Talk:Line of succession to the British throne
Now this is certainly an interesting page. I think many users will also want to know on which principle this list is based. Any plans to add that sort of thing? KF 16:58 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)
- And then there will have to be a link to King Ralph!
Yes, but if anyone else wants to do it before i do they can. -fonzy
Isn't Prince Charles the Prince of Wales?
Is it really correct to call his sons "Prince William of Wales" and "Prince Harry of Wales"?
S.
I've added some explanation of the order of descent, particularly for the descendants of George V. I'm not sure who the final descendant of George V is, but Harald V of Norway goes back to an earlier British monarch (Edward VII, I think). - And yes, Prince William of Wales is correct, as he is a prince and is of Wales, but as you say he is not The Prince of Wales. - I haven't (yet?) fixed this to show correct styles: he is The Prince of Wales, not Prince Charles, and so on. There is no 'correct' way of giving the name as well: to call him 'Charles, Prince of Wales' is a mixed form that wouldn't be officially used. - Gritchka 13:54 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)
- The Lascelles family are descendants of George V, via his daughter Princess Mary, who became the fifth Princess Royal, and married the 6th Earl of Harewood. His family name was "Lascelles". The people immediately following them - the Carnegies - are descended from Edward VII's daughter Louise, the sixth Princess Royal, who married the 1st Duke of Fife. Sorting this page out is on my mental list of "Things To Do", but since this is increasing in size rather fast, I expect it will be sorted out before I get round to it... -- Oliver P. 14:15 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)
Edit by Fonzy labelled - 'its no longer just eldest son, its now eldest child
- When did this happen? I wasn't aware of such a change, I thought it needed an Act of Parliament. I remember Jeffrey Archer wanting to pursue such a change but I didn't think it had happened, particularly as the male line of succession it pretty clear and it wouldn't be an issue for some considerable time. Mintguy
- It hasn't happened in Britain - yet. It's happened in Sweden. Don't know about other countries. Deb 18:13 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)
I made a few changes to the list, mainly to reflect the need for disambiguated links even where there aren't yet articles. If anyone feels I've done it wrong, please say so -- I'm not the oracle. Deb 21:42 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)
- Good work! But I see that Fonzy is suggesting extending the list to 150 or so people. Is there any chance that we'd be able to maintain a list of that size? I'm not sure. I don't think there's much chance that we'd be able to keep track of all the births and deaths among all those people, so our list would be almost guaranteed to be inaccurate, even after we've settled all the naming business. Well, we can give it a try, I suppose... -- Oliver P. 01:23 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)
Fair point. One solution might be to have two lists, the top twenty or thirty which would be constantly updated, and a second list for the rest with the latter list being described as the 'Order of Succession as of the start of 2003'. The first list could be constantly updated, while the latter list would simply be there to give an indication of how many people are in theory in the line of succession as of the start of 2003. JTD 01:39 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)
- Aha! That sounds like a good idea to me. -- Oliver P. 01:54 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)
Changed this around a bit. Edited the list of succession to keep it up to date (added Eloise Taylor, Lady Helen Taylor's new daughter, and took out Lord Downpatrick, who has converted to Catholicism), and changed around some of the styles (in particular, I put in all the Fife titles, which weren't there before). I hope nobody has any problems with this. -- john 02:18 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)
In terms of the end of this list, does anyone have any idea of the religions of the many descendants of Princess Ileana of Rumania? Since they're mostly Habsburgs, I would suspect that most of them should be skipped, but I have no real idea. john 04:30 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)
Hmm...many of these later individuals are Catholic. If we're going to exclude Prince Michael and Lord St. Andrews from the list, we also ought to exclude the Prince of Hohenzollern and Archduke Dominik of Austria. Unless someone can determine the religious affiliations of all the people currently on the list, we should either cut off the list at the point where we can say for sure the religious affiliations of the persons on the list and their spouses, or include all individuals, whether or not they are Catholic or married with Catholics. To exclude those people relatively close to the throne who are Catholic or married Catholics, while including people further from the throne who are excluded for the same reason ought not be done. john 04:52 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I would think the most instructive way would be to make a List of the legitimate descendants of the Electress Sophia and simply note if any of they are excluded from the succession and on what basis: (dead), (Catholic), (married a Catholic). -- Someone else 22:52 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Why not add a divider into the list. Everyone above it is in the list in keeping with the Act of Succession. Those below are listed simply by descent, with a note at the divide explaining that some below the divide may not be eligible under the Act of Succession to inherit the throne due to their religion but that due to the their distance from the throne, the extreme unlikelihood that the would ever inherit it and their international locations it has not been possible to distinguish between those eligible by religion and descent and those ineligible by religion though eligible by descent. FearÉIREANN 23:15 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
A divider would be workable, I think, assuming that that can work with the "#" deal...#94, Princess Katarina of Yugoslavia, who's daughter's surname is "de Silva", would seem the first likely candidate for exclusion. Perhaps the break could be made after the descendants of Edward VII (that is to say, after no. 77), though this would mean taking out information about King Michael and Crown Prince Alexander...I don't think listing all descendants of electress Sophia would be workable, considering that there's several thousand of them. john 07:03, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I really admire your fortitude. Deb 21:13, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Daughter of Edward and Sophie will not be styled HRH:
When Edward and Sophie married in 1999, it was decided, with the Queen's agreement, that any children they had would not be called His or Her Royal Highness.
Instead, the couple's baby girl will take the title of Lady. [1]
--Jiang 05:43, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Yes, but no royal warrant, or whatever, has been issued to actually effect the change. As such, she's "HRH Princess (forename) of Wessex" until further notice. john 05:46, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Until further notice, she doesn't even have a forename. :) So there is nothing to attach the "HRH Princess" bit to. Does someone without a name have any official style at all...? -- Oliver P. 05:57, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hmm...good point. She is, however, a Royal Highness and a Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland until further notice... john 08:36, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
In fact, the Earl of Wessex's daughter is an HRH and a Princess, as per the 1917 Letter Patent which makes any male-line grandchild of the monarch an HRH Prince/ss. As no document has been issued by the palace, the baby retains this style. That she will, in practice, not be known by said style would seem to be the case, but nevertheless, she officially has it. The Palace could, of course, end all this silliness by issuing a royal warrant to say that she won't be an HRH, but they don't seem to be doing so. Until that happens, she is an HRH, although she won't be known as that. "HRH Princess Louise of Wessex, known as Lady Louise Windsor" would be technically correct, I think, until some sort of document is forthcoming. john 05:57, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I don't think it is correct to list Lady Louise as "HRH Princess Louise of Wessex". The letters patent only gives entitlement to use that style, but it is not compulsary. Therefore she should be listed as Lady Louise only.
- This has certainly never been the interpretation before. For instance, in 1919, when HRH Princess Patricia of Connaught married and wished to no longer be known by her HRH style, it was considered that a royal warrant was necessary to allow her to be known only as "Lady Patricia Ramsay."
- Here's the text of the actual letter patent:
- It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of any Sovereign of the United Kingdom and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour.
- Key words: shall have and at all time hold and enjoy. Seems pretty clear to me. john 17:36, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)