Talk:Succession to the British throne

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Why are there dead people in the line?

For example all previous monarchs. They can’t succeed. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is explaining how some people are in the line of succession. For example, it shows why the Duke of Kent is in the line of succession. If it did not mention previous monarchs, no one will no why people such as the Duke of Kent are in the line of succession. DDMS123 (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2023

On the British Monarchy website, the line was updated to include "Ernest". Can you please add a "B" next to Ernest's name? Please 2601:40A:8400:5A40:40B2:A724:1286:D425 (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Counsellors of State

The new Counsellors of State Act 2022 appointed two additional Counsellors of State, bringing the count up to seven (until one of them passes on). This article should be edited to reflect that. 155.95.101.64 (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I think it was worth adding that just so that people aren't misled into thinking Anne and Edward are counsellors because of their position in the line of succession. Richard75 (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Order of sections

Aren't people more likely to come to this article to find out about the current line of succession than the history of the subject? Richard75 (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was about to make the same point. I think the line, which will be the most sought for section, is best placed at the top. DrKay (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some people are interested in that, but others are historians or lawyers or whatever. Current status is mentioned first to peak the interest of those curious in the "who's-on-deck" part, but then the history is explained more in depth. After that, the complete current situation is detailed in full. I think that's a better set-up. I think that even casual readers interested in learning the 25th-in-line should be able still to find it, right? —GoldRingChip 22:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add… some readers (like me) will find this article by reading about the succession acts of the Tudor era and the issues leading to the Glorious Revolution and the Hanoverian succession. —GoldRingChip 22:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extension of List

I think it would be useful to complete the list to the point where all the descendants of King George V were listed. This would include the descendants of his only daughter Mary, Princess Royal, the Countess of Harewood. I would suggest including the Harewood/Lascelles line to accurately complete the list of King George V's descendants. Thank you. 161.185.196.125 (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that's possible without strong reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we're clear, we're talking about the descendants of one person, to complete the hereditary line of George V. This includes her six living grandsons and their descendants. Surely there's a source thru Debrett's or Burke's. The 7th Earl of Harewood was the first cousin to Queen Elizabeth II. These are not distant relations. 161.185.198.114 (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a start, two of those living grandsons are not in line. Nor are their descendants. At least two of the present earl of Harewood's children are excluded too. It's not a simple matter. DrKay (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you know all that, makes it seem that this is pretty easy and well known. Don't let the Lascelles infidelities get in the way of the truth. There have been illegitimates in the royal family since the beginning. 161.185.198.235 (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And illegitimacy disqualifies someone from the succession to the Crown, so they wouldn't be on this list anyway. Richard75 (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the people I mentioned are in law illegitimate. They are the offspring of married couples, so there's no "infidelities" to avoid. DrKay (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may sound easy but it means tracking births that happen every year of people who may be pretty obscure. We should leave it to Debrett's and Whitaker's when it comes to additions that are that far down the line.Wellington Bay (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive detail of English succession?

As this article is about the "British" succession, is it appropriate to keep expanding the details of the "English" succession here? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a serious imbalance between the weight given to the English and Scottish histories, which certainly needs to be addressed, but that should be done by expanding the Scottish section. The reason I added content to the English history section was because it started in 1485, as if nothing happened earlier, which was absurd. Richard75 (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic dead ends in the current line of succession

The section called ''current'' line of succession has some people who are not currently in the line of succession and who don't have any descendants in the line of succession. Removing this was deemed ''controversial''. Why are Edward VIII and Prince William of Gloucester included but not Prince John of the United Kingdom? All three are not currently in the line of succession and don't have any descendants in the line. At what point should someone be removed from the list or do we keep piling up people indefinitely? Similar pages about other countries don't keep exhausted genetic lines and this one shouldn't either. I invite other editors to reply with their own thoughts. Killuminator (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles III isn't in the line of succession but is included because it helps to show why the others are in line. The line of succession is after all based on family relationship.
At this point however, the line includes more people than are reliably sourced and should be trimmed. For example the source for 53 and further in line is from 2021, but everyone's position has changed since the late Queen's death. TFD (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The monarch is always included in these types of lists because the heirs have to be traced to the monarch from which their claim derives. Nobody in the line of succession derives their claim from these contentious inclusions and they should be removed. I agree on your point that the line is excessively long. I'd restrict it to descendants of Elizabeth II. Killuminator (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would restrict it to people whose position in the line of succession can be reliably sourced. I don't understand btw your argument that the king must be included because heirs trace their claim to him. That's not necessarily true. George I became king because his mother was named heir. TFD (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And his mother was named heir because she descended from previous monarchs but George I and she don't matter because for the purposes of this discussion, otherwise this section on the page would have thousands of entries. Killuminator (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth would you show the Prince of Wales on this list without showing the King?! I agree with Killuminator that we don't need to include deceased people without descendants. But I think we can have a wider list than descendants of Elizabeth II. The whole list is sourced. Richard75 (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Succession_to_the_British_throne"