This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Line of succession to the British throne redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
This article follows the format used by Debretts in respect of preferred names, titles and honorifics. Alternative names or titles are shown in brackets. |
Line of succession to the British throne is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured list candidate |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
On 12 January 2009, Line of succession to the British throne was linked from Digg, a high-traffic website. ( Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
Index
|
||||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I'm wondering why we are using an article from 2011 that is now extremely outdated (considering the number of births, deaths and now re-additions of non-Catholics who married Catholics) to include Karin Vogel's incorrect position in the line of succession? The article is based on Dan Willis' research and he clearly stated on the site that his list includes Roman Catholics. I'm just curious as to why it's acceptable to use his site to list an incorrect number for Ms. Vogel, but not to include the Lascelles or the Fifes, etc etc. Does it count as original research to point out that her exact number on his list is incorrect because it includes Catholics? Morhange ( talk) 00:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Reitwiesner's list does not take any account of exclusions under the Royal Marriages Act and nor does the text following the present list. AnthonyCamp ( talk) 16:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC).
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think the two eldest sons (and possibly the third son too)of Lord Nicholas Windsor are Catholics like their father (as stated in your own Wikipedia article on Lord Nicholas) and therefor should not be included at 37, 38 and 39 - as the recent legislation (The Succession To The Crown Act 2013) now allows spouses of Catholics to appear in the line but not Catholics themselves. 92.30.130.107 ( talk) 11:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
What do Lord Downpatrick and Charlotte and Lord St Andrews have to do with it? I'm not talking about them. And your view about the exclusion not taking effect until the children really want to be Catholics is not supported by the legislation. It's just your point of view. Our article on Nicholas Windsor says, with sources, that he and his children are Catholics. Now what is your source? Richard75 ( talk) 07:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed it does. But "Synthesis" says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources... If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." In this case do not combine source A saying Catholics cannot ascend the throne and source B saying that so-and-so is Catholic to conclude C that so-and-so cannot ascend the throne. Instead, use secondary sources that make that conclusion. TFD ( talk) 09:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Your link says, "It is diocesan policy that First Holy Communion should be received in primary school Year 3 (the school year in which a child reaches the age of 8) or above. A child's readiness for First Holy Communion will be decided by parents, child, priests and catechists together." I doubt they live in the diocese of East Anglia, so it could be different. In any case, the eldest child was born in 2007, hence would possibly be eligible for communion this year at the earliest. TFD ( talk) 14:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The 2015 Whitaker's Almanack lists all three boys in line after Amelia and before Helen Taylor. There is an explanatory note saying that Nicholas's children remain in line if they are in communion with the Church of England. DrKiernan ( talk) 11:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
For this article, are regular editors agreed that we continue using 'Henry' in the Tree list and Gallery, for Wiiliam's younger brother, per diff? [4] Qexigator ( talk) 06:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
His name is given as Henry in the Court Circular, Kensington Palace. [5] Qexigator ( talk) 06:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Note B of the 'Tree list' links to The official website of The Britiish Monarchy, said to be 'retrieved 24 March 2015'. But, given that the link now continues to show no more than 16 (as mentioned in a discussion above), is it time to remove the 'B' from all who follow, down to 55? [6] Qexigator ( talk) 22:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
+ If so, will it be necessary to stop the tree list at 17, and add descriptively under 'Remoter Collateral lines':
Qexigator ( talk) 22:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
+ Or if the line stopped at 16 (Mrs T.), the descriptive text would begin:
Qexigator ( talk) 08:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Updated version has removed Note B from those after Mrs T. at (16). [8] Qexigator ( talk) 14:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
+A version of the Tree could be retained with 1-16, and listing only the heads of the collateral lines thus:
Editors may wish to consider whether this could resolve what some may see as a dilemma. Qexigator ( talk) 12:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
After thinking about this, I'm not in favor of truncating the list. Three of the sources (Debrett's, MSN news, and Whitaker's) have a list of around 50. One self-published source (Lewis/Reitwiesner) takes the line further and the remaining reliable source [the official website] is shorter but used to take the line to around 50. Consequently, I think it is reasonable to keep a list here that is as long as most of the reliable sources, which is around the 50 mark. DrKiernan ( talk) 18:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Further to the above, given that the sequence of the collateral lines remains constant, we may surmise that anyone linking to the pre-26 May version and noticing a change in the list number there compared with any later version (whether no more than the line headed by the monarch, or, as now including collaterals) would be aware or able to deduce that the change had resulted from a later event, such as birth or death, or gain or loss of eligibility. Charlotte's birth has been the first event, and is clearly mentioned in the article.
But the purpose of the article could be well served by adding a section logging such events as they occur in the future. This would give the informaton while avoiding SYN and OR. Qexigator ( talk) 10:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
+The usefulness of the 'List of changes from and after 26 March 2015' section in the current version [11] would be at least as useful for changes in position of unnumbered persons, if numbers after 16 were removed as suggested in the next section below. Qexigator ( talk) 16:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Note 3 about Albert and Leopold Windsor (and may be Louis) puts their position in some doubt, and therefore the 'Tree list' number of all that follow. Would not the integrity of the information in the article be better served if they stopped at (16)? Numbering stems from as far back as the start of the article in January 2003 [12], but currently, the main use for these list numbers is to correlate with other lists, primarily the shorter list at Succession to the British throne. If the numbers stopped at 16, the list's topnote could give a simple explanation, such as:
Qexigator ( talk) 16:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
To my mind, the topnote as now revised [13] will suffice to resolve the question in respect of both 1-16 and the rest. Qexigator ( talk) 21:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Line of succession to the British throne redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
This article follows the format used by Debretts in respect of preferred names, titles and honorifics. Alternative names or titles are shown in brackets. |
Line of succession to the British throne is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured list candidate |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
On 12 January 2009, Line of succession to the British throne was linked from Digg, a high-traffic website. ( Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
Index
|
||||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I'm wondering why we are using an article from 2011 that is now extremely outdated (considering the number of births, deaths and now re-additions of non-Catholics who married Catholics) to include Karin Vogel's incorrect position in the line of succession? The article is based on Dan Willis' research and he clearly stated on the site that his list includes Roman Catholics. I'm just curious as to why it's acceptable to use his site to list an incorrect number for Ms. Vogel, but not to include the Lascelles or the Fifes, etc etc. Does it count as original research to point out that her exact number on his list is incorrect because it includes Catholics? Morhange ( talk) 00:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Reitwiesner's list does not take any account of exclusions under the Royal Marriages Act and nor does the text following the present list. AnthonyCamp ( talk) 16:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC).
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think the two eldest sons (and possibly the third son too)of Lord Nicholas Windsor are Catholics like their father (as stated in your own Wikipedia article on Lord Nicholas) and therefor should not be included at 37, 38 and 39 - as the recent legislation (The Succession To The Crown Act 2013) now allows spouses of Catholics to appear in the line but not Catholics themselves. 92.30.130.107 ( talk) 11:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
What do Lord Downpatrick and Charlotte and Lord St Andrews have to do with it? I'm not talking about them. And your view about the exclusion not taking effect until the children really want to be Catholics is not supported by the legislation. It's just your point of view. Our article on Nicholas Windsor says, with sources, that he and his children are Catholics. Now what is your source? Richard75 ( talk) 07:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed it does. But "Synthesis" says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources... If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." In this case do not combine source A saying Catholics cannot ascend the throne and source B saying that so-and-so is Catholic to conclude C that so-and-so cannot ascend the throne. Instead, use secondary sources that make that conclusion. TFD ( talk) 09:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Your link says, "It is diocesan policy that First Holy Communion should be received in primary school Year 3 (the school year in which a child reaches the age of 8) or above. A child's readiness for First Holy Communion will be decided by parents, child, priests and catechists together." I doubt they live in the diocese of East Anglia, so it could be different. In any case, the eldest child was born in 2007, hence would possibly be eligible for communion this year at the earliest. TFD ( talk) 14:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The 2015 Whitaker's Almanack lists all three boys in line after Amelia and before Helen Taylor. There is an explanatory note saying that Nicholas's children remain in line if they are in communion with the Church of England. DrKiernan ( talk) 11:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
For this article, are regular editors agreed that we continue using 'Henry' in the Tree list and Gallery, for Wiiliam's younger brother, per diff? [4] Qexigator ( talk) 06:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
His name is given as Henry in the Court Circular, Kensington Palace. [5] Qexigator ( talk) 06:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Note B of the 'Tree list' links to The official website of The Britiish Monarchy, said to be 'retrieved 24 March 2015'. But, given that the link now continues to show no more than 16 (as mentioned in a discussion above), is it time to remove the 'B' from all who follow, down to 55? [6] Qexigator ( talk) 22:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
+ If so, will it be necessary to stop the tree list at 17, and add descriptively under 'Remoter Collateral lines':
Qexigator ( talk) 22:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
+ Or if the line stopped at 16 (Mrs T.), the descriptive text would begin:
Qexigator ( talk) 08:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Updated version has removed Note B from those after Mrs T. at (16). [8] Qexigator ( talk) 14:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
+A version of the Tree could be retained with 1-16, and listing only the heads of the collateral lines thus:
Editors may wish to consider whether this could resolve what some may see as a dilemma. Qexigator ( talk) 12:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
After thinking about this, I'm not in favor of truncating the list. Three of the sources (Debrett's, MSN news, and Whitaker's) have a list of around 50. One self-published source (Lewis/Reitwiesner) takes the line further and the remaining reliable source [the official website] is shorter but used to take the line to around 50. Consequently, I think it is reasonable to keep a list here that is as long as most of the reliable sources, which is around the 50 mark. DrKiernan ( talk) 18:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Further to the above, given that the sequence of the collateral lines remains constant, we may surmise that anyone linking to the pre-26 May version and noticing a change in the list number there compared with any later version (whether no more than the line headed by the monarch, or, as now including collaterals) would be aware or able to deduce that the change had resulted from a later event, such as birth or death, or gain or loss of eligibility. Charlotte's birth has been the first event, and is clearly mentioned in the article.
But the purpose of the article could be well served by adding a section logging such events as they occur in the future. This would give the informaton while avoiding SYN and OR. Qexigator ( talk) 10:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
+The usefulness of the 'List of changes from and after 26 March 2015' section in the current version [11] would be at least as useful for changes in position of unnumbered persons, if numbers after 16 were removed as suggested in the next section below. Qexigator ( talk) 16:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Note 3 about Albert and Leopold Windsor (and may be Louis) puts their position in some doubt, and therefore the 'Tree list' number of all that follow. Would not the integrity of the information in the article be better served if they stopped at (16)? Numbering stems from as far back as the start of the article in January 2003 [12], but currently, the main use for these list numbers is to correlate with other lists, primarily the shorter list at Succession to the British throne. If the numbers stopped at 16, the list's topnote could give a simple explanation, such as:
Qexigator ( talk) 16:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
To my mind, the topnote as now revised [13] will suffice to resolve the question in respect of both 1-16 and the rest. Qexigator ( talk) 21:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)