User talk:LarryJeff/Archive2014-06-22

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.

Should I worry about this or it is a coincidence IP proxies are reverting the edits that were removed? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If you're asking did I have anything to do with it, then no. I don't know anything about those IPs and anything I do is done under my own name. LarryJeff (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2013 AFC President's Cup may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks,

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1973–74 Football League may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks,

Hi! I'm afraid that members of the Swedish Royal Family are not in the line of succession to the British throne. They would have derived their rights from the King's mother, but she did not seek permission for her marriage, so her descendants are not in the line of succession. I first thought they would assume place in the line of succession once the new act takes effect, but now I see that "marriages legally void under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 will be treated as never having been void, except for purposes relating to the succession to the Crown". I suppose that means that the Swedish Royal Family will remain excluded. Surtsicna (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Carl XVI Gustaf's position in the British line is not through his mother, but his paternal grandmother, Princess Margaret of Connaught. As a princess married into a foreign family, her descendants are exempt from the Royal Marriages Act. However, you do bring up a very interesting dilemma.

1. Prince Gustaf Adolf was himself exempt from the requirements of the act (as a descendant of Princess Margaret) and could therefore marry anyone he chose at any time without consent and keep his position in the British line.
2. Princess Sibylla, being a male-line great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria, was apparently still subject to the act and would have needed to seek consent to marry. So her descendants certainly cannot have (through her) a position in the succession.
3. The senior line is through Gustaf Adolf and, had he married someone who was not also in the line, there would be no question the marriage was valid and their descendants remaining in the succession.
4. The big question: If "A" (in the line and not subject to the act) marries "B" (in line and subject to the act) without consent under the act, can the descendants of the marriage still derive succession rights through "A"?

As Carl XVI Gustaf is currently in 234th place (according to this list) and presumably will be even further down after the reinstatement of those currently excluded because of marriage to a Catholic, we will certainly never have this question tested in a real-world scenario. LarryJeff (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course, grandmother. I think your first premise is wrong, however. Gustaf Adolf could not marry anyone he chose without consent. It takes two for marriage, and it still takes two for a valid marriage. The marriage of Gustaf Adolf and Sibylla was not valid because she had to seek permission for it. It was null and void, making their children "bastards" for the purpose of succession. Had Gustaf Adolf had children with a mistress, those children would not have derived their succession rights through him because they were not born to his lawfully wedded wife - much like his children by Sibylla. The next question is whether clause 3(6) of the new act means that Gustaf Adolf's descendants will remain excluded despite the repeal of the Royal Marriages Act. Does "succession to the Crown" refer to the line of succession (the list of people entitled to succeed) or to the succession (list) of previous monarchs (in order to prevent anyone from doubting the legitimacy of previous monarch or the incumbent)? Surtsicna (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

LarryJeff asked my opinion on this question. Now, I know little about the specifics of the succession rules, but my first thought was 'why are we singling out the Swedes?' Of the 2000+ people in the line of succession, would not a significant percentage have never asked the reigning monarch (Elizabeth or George) for maritial consent? But then I read the text of the Act (unless I'm misunderstanding it or taking out of context), which says "other than the issue of princesses who have married, or may hereafter marry, into foreign families." So since

02:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

THIS IS WHAT I NEED THAT SPORTS SITES DON'T HAVE! Absurdist1968 (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)