New England Historical Genealogical Society, the leading resource in the United States for genealogical studies. It's silly to suggest that Reitwiesner is not okay when the

Wall Street Journal uses it as its source. Noel S McFerran (talk

) 20:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

According to WHOIS, the website wargs.com, which is the source given in the article, belongs to "William Addams Reitwiesner Genealogical Services". And I doubt that keeping a website alive out of piety amounts to the kind of editorial control that makes a source reliable, if the New England Historic Genealogical Society is even the kind of publisher that is in principle usable for BLP information. (Possibly, but I am as yet undecided.) It is absolutely standard that we cannot use certain sources (for example primary sources) which are used by reliable sources that we can then use. It's a normal part of how Wikipedia works. Hans Adler 21:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference willis94 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).