I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU'RE EVEN HERE, BUT IF YOU POST OR EDIT THIS OR OTHER ARCHIVAL PAGES, YOU'LL BE REPORTED FOR VANDALISM.
![]() | This page 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. |
PRINCE LEOPOLD, SON OF QUEEN VICTORIA
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
My famous block
|
---|
Heads upYou are going to be blocked you from editing for a week if you don't lose the battleground attitude, stop edit warring, and stop slinging silly sock accusations around. Technically you've already violated 3RR, but as long as you don't revert anymore, I won't block for that. But you need to stop. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 22:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
As promisedBlocked for a week for the post above. You need to adjust your attitude if you plan to continue editing here. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 23:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Reply to user SitushSitush, it is fine with me if you were to post examples of my past faux pas. It would be a learning experience for me- but only do it if you're prepared to explain what impression each reference makes. I will not argue the point. It's a real pity other editors close their eyes and ears... I am prepared to listen to honest criticism. One more thing: be careful not to take out of context. By all means, quote away, but not out of context. Cheers a lot for your good luck wishes. We'll be wanting it.-- Djathink imacowboy 01:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Reply to "As promised"
Sometimes rash actions toward editors like me force us to evade blocks just to get some words out. Know this: I regret my bad behaviour. At least I admitted it somewhat openly. A vacation will do me good, I can't beg for your reconsideration of the block, but then, I think none of us behaved in an exemplary fashion. What I wish to state here is that I do not believe the editors involved are sock puppets. What I had actually said was they looked like it to me- there was no further accusation nor did I threaten them with action. Then again, they did not exactly comport themselves too well either, and I admit they angered me beyond control. Much pain in my family life shoved me over the edge. Anyway... see ya in a week! Got work to do in the real world.-- Djathink imacowboy 01:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Unblock request![]() Djathinkimacowboy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) Request reason: Request appeal be considered. Request revision by another administrator. Though this situation was entirely my fault- due to my aggressive position regarding an edit- I feel that I have shown and continue to show general fairness in conflicts. I request a review because I do believe this block, or at least its length, is excessive. Naturally I reacted in anger after the block, but I have no intention of returning to stir up new problems. My main issue, and my anger, was with one editor only. My belief is that editor will cool off, then will feel more reasonable. If that is so, and with my assurances above, I think I can be trusted to have a week-long block at least reconsidered. If refused for good reason, I will not appeal further. May I address the reasons for the block as expressed to me by the administrator: "battleground approach, edit warring, baseless accusations of sockpuppetry after warning to stop". The 1st accusation is true, insofar as my approach to the situation was a 'battle-ready' approach. I regret this action. The 2nd accusation is understandable but I must protest it. I did not engage in any activity that differed in any way from any other editor in a similar situation. The 3rd accusation is based on an angry remark I made to two editors involved. They were angry, but I submit that these unacceptable angry expressions are not sock puppet "accusations" and I stopped immediately after I had expressed myself once each to the two editors. It seems rash in view of all this to impose a block of a week. I acknowledge my loss of temper and incivility; it is a struggle for me that I usually don't manage so well... but I try. Decline reason: You were blocked for your conduct, so your argument that the block is no longer necessary as the other editor "will cool off, then will feel more reasonable" isn't relevant - please see WP:NOTTHEM. I've restored the messages concerning this block which you removed before asking to be unblocked per the normal convention, and they seem to indicate that you haven't given up the confrontational attitude which led to the block. Nick-D ( talk) 07:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Sitush comment. Reply to editor Sitush
Your post is appreciated. My mind and my views are not in good order right now. Your post is, however, understood in full. My hope at this moment is not to incur anyone's wrath, which I have been doing with every post. So: my apologies for that. My plan is to rest (as I am able) during this week. As an act of respect I will be monitoring my talk page and replying to anyone who posts.-- Djathink imacowboy A reply to Floquenbeam's earlier query--this is from Floquenbeam. No, you are mistaken. Completely mistaken. I'd like my reply to you to be on the record. No sense in creating a false impression and I would be remiss in not responding directly to you.-- Djathink imacowboy
Help requiredPermission to strike and delete MikeWazowski's useless and taunting post above? Or is that not a kosher thing to do? It is clear why I want to strike that and I will strike my reply to him as well. Anyone may see those diffs, I don't care because it is well known. I do not welcome Mike or his posts, and of course he already knows this. "Just take the block and learn from it." And I get lectured for battleground thinking!-- Djathink imacowboy 20:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Have someone ping me for anything addressed to meI am unwatching this talk page, as it appears clear nothing productive is going to happened here, and the continued bickering is getting old fast. I came within a button-push of fully protecting this page so nobody, Djathinkimacowboy or anyone else, could edit it, but since I suppose it isn't actually disrupting the encyclopedia itself, just averting my eyes from this dysfunction seems like a better idea. If there's something I need to see, have someone ping me; I assume there are many here who will continue to watch the page. One thought, though, before I go, in case you don't hear from me before the block expires. Either you understand you're being disruptive, or you don't. Either you understand that 80% of the fault in your numerous disputes lies with you, or you don't. If you do, then you've been given far too many chances, and if you don't stop, your next block will be indefinite. If you don't, then I think we've invested more than enough time trying to explain how to interact with others here, and unfortunately the time has come to stop trying. So, either way, you will either make a dramatic turnaround in the way you interact with others, or you will be quickly blocked from editing indefinitely. Thousands of editors manage, every day, to edit here with little or no conflict. I guess there's a third possibility, and that's what I'm hoping for. It's that you know how to stop, but didn't think it was that big a deal before now. Now that you know it's a big deal, you'll stop. Here's hoping that it's option number three. And if anyone comes here and starts grave dancing, I'll warn them once, and them block them for a week as well. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
What Wikipedia is- now I know!Note: I seem to have accidentally deleted this very important statement....Now I have moved it to the bottom of the talk page. All of this got me thinking: Wikipedia is owned by someone, not by those of us who work and edit here. Therefore we are privileged, allowed, to edit and be members here by those who own it. We are guests. I realise I have been a terrible, disruptive party-crashing type of guest. Someone I would not allow into my home. It was perusing WP:OWN that suddenly opened my eyes. That one word, "own". And I saw that Wikipedia is owned by someone, we are allowed to be here and must follow the rules that are set here, as we would do anyplace else. Someone acting like I have done is being a rotten, inconsiderate guest, not contributing much, and trying to take over or stake a claim! Now I get it!!-- Djathink imacowboy 20:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC) |
MISCELLANEOUS: Loose threads, 30 January 2012 to 27 February 2012
|
---|
BarnstarsJust to be explicit, the Instructor's Barnstar was not meant as a replacement for, ripoff of or challenge to the Quasar Barnstar. The former's intent is to acknowledge great work on tools and documentation, the latter on policies and guidelines, and yes sometimes these can overlap, but really mine's intended for "geeky" not "political" work. I'm sorry that some people are trying to merge the concepts, but oh well. Wikipedia talk:Barnstars seems to be a little more political and argumentative than I expected. PS: I was not meaning to "diss" your barnstar, and am not sure why some want to push it to the user awards page with the "weird" barnstars. I don't think the Quasar name is very helpful, but simply renaming it (Policy Barnstar? Guidance Barnstar?) would make more sense than throwing out the award. Anyway, no offense intended. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 05:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
BirthstonesHi Dja, I'm afraid I can't help you with your request... I try to keep as far from the File namespace as I can, to be honest. I have never been able to actually understand the criteria to add non-free content to our articles. I hope one of my talk page stalkers can help you, but perhaps it would be better to find another editor/admin who's more experienced than I am with images... I'm sorry. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Re:HelloHey there Dja, and great to see you're back! I noticed you weren't around lately, but then everyone has
wikibreaks.
SorryDidn't mean to do the gender-bender on you - typo. I obviously have no idea about people's sexes unless their Wiki names are like User:Dougweller or something like that. On the dispute resolution page, I tried to be as honest as I could and state what any third-party observer could obviously see by looking through the Talk section. If this has gotten to the resolution stage, any personal disagreements should be dispensed with for the greater good. We can always enjoy more drama in the future. ;-) Yours - Ckruschke ( talk) 13:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
|
Proposition for admin abuse noticeboard by
User:Timeshifter for ref. only
| ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A noticeboard about rude, abusive, or policy-abusing adminsThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to see a new noticeboard started. One for reporting and sanctioning rude and abusive admins. Rude, abusive, or policy-abusing admins are one reason the total number of active editors is steadily declining. See User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors for initial info, and then come back here for discussion. I helped start this idea-lab village pump, and so I know it is possible to start more village pumps and noticeboards. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 21:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment. Here are some links to previous discussions and articles concerning the declining number of active editors, and various reasons for it, including abusive admins:
Editors are leaving for various reasons. Many editors have been driven away. See also: User:Timeshifter/Unresolved content disputes and User:Timeshifter/Userboxes. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 02:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Noticeboard about policy-abusing admins. Section break
Comment. Thanks for all the discussion. I see that some people get it, and some don't. Many of those that oppose a separate noticeboard seem to think that the current methods for dealing with admin problems are adequate, regardless of the scale of the admin problem. If those methods were adequate, then why the many support votes? Others that oppose the noticeboard do not see much of a problem with admins. I ask them, did you read all the discussions, articles, and pages I linked to? If you don't see the problem, but others do, then should you not seek more info first before voting either way? Those that have been around here awhile, see the problem, but oppose a separate noticeboard; I do not see that you have proposed any other realistic solutions. You are dreaming if you think WP:ANI, WP:Arbcom, etc. can handle the problem. They haven't so far. We may not know the scale of this admin problem and how much it helps cause the continuing loss of active editors. But as the saying goes " a fish rots from the head down." If we can't fully hold admins accountable, maybe Wikipedia is paralleling the problems in banking regulation and social inequality in general. In any case I have made some efforts to " Occupy" the Village Pump for awhile since I am no longer really actively editing Wikipedia articles. I am part of the 99% who aren't admins. :) -- Timeshifter ( talk) 18:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Please try to refrain from using words which will trigger vandalism alerts if you can. It would make our job much easier. Thanks! Jobberone ( talk) 04:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Concur with Timeshifter above. And may I add, a much-needed noticeboard that is specific- one we specifically don't have now.--
Djathink
imacowboy
16:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Noticeboard about problem admins. Section breakComment. Groupthink can be a big problem. That is one reason I want a separate noticeboard for admin problems. Groupthink, when it happens, will be more obvious to many people watching such a dedicated noticeboard. Therefore, there will be less and less of the kneejerk "admins-rarely-do-wrong" groupthink on a dedicated noticeboard over time. Also, over time as problems are resolved, it will become obvious that admin problems are not being overlooked. Since it is all out in the open, the wider audience reading the noticeboard will have an overall moderating effect. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 12:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Support I haven't personally dealt with abusive admins on Wikipedia, but I have on forums elsewhere on the internet, and it's an unpleasant experience. Luckily, Wikipedia is a very big organization that has the capacity to double-check possibly abusive admins, while on another website, the admin usually gets to do whatever he/she wants. While WP:ANI is used for this purpose currently, I am always in support of organizing large pages into reasonable categories. I see two downsides, however. The first is the number of users that will report administrators for "abuse", due to administrative action being taken that is actually fully appropriate. The second is that administrators will, naturally, be biased towards the accused admin's point-of-view, making the user's job harder or even impossible. The second issue could be solved by giving equal weight to non-admin voters, and also including bureaucrats. The first issue, however, will require much sifting through bad complaints by voters.-- Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 16:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose: There is no point trying to patch up the messes that inevitably result from the way Wikipedia gives unsuitable people the power to jerk round and block the people who actually write the encyclopedia. It is the very concept of an "administrator" on Wikipedia that is fundamentally flawed. Any pretenses at "reform", such as the farcical Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011, involve protective circles of incumbent administrators who systematically suffocate any attempts to address the real issues. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 01:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose as per Epipelagic, although I wouldn't quite express it in the way that he has. The fundamental problem is the historically lazy loading up of administrators with every new right invented or ever to be invented, without any effective way to remove them – those rights or those administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 02:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose ANI is sufficient. Nobody Ent 02:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Support: The ANI is a perfect example of conflict of interest, and the fox guarding the henhouse. Administrators have a collective interest in circling the wagons and showing solidarity against sanctions as a general rule. No matter how well-meaning Admins may be, they are in a situation which structurally induces them to make a biased judgment in matters like these. I think anyone would agree with one of the tenets of those who oppose this, that most administrators are good, and most do a good job. However, in the same way, while I think most policemen are good, there are bad apples, and I wouldn't trust the management of internal affairs to the people in the same department who clock in with those bad apples day to day, eat lunch with them, have put their life on the line together with them, etc. etc. It's impossible to keep a clear head in an environment with a high level of group cohesiveness (which exists for many of the most frequent contributors to Wikipedia, of which admins are an even more cohesive subset group). You can't have the fox guarding the hen house. You need people who don't have collective interest at stake. To put this all in plain language: Users don't have any incentives in tearing down all the admins. However, Administrators have a strong incentive in keeping up all the admins, lest one of the many administrators they know and like be the next one to be shamed. But it's more than that - their group cohesiveness also makes it hard for them to see it when another administrator is at fault. It's a matter of structural bias which even the most wise, impartiality-loving individual can't guarantee their immunity from. -- Monk of the highest order (t) 04:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose This could serve as a clubhouse of sorts for disruptive trolls who enjoy playing 'whack an admin', but would not actually be helpful for solving problems and duplicates several existing forums. Admins tend to be pretty self-critical of each other, and ArbCom seems to be on the warpath against admins who make mistakes at the moment, so this is totally unnecessary. Nick-D ( talk) 09:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, as there is a problem, it will be dealt with through the current mechanisms. If they're broken, then this will be too. Nothing about this proposal specifically seems to be uniquely different from the current strategy. Aslbsl ( talk) 20:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose on the same rationale as Nick-D. MBisanz talk 03:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose I suppose it might end up as a "honeypot" of sorts, and whilst that would, indeed, make it easier to identify users who habitually accuse admins of abuse, I don't think the other drawbacks identified by opposers here are overcome by that minor usefulness. To try to be a little more serious: maybe there is a problem that needs addressing, but just starting a new drama board is not a cure. Those already opposing have explained more adequately than I can without repeating them - Nick-D in particular. Begoon talk 03:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment. Well, I tried. There are more articles, less editors, and many low-quality articles. Many editors have left. The number one reason in my opinion is unresolved content disputes. The number 2 reason, and it often occurs in conjunction with the number one reason, is unchecked abuse by admins (what this Village Pump discusssion is about). And now I see that it is unlikely to be addressed as long as the Wikipedia Village Pumps are overrun by fanboys (and groupthink) that refuse to acknowledge other people's points (remember WP:NPOV?). The previous sections had many more supports, so maybe there is hope in the long run, but in the meantime many more active editors will leave. Some of the last few opposes cite the oppose from Nick-D, but ignore the long thread concerning Nick-D's comment. Nick-D only wrote 2 sentences total so far. Nick-D posted once and ran. Groupthink has now devolved into nonthink. Editors are leaving for various reasons. Many editors have been driven away. See User:Timeshifter/Userboxes. All the problems below are admin-related. Either abuse by admins, or admins not doing their jobs.
New noticeboard proposal for proposing proposals of new noticeboards proposals. I think this Village Pump (proposals) isn't adequately handling all the new noticeboards that need to be proposed. We should make another notice board, because that won't be just shuffling the problem about, it'll solve it. This new noticeboard somehow won't make the Byzantine bureaucracy of Wikipedia worse, because new users will still be able to post proposals for new noticeboards here and then be told that they're really supposed to post it in the noticeboard for proposing proposals of noticeboard proposals. I mean, if we had all the proposals in a central location (like vandalism at WP:AIV, incivility at WP:WQA, or issues requiring admin attention at WP:ANI), people have to pay attention to a few different pages, instead of having to search multiple pages, which makes things so much easier. As we all know and can plainly see, every post in this thread is a new noticeboard proposal, so it's obviously a huge problem. It's not like anyone can propose anything else thanks to how this board is structured. That's how we'll keep this site free from those damn monarchists and their Catholic church! :P Ian.thomson ( talk) 19:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost. Latest Wikipedia Signpost mentions this discussion. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-27/Discussion report. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 19:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment. I think this discussion can be closed for now. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 15:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
My 0RR 'probation'
|
---|
Resuming old habits is a really bad ideaDjathinkimacowboy, I'm not sure if you've forgotten our discussion from January, or decided to ignore it, or what, but please remember you're not a "regular" editor; you're basically on double secret probation. Edit warring, as you're doing on J. Edgar Hoover, especially the annoying practice of edit warring and at the same time telling the other editor not to edit war, is going back to old habits that you assured me were no longer going to occur. This is not a minor problem, it is a major problem. Therefore, in lieu of blocking you, I'm putting you on a WP:0RR restriction; you are not to revert anyone, anywhere, except for obvious vandalism. For, let's say, one month. If you fail to follow this, then you will be blocked for a month. If you disagree with this, feel free to bring it up for review, but my suspicion is that you'll find everyone else as tired of the way you escalate disagreements as I am. To head off the obvious question "why isn't Alarbus being put on 0RR?", because he does not have the history of disruption that you do. Furthermore, I have taken a brief look at Alarbus' recent contributions and found no personal attacks by Alarbus. You can do one of two things; stop accusing people of making personal attacks against you, or give me a recent diff by Alarbus with a personal attack against you in it. Be aware, however, that if there is no personal attack in the diff, then I'm going to block you for resuming the same kind of argue-at-all-costs-throw-everything-against-the-wall-and-see-if-anything-sticks-battleground attitude that you were blocked for in January. As far as I know, you've had a much better editing experience the last month or so. Please do not resume the old habits, or you won't be here long. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 13:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC) Reply: I agree with your evaluation and your decision. It seems to me to be more than fair. The situation you reference was line-crossing on my part, and I am appreciative that you find this action toward me more suitable than blocking me indefinitely. Even moreso because I know you believe I deserve to be indefblocked for my past attitude. You have good reason to feel that way. So I accept your decision and your action. I am only sorry that you seemed to expect some sort of 'hollering' or retaliatory rhetoric from me. I can see that what I did was excessive; I would not have responded in any way other than this. Ref.: If you do not object...The following is for my reference and for the rule to be handy and before me here.— Djathink imacowboy
Thank you. Query answered, absolutely no thought at all that you might wish to entrap me. I needed to know for sure about the way 0RR applies in full. And I now see what you mean about the nature of a reversion (or even deliberate reversion) as opposed to merely routine editing/maintenance of articles. Ah: the reversions I mentioned were done by the time I mentioned them.—
Djathink
imacowboy
18:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
|
MISC., 2012
|
---|
Battleground behaviorI consider your attack on my talk page inappropriate. For one thing, you're wrong; there's no requirement that all comments come at the bottom of a thread. For another, it smacks of wikihounding. A less experienced editor may have been scared off by your behavior, and I'm not going to tolerate that. So please, dial down the battleground mentality. -- JaGa talk 16:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
ProblemsHave you taken a look at the various methods for archiving talk pages? You current "system" is incredibly complex and it seems that most stuff is simply deleted. Obviously, you can delete what ever you like here but when you do it as frequently as you do, and seemingly in response to any perceived criticism leveled at you, it can begin to look like a case of WP:IDHT or something similar. Maybe time for a rethink? - Sitush ( talk) 19:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Re ColumboI stopped watching changes to the article during the mediation as I knew that otherwise I would find it very hard to resist getting involved in editing it. I will take a look at the recent changes. Rangoon11 ( talk) 18:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
ColumboI have done a lot of good work on WP. I am a bit surprised I got a barnstar for adding [[]].-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 19:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The mess at ANIMay I post a notice that in any event, User:AndyTheGrump has been asked not to post here. Which of course he immediately disregarded. Future posts will simply be deleted.— Djathink imacowboy 23:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
|
BRITISH THRONE, LINE OF SUCCESSION TO, very long & varied
| |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Line of succession Information (Person)
Sophia of Hanover (1630–1714) → George I (1660–1727)George II (1683–1760) → Frederick, Prince of Wales (1707–1751)George III (1738–1820) → Prince Edward (1767–1820)Victoria (1819–1901) → Edward VII (1841–1910)Current monarch: HM Queen Elizabeth II (born 1926) ![]() |
BRITISH THRONE, IMMEDIATE LINE OF SUCCESSION TO, official page, to only several dozen removals
|
---|
![]() The line of succession to the British throne is the ordered sequence of all those people eligible to succeed to the throne of the United Kingdom and the other 15 Commonwealth realms. The Act of Settlement 1701 bestowed succession on the Electress Sophia of Hanover and her descendants while excluding Roman Catholics. [24] [25] The British government does not publish an official list of all those in line to succeed, but the work of genealogical authors and amateur researchers suggests that there are several thousand people potentially in line. [26] This article does not attempt to present an exhaustive list, but limits itself to the descendants of George V. At a summit in Perth, Western Australia in 2011, the heads of government of all the 16 Commonwealth realms agreed to take steps to end male preference primogeniture and the ban on the monarch's marriage to Roman Catholics, and to make other changes in the succession rules. [27] The line of succession is also used to select the Counsellors of State (and a regent if the need arises) under the provisions of the Regency Act 1937. [28] For earlier versions of the line of succession, see History of the British line of succession. EligibilityThe right of succession is regulated by the Act of Settlement 1701, the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and common law, [29] and is limited to the legitimate descendants of legitimate line from the Electress Sophia of Hanover. A person born to parents who are not married to each other at the time of birth is not included in the line of succession and passes no rights to their descendants. The subsequent marriage of the parents does not alter this. [n 1] [30]
Proposed rule changesAt the 2011 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth, Australia, the leaders of the Commonwealth realms agreed to introduce legislation to end male primogeniture of descendants of Charles, Prince of Wales, and to allow heirs to the throne to marry Roman Catholics. [32] Line of succession![]()
The above list is limited to the descendants of George V. The line of succession continues with the other eligible descendants of Edward VII and earlier British monarchs (as well as Frederick, Prince of Wales) back to George I(the list is limited to Sophia of Hanover's descendants, of whom all alive today are also George I's descendants). The last person in line, as reported in recent years, is believed to be Ms Karin Vogel (born 1973) from Rostock, Germany. [26] [30] However no official, complete, version of the line of succession is currently maintained. Notes and sources:
See also
Notes
References
External links
|
![]() | This page 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. |
I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU'RE EVEN HERE, BUT IF YOU POST OR EDIT THIS OR OTHER ARCHIVAL PAGES, YOU'LL BE REPORTED FOR VANDALISM.
![]() | This page 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. |
PRINCE LEOPOLD, SON OF QUEEN VICTORIA
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
My famous block
|
---|
Heads upYou are going to be blocked you from editing for a week if you don't lose the battleground attitude, stop edit warring, and stop slinging silly sock accusations around. Technically you've already violated 3RR, but as long as you don't revert anymore, I won't block for that. But you need to stop. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 22:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
As promisedBlocked for a week for the post above. You need to adjust your attitude if you plan to continue editing here. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 23:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Reply to user SitushSitush, it is fine with me if you were to post examples of my past faux pas. It would be a learning experience for me- but only do it if you're prepared to explain what impression each reference makes. I will not argue the point. It's a real pity other editors close their eyes and ears... I am prepared to listen to honest criticism. One more thing: be careful not to take out of context. By all means, quote away, but not out of context. Cheers a lot for your good luck wishes. We'll be wanting it.-- Djathink imacowboy 01:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Reply to "As promised"
Sometimes rash actions toward editors like me force us to evade blocks just to get some words out. Know this: I regret my bad behaviour. At least I admitted it somewhat openly. A vacation will do me good, I can't beg for your reconsideration of the block, but then, I think none of us behaved in an exemplary fashion. What I wish to state here is that I do not believe the editors involved are sock puppets. What I had actually said was they looked like it to me- there was no further accusation nor did I threaten them with action. Then again, they did not exactly comport themselves too well either, and I admit they angered me beyond control. Much pain in my family life shoved me over the edge. Anyway... see ya in a week! Got work to do in the real world.-- Djathink imacowboy 01:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Unblock request![]() Djathinkimacowboy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) Request reason: Request appeal be considered. Request revision by another administrator. Though this situation was entirely my fault- due to my aggressive position regarding an edit- I feel that I have shown and continue to show general fairness in conflicts. I request a review because I do believe this block, or at least its length, is excessive. Naturally I reacted in anger after the block, but I have no intention of returning to stir up new problems. My main issue, and my anger, was with one editor only. My belief is that editor will cool off, then will feel more reasonable. If that is so, and with my assurances above, I think I can be trusted to have a week-long block at least reconsidered. If refused for good reason, I will not appeal further. May I address the reasons for the block as expressed to me by the administrator: "battleground approach, edit warring, baseless accusations of sockpuppetry after warning to stop". The 1st accusation is true, insofar as my approach to the situation was a 'battle-ready' approach. I regret this action. The 2nd accusation is understandable but I must protest it. I did not engage in any activity that differed in any way from any other editor in a similar situation. The 3rd accusation is based on an angry remark I made to two editors involved. They were angry, but I submit that these unacceptable angry expressions are not sock puppet "accusations" and I stopped immediately after I had expressed myself once each to the two editors. It seems rash in view of all this to impose a block of a week. I acknowledge my loss of temper and incivility; it is a struggle for me that I usually don't manage so well... but I try. Decline reason: You were blocked for your conduct, so your argument that the block is no longer necessary as the other editor "will cool off, then will feel more reasonable" isn't relevant - please see WP:NOTTHEM. I've restored the messages concerning this block which you removed before asking to be unblocked per the normal convention, and they seem to indicate that you haven't given up the confrontational attitude which led to the block. Nick-D ( talk) 07:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Sitush comment. Reply to editor Sitush
Your post is appreciated. My mind and my views are not in good order right now. Your post is, however, understood in full. My hope at this moment is not to incur anyone's wrath, which I have been doing with every post. So: my apologies for that. My plan is to rest (as I am able) during this week. As an act of respect I will be monitoring my talk page and replying to anyone who posts.-- Djathink imacowboy A reply to Floquenbeam's earlier query--this is from Floquenbeam. No, you are mistaken. Completely mistaken. I'd like my reply to you to be on the record. No sense in creating a false impression and I would be remiss in not responding directly to you.-- Djathink imacowboy
Help requiredPermission to strike and delete MikeWazowski's useless and taunting post above? Or is that not a kosher thing to do? It is clear why I want to strike that and I will strike my reply to him as well. Anyone may see those diffs, I don't care because it is well known. I do not welcome Mike or his posts, and of course he already knows this. "Just take the block and learn from it." And I get lectured for battleground thinking!-- Djathink imacowboy 20:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Have someone ping me for anything addressed to meI am unwatching this talk page, as it appears clear nothing productive is going to happened here, and the continued bickering is getting old fast. I came within a button-push of fully protecting this page so nobody, Djathinkimacowboy or anyone else, could edit it, but since I suppose it isn't actually disrupting the encyclopedia itself, just averting my eyes from this dysfunction seems like a better idea. If there's something I need to see, have someone ping me; I assume there are many here who will continue to watch the page. One thought, though, before I go, in case you don't hear from me before the block expires. Either you understand you're being disruptive, or you don't. Either you understand that 80% of the fault in your numerous disputes lies with you, or you don't. If you do, then you've been given far too many chances, and if you don't stop, your next block will be indefinite. If you don't, then I think we've invested more than enough time trying to explain how to interact with others here, and unfortunately the time has come to stop trying. So, either way, you will either make a dramatic turnaround in the way you interact with others, or you will be quickly blocked from editing indefinitely. Thousands of editors manage, every day, to edit here with little or no conflict. I guess there's a third possibility, and that's what I'm hoping for. It's that you know how to stop, but didn't think it was that big a deal before now. Now that you know it's a big deal, you'll stop. Here's hoping that it's option number three. And if anyone comes here and starts grave dancing, I'll warn them once, and them block them for a week as well. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
What Wikipedia is- now I know!Note: I seem to have accidentally deleted this very important statement....Now I have moved it to the bottom of the talk page. All of this got me thinking: Wikipedia is owned by someone, not by those of us who work and edit here. Therefore we are privileged, allowed, to edit and be members here by those who own it. We are guests. I realise I have been a terrible, disruptive party-crashing type of guest. Someone I would not allow into my home. It was perusing WP:OWN that suddenly opened my eyes. That one word, "own". And I saw that Wikipedia is owned by someone, we are allowed to be here and must follow the rules that are set here, as we would do anyplace else. Someone acting like I have done is being a rotten, inconsiderate guest, not contributing much, and trying to take over or stake a claim! Now I get it!!-- Djathink imacowboy 20:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC) |
MISCELLANEOUS: Loose threads, 30 January 2012 to 27 February 2012
|
---|
BarnstarsJust to be explicit, the Instructor's Barnstar was not meant as a replacement for, ripoff of or challenge to the Quasar Barnstar. The former's intent is to acknowledge great work on tools and documentation, the latter on policies and guidelines, and yes sometimes these can overlap, but really mine's intended for "geeky" not "political" work. I'm sorry that some people are trying to merge the concepts, but oh well. Wikipedia talk:Barnstars seems to be a little more political and argumentative than I expected. PS: I was not meaning to "diss" your barnstar, and am not sure why some want to push it to the user awards page with the "weird" barnstars. I don't think the Quasar name is very helpful, but simply renaming it (Policy Barnstar? Guidance Barnstar?) would make more sense than throwing out the award. Anyway, no offense intended. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 05:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
BirthstonesHi Dja, I'm afraid I can't help you with your request... I try to keep as far from the File namespace as I can, to be honest. I have never been able to actually understand the criteria to add non-free content to our articles. I hope one of my talk page stalkers can help you, but perhaps it would be better to find another editor/admin who's more experienced than I am with images... I'm sorry. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Re:HelloHey there Dja, and great to see you're back! I noticed you weren't around lately, but then everyone has
wikibreaks.
SorryDidn't mean to do the gender-bender on you - typo. I obviously have no idea about people's sexes unless their Wiki names are like User:Dougweller or something like that. On the dispute resolution page, I tried to be as honest as I could and state what any third-party observer could obviously see by looking through the Talk section. If this has gotten to the resolution stage, any personal disagreements should be dispensed with for the greater good. We can always enjoy more drama in the future. ;-) Yours - Ckruschke ( talk) 13:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
|
Proposition for admin abuse noticeboard by
User:Timeshifter for ref. only
| ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A noticeboard about rude, abusive, or policy-abusing adminsThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to see a new noticeboard started. One for reporting and sanctioning rude and abusive admins. Rude, abusive, or policy-abusing admins are one reason the total number of active editors is steadily declining. See User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors for initial info, and then come back here for discussion. I helped start this idea-lab village pump, and so I know it is possible to start more village pumps and noticeboards. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 21:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment. Here are some links to previous discussions and articles concerning the declining number of active editors, and various reasons for it, including abusive admins:
Editors are leaving for various reasons. Many editors have been driven away. See also: User:Timeshifter/Unresolved content disputes and User:Timeshifter/Userboxes. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 02:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Noticeboard about policy-abusing admins. Section break
Comment. Thanks for all the discussion. I see that some people get it, and some don't. Many of those that oppose a separate noticeboard seem to think that the current methods for dealing with admin problems are adequate, regardless of the scale of the admin problem. If those methods were adequate, then why the many support votes? Others that oppose the noticeboard do not see much of a problem with admins. I ask them, did you read all the discussions, articles, and pages I linked to? If you don't see the problem, but others do, then should you not seek more info first before voting either way? Those that have been around here awhile, see the problem, but oppose a separate noticeboard; I do not see that you have proposed any other realistic solutions. You are dreaming if you think WP:ANI, WP:Arbcom, etc. can handle the problem. They haven't so far. We may not know the scale of this admin problem and how much it helps cause the continuing loss of active editors. But as the saying goes " a fish rots from the head down." If we can't fully hold admins accountable, maybe Wikipedia is paralleling the problems in banking regulation and social inequality in general. In any case I have made some efforts to " Occupy" the Village Pump for awhile since I am no longer really actively editing Wikipedia articles. I am part of the 99% who aren't admins. :) -- Timeshifter ( talk) 18:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Please try to refrain from using words which will trigger vandalism alerts if you can. It would make our job much easier. Thanks! Jobberone ( talk) 04:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Concur with Timeshifter above. And may I add, a much-needed noticeboard that is specific- one we specifically don't have now.--
Djathink
imacowboy
16:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Noticeboard about problem admins. Section breakComment. Groupthink can be a big problem. That is one reason I want a separate noticeboard for admin problems. Groupthink, when it happens, will be more obvious to many people watching such a dedicated noticeboard. Therefore, there will be less and less of the kneejerk "admins-rarely-do-wrong" groupthink on a dedicated noticeboard over time. Also, over time as problems are resolved, it will become obvious that admin problems are not being overlooked. Since it is all out in the open, the wider audience reading the noticeboard will have an overall moderating effect. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 12:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Support I haven't personally dealt with abusive admins on Wikipedia, but I have on forums elsewhere on the internet, and it's an unpleasant experience. Luckily, Wikipedia is a very big organization that has the capacity to double-check possibly abusive admins, while on another website, the admin usually gets to do whatever he/she wants. While WP:ANI is used for this purpose currently, I am always in support of organizing large pages into reasonable categories. I see two downsides, however. The first is the number of users that will report administrators for "abuse", due to administrative action being taken that is actually fully appropriate. The second is that administrators will, naturally, be biased towards the accused admin's point-of-view, making the user's job harder or even impossible. The second issue could be solved by giving equal weight to non-admin voters, and also including bureaucrats. The first issue, however, will require much sifting through bad complaints by voters.-- Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 16:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose: There is no point trying to patch up the messes that inevitably result from the way Wikipedia gives unsuitable people the power to jerk round and block the people who actually write the encyclopedia. It is the very concept of an "administrator" on Wikipedia that is fundamentally flawed. Any pretenses at "reform", such as the farcical Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011, involve protective circles of incumbent administrators who systematically suffocate any attempts to address the real issues. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 01:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose as per Epipelagic, although I wouldn't quite express it in the way that he has. The fundamental problem is the historically lazy loading up of administrators with every new right invented or ever to be invented, without any effective way to remove them – those rights or those administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 02:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose ANI is sufficient. Nobody Ent 02:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Support: The ANI is a perfect example of conflict of interest, and the fox guarding the henhouse. Administrators have a collective interest in circling the wagons and showing solidarity against sanctions as a general rule. No matter how well-meaning Admins may be, they are in a situation which structurally induces them to make a biased judgment in matters like these. I think anyone would agree with one of the tenets of those who oppose this, that most administrators are good, and most do a good job. However, in the same way, while I think most policemen are good, there are bad apples, and I wouldn't trust the management of internal affairs to the people in the same department who clock in with those bad apples day to day, eat lunch with them, have put their life on the line together with them, etc. etc. It's impossible to keep a clear head in an environment with a high level of group cohesiveness (which exists for many of the most frequent contributors to Wikipedia, of which admins are an even more cohesive subset group). You can't have the fox guarding the hen house. You need people who don't have collective interest at stake. To put this all in plain language: Users don't have any incentives in tearing down all the admins. However, Administrators have a strong incentive in keeping up all the admins, lest one of the many administrators they know and like be the next one to be shamed. But it's more than that - their group cohesiveness also makes it hard for them to see it when another administrator is at fault. It's a matter of structural bias which even the most wise, impartiality-loving individual can't guarantee their immunity from. -- Monk of the highest order (t) 04:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose This could serve as a clubhouse of sorts for disruptive trolls who enjoy playing 'whack an admin', but would not actually be helpful for solving problems and duplicates several existing forums. Admins tend to be pretty self-critical of each other, and ArbCom seems to be on the warpath against admins who make mistakes at the moment, so this is totally unnecessary. Nick-D ( talk) 09:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, as there is a problem, it will be dealt with through the current mechanisms. If they're broken, then this will be too. Nothing about this proposal specifically seems to be uniquely different from the current strategy. Aslbsl ( talk) 20:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose on the same rationale as Nick-D. MBisanz talk 03:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose I suppose it might end up as a "honeypot" of sorts, and whilst that would, indeed, make it easier to identify users who habitually accuse admins of abuse, I don't think the other drawbacks identified by opposers here are overcome by that minor usefulness. To try to be a little more serious: maybe there is a problem that needs addressing, but just starting a new drama board is not a cure. Those already opposing have explained more adequately than I can without repeating them - Nick-D in particular. Begoon talk 03:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment. Well, I tried. There are more articles, less editors, and many low-quality articles. Many editors have left. The number one reason in my opinion is unresolved content disputes. The number 2 reason, and it often occurs in conjunction with the number one reason, is unchecked abuse by admins (what this Village Pump discusssion is about). And now I see that it is unlikely to be addressed as long as the Wikipedia Village Pumps are overrun by fanboys (and groupthink) that refuse to acknowledge other people's points (remember WP:NPOV?). The previous sections had many more supports, so maybe there is hope in the long run, but in the meantime many more active editors will leave. Some of the last few opposes cite the oppose from Nick-D, but ignore the long thread concerning Nick-D's comment. Nick-D only wrote 2 sentences total so far. Nick-D posted once and ran. Groupthink has now devolved into nonthink. Editors are leaving for various reasons. Many editors have been driven away. See User:Timeshifter/Userboxes. All the problems below are admin-related. Either abuse by admins, or admins not doing their jobs.
New noticeboard proposal for proposing proposals of new noticeboards proposals. I think this Village Pump (proposals) isn't adequately handling all the new noticeboards that need to be proposed. We should make another notice board, because that won't be just shuffling the problem about, it'll solve it. This new noticeboard somehow won't make the Byzantine bureaucracy of Wikipedia worse, because new users will still be able to post proposals for new noticeboards here and then be told that they're really supposed to post it in the noticeboard for proposing proposals of noticeboard proposals. I mean, if we had all the proposals in a central location (like vandalism at WP:AIV, incivility at WP:WQA, or issues requiring admin attention at WP:ANI), people have to pay attention to a few different pages, instead of having to search multiple pages, which makes things so much easier. As we all know and can plainly see, every post in this thread is a new noticeboard proposal, so it's obviously a huge problem. It's not like anyone can propose anything else thanks to how this board is structured. That's how we'll keep this site free from those damn monarchists and their Catholic church! :P Ian.thomson ( talk) 19:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost. Latest Wikipedia Signpost mentions this discussion. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-27/Discussion report. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 19:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment. I think this discussion can be closed for now. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 15:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
My 0RR 'probation'
|
---|
Resuming old habits is a really bad ideaDjathinkimacowboy, I'm not sure if you've forgotten our discussion from January, or decided to ignore it, or what, but please remember you're not a "regular" editor; you're basically on double secret probation. Edit warring, as you're doing on J. Edgar Hoover, especially the annoying practice of edit warring and at the same time telling the other editor not to edit war, is going back to old habits that you assured me were no longer going to occur. This is not a minor problem, it is a major problem. Therefore, in lieu of blocking you, I'm putting you on a WP:0RR restriction; you are not to revert anyone, anywhere, except for obvious vandalism. For, let's say, one month. If you fail to follow this, then you will be blocked for a month. If you disagree with this, feel free to bring it up for review, but my suspicion is that you'll find everyone else as tired of the way you escalate disagreements as I am. To head off the obvious question "why isn't Alarbus being put on 0RR?", because he does not have the history of disruption that you do. Furthermore, I have taken a brief look at Alarbus' recent contributions and found no personal attacks by Alarbus. You can do one of two things; stop accusing people of making personal attacks against you, or give me a recent diff by Alarbus with a personal attack against you in it. Be aware, however, that if there is no personal attack in the diff, then I'm going to block you for resuming the same kind of argue-at-all-costs-throw-everything-against-the-wall-and-see-if-anything-sticks-battleground attitude that you were blocked for in January. As far as I know, you've had a much better editing experience the last month or so. Please do not resume the old habits, or you won't be here long. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 13:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC) Reply: I agree with your evaluation and your decision. It seems to me to be more than fair. The situation you reference was line-crossing on my part, and I am appreciative that you find this action toward me more suitable than blocking me indefinitely. Even moreso because I know you believe I deserve to be indefblocked for my past attitude. You have good reason to feel that way. So I accept your decision and your action. I am only sorry that you seemed to expect some sort of 'hollering' or retaliatory rhetoric from me. I can see that what I did was excessive; I would not have responded in any way other than this. Ref.: If you do not object...The following is for my reference and for the rule to be handy and before me here.— Djathink imacowboy
Thank you. Query answered, absolutely no thought at all that you might wish to entrap me. I needed to know for sure about the way 0RR applies in full. And I now see what you mean about the nature of a reversion (or even deliberate reversion) as opposed to merely routine editing/maintenance of articles. Ah: the reversions I mentioned were done by the time I mentioned them.—
Djathink
imacowboy
18:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
|
MISC., 2012
|
---|
Battleground behaviorI consider your attack on my talk page inappropriate. For one thing, you're wrong; there's no requirement that all comments come at the bottom of a thread. For another, it smacks of wikihounding. A less experienced editor may have been scared off by your behavior, and I'm not going to tolerate that. So please, dial down the battleground mentality. -- JaGa talk 16:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
ProblemsHave you taken a look at the various methods for archiving talk pages? You current "system" is incredibly complex and it seems that most stuff is simply deleted. Obviously, you can delete what ever you like here but when you do it as frequently as you do, and seemingly in response to any perceived criticism leveled at you, it can begin to look like a case of WP:IDHT or something similar. Maybe time for a rethink? - Sitush ( talk) 19:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Re ColumboI stopped watching changes to the article during the mediation as I knew that otherwise I would find it very hard to resist getting involved in editing it. I will take a look at the recent changes. Rangoon11 ( talk) 18:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
ColumboI have done a lot of good work on WP. I am a bit surprised I got a barnstar for adding [[]].-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 19:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The mess at ANIMay I post a notice that in any event, User:AndyTheGrump has been asked not to post here. Which of course he immediately disregarded. Future posts will simply be deleted.— Djathink imacowboy 23:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
|
BRITISH THRONE, LINE OF SUCCESSION TO, very long & varied
| |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Line of succession Information (Person)
Sophia of Hanover (1630–1714) → George I (1660–1727)George II (1683–1760) → Frederick, Prince of Wales (1707–1751)George III (1738–1820) → Prince Edward (1767–1820)Victoria (1819–1901) → Edward VII (1841–1910)Current monarch: HM Queen Elizabeth II (born 1926) ![]() |
BRITISH THRONE, IMMEDIATE LINE OF SUCCESSION TO, official page, to only several dozen removals
|
---|
![]() The line of succession to the British throne is the ordered sequence of all those people eligible to succeed to the throne of the United Kingdom and the other 15 Commonwealth realms. The Act of Settlement 1701 bestowed succession on the Electress Sophia of Hanover and her descendants while excluding Roman Catholics. [24] [25] The British government does not publish an official list of all those in line to succeed, but the work of genealogical authors and amateur researchers suggests that there are several thousand people potentially in line. [26] This article does not attempt to present an exhaustive list, but limits itself to the descendants of George V. At a summit in Perth, Western Australia in 2011, the heads of government of all the 16 Commonwealth realms agreed to take steps to end male preference primogeniture and the ban on the monarch's marriage to Roman Catholics, and to make other changes in the succession rules. [27] The line of succession is also used to select the Counsellors of State (and a regent if the need arises) under the provisions of the Regency Act 1937. [28] For earlier versions of the line of succession, see History of the British line of succession. EligibilityThe right of succession is regulated by the Act of Settlement 1701, the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and common law, [29] and is limited to the legitimate descendants of legitimate line from the Electress Sophia of Hanover. A person born to parents who are not married to each other at the time of birth is not included in the line of succession and passes no rights to their descendants. The subsequent marriage of the parents does not alter this. [n 1] [30]
Proposed rule changesAt the 2011 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth, Australia, the leaders of the Commonwealth realms agreed to introduce legislation to end male primogeniture of descendants of Charles, Prince of Wales, and to allow heirs to the throne to marry Roman Catholics. [32] Line of succession![]()
The above list is limited to the descendants of George V. The line of succession continues with the other eligible descendants of Edward VII and earlier British monarchs (as well as Frederick, Prince of Wales) back to George I(the list is limited to Sophia of Hanover's descendants, of whom all alive today are also George I's descendants). The last person in line, as reported in recent years, is believed to be Ms Karin Vogel (born 1973) from Rostock, Germany. [26] [30] However no official, complete, version of the line of succession is currently maintained. Notes and sources:
See also
Notes
References
External links
|
![]() | This page 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. |