Misplaced Pages

Talk:Succession to the British throne: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:06, 15 June 2011 editYobot (talk | contribs)Bots4,733,870 editsm Updated banner using AWB (7758)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:28, 8 June 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,298,157 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Succession to the British throne/Archive 4) (bot 
(865 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WP UK Politics|class=B|auto=inherit|importance=}}
{{WikiProject British Royalty {{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=B|listas=Succession to the British throne|
{{WikiProject British Royalty |importance=Mid}}
|class=B
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom |importance=Low}}
|importance=Mid
{{WikiProject Biography |royalty-work-group=yes |royalty-priority=mid}}
|non-bio=yes
}}
|royalty-work-group=yes
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|listas=Succession to the British Throne
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 4
|archive = Talk:Succession to the British throne/Archive %(counter)d
|algo = old(365d)
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 2
}} }}


== Counsellors of State ==
==Edwatd VIII's successor==
From a recent TV programme I think I understood that, since ] abdicated, any of ]'s other sons could have succeeded as king: it didn't have to be the eldest. Had Edward VIII died on the throne without leaving children, succession would have been definitely to ] who was George V's second son.

Of course, Prince Albert did indeed become king but perhaps it was indeed by some political decision. Could this have been ]? The article hints at it in saying "the Act ensured that the throne passed over to Prince Albert, Duke of York".

Does anyone have any information? ] 16:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As of December 1936, there was no legal provision for abdication. A law had to be passed. That law could have made ''anyone'' King - it could have invalidated the whole Act of Settlement, and put PM Baldwin on the throne as Stanley I. Or whatever. So, yeah, technically anything could have happened. Supposedly, there was some consideration of making the Duke of Kent king. But I think that's largely bogus. There was no real other option than making York king, especially since he had daughters who would otherwise be disenfranchised. ] ] 18:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Discuss/link to discussion of heir presumptive/heir apparent? ] 23:51, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

== Statute of Westminster ==

In the '''Changes''' section it states: "In practice the provisions of the Statute of Westminster 1931 have fallen out of use." I'm wondering how this claim can be made. The Realms remain equal in status, the Westminster Parliament remains barred from legislating on behalf of any other Realm, and the convention that no alteration to the line of succession by one Realm without the consent of all the others remains in effect. Unless I'm missing something, I think this sentence should be removed. --] 22:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

:I am no constitutional scholar, but my understanding is that, apart from the '''convention''' implied in the preamble to the ], any alteration to the law on succession made by the Parliament of United Kingdom would '''automatically''' have legal effect in Australia withouth the need for formal approval by the Australian Parliament. My understanding is based on the ], which states in Section 2 that

::''The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.''

:Conversely however, any '''unilateral''' change in the line of succession to the Australian throne, e.g. to pick a person other than the Sovereign of the United Kingdom to be the King or Queen of Australia, would require IMHO an amendment to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, which could be made in turn only by means of approval in a public referendum requiring a double majority of the nationwide vote and of the votes cast in a majority of states. The situation in Canada as I see it is more confusing as the Canadian constitution, unlike the constitutions of Australia or New Zealand<sup>1</sup> for that matter, does not include AFAIK any explicit mention to the line of succession following a demise of the crown. So far however, the understanding of the Canadian courts has been that the preambles to Canada's ] and to the Statute of Westminster 1931 '''imply''' a line of succession to the Canadian throne that is symmetrical to that of the United Kingdom. Moreover, the courts have also ruled that any unilateral change to the line of succession in Canada would amount to a significant change in the nature of the office of the Queen and, therefore, would require the qualified constitutional amendment procedures set out in the Constitution Act 1982, namely approval by the federal Parliament as well as the Legislative Assemblies of all 10 Canadian provinces. AFAIK however, the constitutional issues involving the succession to the Canadian throne have not been examined yet by the highest court in the land, i.e. the ], and, therefore, I do not consider this matter settled. ] 12:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

::Most of what you say is true, except, as I understand it from reading the ruling of Ontario Superior Court Justice Rouleau in ], the Act of Settlement is now a patriated part of the Canadian constitution, and any alteration to the UK's version of the Act would have no effect on the Canadian version of the Act; meaning that if the UK altered the line of succession without the same being done in Canada, the two nations would have different monarchs. Hence, as the preamble to the Statute of Westminster (which is also separately a part of the constitutions of the UK and Canada) lays out the important convention that the monarch remain the same throughout the Realms, the UK cannot change the line of succession to the British Throne without the consent of at least Canada, and vice-versa. This reliance of one on the other seemed to be demonstrated as early as 1936, when it was necessary for Canada to pass the ''Succession to the Throne Act'', which allowed for Edward VIII to abdicate. As Ireland didn't get their parliament to permit the abdication of Edward as King of Ireland in time, Ireland ended up with a different sovereign to the other Realms for one day.
::From Rouleau's ruling, which is, admittedly, not a Superior Court ruling, it seems clear that the provisions of the Statute of Westminster are still indeed in effect - all the countries under the Crown remain equal in status, no country should alter its line of succession without the consent of the 15 others, and the UK cannot pass laws on behalf of any other Realm. --] 15:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

*<sup>1</sup> <small> New Zealand Constitution Act 1986, Part I, Section 5(1): </small>
<small>''The death of the Sovereign shall have the effect of transferring all the functions, duties, powers, authorities, rights, privileges, and dignities belonging to the Crown to the Sovereign's successor, as determined in accordance with the enactment of the Parliament of England intituled The Act of Settlement (12 & 13 Will 3, c 2) and any other law relating to the succession to the Throne, but shall otherwise have no effect in law for any purpose.'' </small>

== A Question ==

* When someone is struck off the line of succession for being a Catholic, does the same apply to their descendents, or are their children permitted to stay on the list (assuming that they themselves are Protestants, naturally)? This is unclear from the article. ] 01:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
: The married-a-Papist rule only applies to the person and not to their descendants; ] is 23rd in line in favour of her father, who married a Catholic. It be reasonable that the same holds for descendants of persons who are themselves Catholics, though I'm not sure of an example. ] 23:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


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. ] (]) 19:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
::There is a forseeable problem, though: if somebody ever actually gets skipped for real, his or her unborn children must surely be accounted out of the succession (otherwise their place would be AHEAD of the then-incumbent). The inconsistency between this and EdC's answer above is disquieting. Ah, well. ] | ] 06:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
: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. ] (]) 14:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


== Order of sections ==
----
"Furthermore, an individual is not barred because his or her spouse converts to Roman Catholicism after marriage." - what if a person converts '''from''' Catholicism to Protestantism before the marriage; whould that make their spouse inneligible? And does any law state specifically that an heir has to be protestant, or just that they can't be Catholic? - ] 07:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


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? ] (]) 16:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
==Why English only, where's the Scots==
: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. ] (]) 18:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
In truth this article should begin at 1707, but since it currrently include the 'Succession to the English Throne', it should also include 'Succession to the Scottish Throne'. What's with this continous notion - England became Britain, while Scotland became exstinct. ] 18:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
:Agreed. ] <sup>(] ])</sup> 19:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
:Correction, some (but very little) Scottish material is in the article - however article still seems 'pre-dominantly' English. ] 18:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
: 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? —] 22:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
::Well, most of the article is about the theory, which isn't England-specific. But you have a point with regard to the history section, so I've reorganized and added a "stub" tag. ] | ] 19:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
:: 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 ] and the Hanoverian succession. —] 22:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
:::The other thing that bothers me is the ordering -- James of Scotland in this article is known as "James I & VI" whereas I was brought up knowing him as "James VI & I". Doubtless a lot of that is simply national bias -- but in this case, the national bias towards "James VI & I" has more merit than "James I & VI" given that James was James VI well before he was James I. The same would go, by continuation, with his son James VII and II. Unless there is an overwhelming number of contemporary sources authorised by the King naming himself James I&VI I would argue that the numbers should be swapped. Plus, the current Scottish section is rubbish. In the English section we get a potted history of the English crown. In the Scottish section we get a brief comment about Mary, Queen of Scots being succeeded by James. I don't know the history -- which is why I'm here in the first place -- so I can't correct matters. I, and doubtless others, would definitely appreciate someone versed in the history of the Scottish monarchies putting the same type of potted history as the English get here.] (]) 20:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


== Descendants of Egbert == == 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. ] (]) 15:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
"Upon the death of Beorhtric who had forced him into exile, Egbert returned to Wessex and took the throne. Overtaking Mercia as the dominant power in Britain, Egbert militarily expanded his realm to include Kent, Sussex, Surrey, some Mercian territory, and briefly all of Mercia; this gained him the title Bretwalda, or "ruler of Britain". Egbert's heirs have ruled England almost exclusively ever since; in the years since there have been only eight monarchs of the country who were not his descendants: the four consecutive Danish kings, and the first four Normans beginning with William the Conqueror."
:I don't see how that's possible without strong reliable sources. ] (]) 15:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
::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. ] (]) 19:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
:::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. ] (]) 20:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
::::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. ] (]) 15:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::And illegitimacy disqualifies someone from the succession to the Crown, so they wouldn't be on this list anyway. ] (]) 15:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::None of the people I mentioned are in law illegitimate. They are the offspring of married couples, so there's no "infidelities" to avoid. ] (]) 17:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
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.] (]) 23:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


== Excessive detail of English succession? ==
The last sentence is not correct. The four Danish kings were not descendants of Egbert, it is true, nor was William the Conqueror, but his sons William II and Henry I were, as was his grandson Stephen. This is because the Conqueror's wife Matilda of Flanders was a distant descendant of Alfred the Great, through his daughter Elfrida who married Baldwin II, Count of Flanders. Alfred in turn was a grandson of Egbert.


As this article is about the "British" succession, is it appropriate to keep expanding the details of the "English" succession here? ] <sup>(] ])</sup> 20:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
It is debatable though whether the number of non-descended Kings should be reduced to five or six. Harold II had no certainly known descent from Egbert. There was a claim that his paternal line was from Ethelred I, Alfred's elder brother and immediate predecessor. Ethelred certainly had male children, passed over in the succession as they were minors and the kingdom was at war, but it may never be known with certainty whether this ancestry of the House of Godwin was fact or a convenient fiction. In view of the doubt, I propose to change the relevant portion of the sentence to "only five, or possibly six, monarchs of the country who were not his descendants: the four consecutive Danish kings, William the Conqueror, and arguably Harold II." I will do this tomorrow unless someone protests first.
: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. ] (]) 20:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


== Genetic dead ends in the ''current'' line of succession ==
] (]) 09:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


The section called <nowiki>''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''</nowiki>. Why are ] and ] included but not ]? 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. ] (]) 00:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
:I did, but the wording was as follows: "in the years since there have been only five, or possibly six, monarchs of the country who were not his descendants: the four Danish kings, William the Conqueror, and arguably Harold II, whose claimed patrilineal descent, referred to below, is not universally accepted as true." I left out "consecutive" before the Danish kings, since they weren't, Sweyn being followed by the restored Ethelred II and then by Edmund II before Canute, and added the explanation for Harold II as the descent is referred to elsewhere in the article, which should not appear to be arguing with itself.


: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.
] (]) 08:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
: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. ] (]) 01:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
::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. ] (]) 01:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
:::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. ] (]) 02:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
::::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. ] (]) 06:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::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. ] (]) 08:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::Suppose a new succession act places the crown on a new person. That person has four children, the second of whom is deceased childless. The succession chart would look strange if they were not shown.
::::::The best way to simplify the chart is to use a reliably sourced line of succession that assigns numbers to everyone in line. ] (]) 19:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
::I actually just looked at the Debrett's link and everyone on our list is also on that list, which was updated at least in 2023 to add Ernest Brooksbank. ] (]) 00:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
:I'll tag more people who edit these types of articles to see what they think. @] @] @] @] Feel free to tag more. ] (]) 18:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


:It seems to me that the only reason William of Gloucester is included in this list is his appearance in the 1952 list. I tracked down the corresponding diff: Since this list is over 70 years old, which is quite old for ''current'' biographical data, and we now have another monarch, we could replace the 1952 list with a 2022 list, if one exists, or drop it altogether. Those on the 1952 list who are not descendants of George V are already excluded from the list. With this change, we should drop "dead ends" that have no relevance to the ''current'' line of succession and no longer appear in any ''current'' source. On the other hand, I advise against the removal of Edward VIII, as it may confuse readers when a reigning monarch is missing from the backtrace of the line of succession. I also advise to not restrict the current line to a more limited scope, as long as current up-to-date reliable sources maintain this list at a reasonable length. --] (]) 16:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
== The Queen is a great-grandmother==
Shouldn't the list be updated with Queen Elizabeth became a great--grandmother ? ] (]) == ::That all seems sensible to me. ] (]) 20:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
::That seems like an arbitrary distinction. What about heirs presumptive who become replaced by heirs apparent, people who lose their position for various other reasons or princes of Wales who die before they become king?
Britain's Queen Elizabeth became a great--grandmother for the first time with the birth of a daughter to the Queen's oldest grandson.
::Curiously, Victoria's initial ascension was not secure because of the possibility that a son or daughter could be born to the widow of one of her late uncles. ] (]) 04:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Peter Phillips, the son of Princess Anne, and his wife Autumn became the parents of a daughter born Wednesday at Gloucestershire Royal Hospital.
:::I am afraid I do not really understand your point here. Please elaborate if I am wrong. Of course we need to trace the line of succession from the earliest common ancestor to the current monarch in an understandable way. A Prince of Wales who never became monarch and had no descendants is in general not relevant to the current line of succession. If your last comment is an argument against the removal of William of Gloucester: He died 52 years ago and was never married. I think we can safely assume that he will no longer produce a legitimate heir. However, if he does, we could put him back in the line. As always, the best way is to stick to the reliable sources and not to start any synthesis on hypothetical cases. -- ] (]) 08:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 21:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
::::The article presents the line of succession as a family tree for which reliable sources exist. Alternatively, we could present it as a numbered list, as some sources do. Either alternative is acceptable.
::::I oppose a hybrid version where we use a family tree and develop criteria for removing some members since it is original research. It could give the false impression that people who failed to produce heirs never existed. ] (]) 14:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::Thank you for clarification. It didn't came to my mind that this could be understood as a complete family tree. To avoid any confusion, I would propose to add a short explainer and refer to ] for the full family tree. Showing the relation in such a list, which is, by law, based on relation, is in my opinion, very helpful to understand the list. --] (]) 14:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::But don't you agree that omitting names from the family tree would require editorial judgment, which is OR? For example, some members listed on the Royal Family website are considered to be excluded in other reliable sources, hence their heirs would also be excluded. Although perhaps unlikely, there could be heirs that are unknown, or members made ineligible for various reasons. ] (]) 17:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The family tree of the British "royal family" should include people that are royal by law (as determined by letters patent). Otherwise we would have to add the names of thousands of people who are/were descendants of monarchs. This is not editorial judgment, this is common sense. On the other hand, you don't have to be royal yourself to be in the line of succession. You just need royal ancestry. And if a person is dead with no living heirs there would be no point in including them in a line that is supposed to feature living people who have the prospect of sitting on the throne. As to why we have listed living people who themselves are barred from inheriting the throne: Because their heirs can still be included in the line, as has been the case for Nicholas Windsor's children. <span style="font:'Pristina'">]</span><span style="font:'Pristina'"><sup>]</sup></span> 19:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Someone placed questions marks for them so there's a chance that their inclusion is original research. If the parents are Catholic, there's a high likelihood the children are too but their remote position in the line of successions makes this hard to verify. ] (]) 20:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::We just have to follow the sources, and in this case the other two sources include them in the line. Obviously, children tend to follow the same religious beliefs as their parents or siblings but that's not always the case. ] is indeed in line to the throne but her siblings are not. This will be more clear when the said children reach the age of maturity. <span style="font:'Pristina'">]</span><span style="font:'Pristina'"><sup>]</sup></span> 20:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::The proposal is only about removing people who are not relevant to the line of succession, from a list of people in the line of succession, because they are dead and have no living descendants. That's not OR. ] (]) 21:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@] I need your assistance, as I am unable to figure it out for myself: which people are included on the Royal Family website, but are considered excluded in other reliable sources? --] (]) 18:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


:I think we should remove William of Gloucester as irrelevant to the current line of succession. I think we should remove the 1952 citation because it was only added by a now indefinitely-blocked user in an attempt to extend the list to the Harewoods and we've already come to the consensus not to include them. ] (]) 09:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Read more: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/briefs/articles/90029167?First%20great-grandchild%20for%20Queen%20Elizabeth%20born%20to%20grandson%20Peter%20Phillips#ixzz19dBve156
::Should we just proceed with removing William of Gloucester's name then? It appears that the majority think its inclusion is of no use. <span style="font:'Pristina'">]</span><span style="font:'Pristina'"><sup>]</sup></span> 12:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree, but I think also at the same time we should remove the 1952 succession notes as well. It was relevant during the Queen's reign but isn't really needed now. And it was the only reason William was on this list. ] (]) 13:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


== Line of succession to the British throne == == English Royal Succession and the Common Law ==


I am going to go out on a limb here and respectfully suggest that the second sentence of this article contains a fundamental factual error. "'''Under common law''' , the Crown is inherited by a sovereign's children or by a childless sovereign's nearest collateral line." In strictly legal terms, that statement is not true. Succession to the English crown has never been governed by common law. Prior to the passage in 1534 of the First Act for the Succession, the royal succession was governed by a mixture of feudal custom, military might, and what amounted to public opinion. I suspect the original author of that sentence confused common '''''law''''' with common '''''practice''''', but the terms are not synonymous.
I suggest adding the beginning of the line of succession to the British throne to this article, maybe the first 10, 20 or 40 individuals. It's obviously relevant for this topic, and a good "summary" of the complete 3,000-people list "]". --] (]) 15:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
:Done.--] (]) 20:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


It must first be noted the common law developed only after Magna Carta (1215) and did so as an outgrowth of the specific terms of that charter. And since the common law did not exist until the end of the reign King John (''d''.1216), it cannot have governed the seven or so royal successions between 1066 and the death of John's successor Henry III in 1272.
== Statistical tables ==


Similarly, feudal custom was not yet well established in England in 1066 when William of Normandy became King of England as a result of military conquest. This is evidenced by the fact that William was succeeded in England in 1087 by his second son rather than by his still-living first-born son. So we are already off to a bad start if one wishes to assert that the royal succession was governed at that early stage by either feudal custom or common law.
In accordance with a discussion on the ], I have moved the section "Statistical tables" to this page. Its content largely refers to history, rather than the current line. There are some parts of this section which some editors (myself included) may think could be removed as unsourced trivia. I leave this decision to others. ] (]) 10:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


Further, of the almost two dozen times the crown changed hands, fully half of those monarchs attained the crown by military conquest, usurpation, or treaty. Stephen of Blois, Edward IV (x2!), Henry VI (1470), and Henry VII each ascended the throne by military conquest. Henry I, Edward III, Henry IV, and Richard III each ascended the throne as a result of deposition and/or assassination of their predecessor. Henry II became king as a result of the Treaty of Wallingford, notably while his mother (who had a superseding claim) still lived.
== Charles and William ==


Those instances between 1066 and 1547 in which the crown passed peacefully and without incident (or at least mostly so) to the eldest son are Richard I, John, Henry III, Edward I, Edward II, Richard II, Henry V, Henry VI (1422), Edward V, Henry VIII, and Edward VI. But even then, feudal custom (not common law!) influenced the royal succession only after Henry III (''d''.1272). Prior to 1272, peaceful successions resulted from passive acquiescence by the people at large, not law or custom. And in two instances during that early period, a still-living king sought to bolster public support for their eldest son and thus the likelihood of that eldest son inheriting unchallenged by having him crowned as co-king (see the multiple but unsuccessful attempts of Stephen of Blois' to have his son Eustace crowned as co-king, as well as Henry II's similar efforts with his son Henry the Young King).
Is Prince William #2 in line no matter what? I was under the impression that if Charles were to pass away before Queen Elizabeth, then Andrew would become Prince of Wales (with his children next in line) and Charles's sons would drop down a few spots. Is that correct? ] (]) 00:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
:That's completely incorrect. If (heavens forfend) Prince Charles were to pass away before Her Majesty, Prince William would be first in line (heir-apparent) and the Queen would probably make William the new Prince of Wales. Prince Andrew (and his daughters) can't "leapfrog" Charles and his sons — the line of succession works through additions (births) and subtractions (deaths) and that is '''it'''. &#10013;''']]]''' 00:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
:: It's a common misconception. Charles has already established his lineage in William and Harry (and their assumed future progeny). If '''all''' of Charles's descendants died or somehow became ineligible before the Queen died, only then would Andrew become heir apparent. -- ] </font>]] 10:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


It must also be noted that, since the Anglo-Saxon period, the coronation ritual has always included as its first formal element 'The Recognition.' In this part of the coronation, the candidate is presented to the assembly and the assembly is asked if they consent to accept the candidate as their sovereign. '''''<u>That</u>''''' is what governs the succession: the people, as represented in the coronation assembly, always have the theoretical right to reject the candidate presented to them. They decide based on a number of factors, but relative "popularity" (in the sense of a favorable or unfavorable held in relation to the candidate) is perhaps the most significant. See, for example, the instances in which a king became unfavorable in the public eye and was subsequently deposed or murdered (William I, Edward II, Richard II). All English monarchs have had to contend with the issue of relative public popularity and the waxing and waning of threats to their continued reign in times of lesser popularity.
== Minimum age? ==


Quoting from my book manuscript: None of these changes from one monarch to the next were decided in accordance with any kind of law. No solicitors or barristers were assigned briefs, no litigation was filed, no law courts and panels of judges were convened, no evidence was heard, no arguments were marshaled, and no binding decisions were handed down. Even had such a process been followed, there was no mechanism in place to enforce any judicial decision. Instead, inheritance of the crown was decided largely by the will of the people as a whole, both nobles and non-nobles.
Something that I'd like to know, that I don't believe is covered in the article, is what is the minimum age for succession to the throne?
Let's say, as a purely hypothetical example, that the queen had her son Charles, and then died the next day - does 1-day-old Charles become king? ] (]) 15:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
:Others may know better but I don't think there's a minimum age. A one day old ruler would need a regent, though. ] looks relevant. ] (]) 15:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
::The minimum age is '']''. Seriously. See ]. &#10013;''']]]''' 16:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


The royal succession did not fall under the governance of any kind of law until Henry VIII asked Parliament in 1534 to bar his eldest daughter Mary from the succession. But Henry's motivation for requesting that First Succession Act had far less to do with the succession than with an attempt to resolve the questionable nature of his divorce/annulment from Mary's mother, Katherine of Aragon. The Act was principally intended to declare Mary illegitimate as a further way to reinforce in the public mind that his marriage to Katherine had been non-canonical and was therefore void (an effort that notably failed when Mary ascended the throne in July 1553 to great rejoicing and despite still being statutorily illegitimate. Leaving her in the line of succession despite the divorce/annulment would have opened the door to accusations that the marriage had in fact been fully legal.
== Charles and William (B) ==


The unintended but ultimate outcome of the passage of the First Act was to confirm that the issue of the royal succession was governed by the will of the people as a whole as that will is expressed through their representatives in Parliament. And since 1689, the royal succession has been governed in exactly that manner: by the will of the people as a whole and as that will is enshrined in Parliamentary statute law through statute law passed by the people's representatives. See the three Exclusion Bills of 1679-1681, the English Bill of Rights, the Settlement Act of 1701, the Succession Act of 2013, and others.
Is it possible for the crown to bypass Charles allowing William to ascend to the throne?] (]) 15:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


Now let the Wiki-games begin! ] (]) 05:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
: Yes. But it would take an Act of Parliament to amend the existing law, and that would involve not just the UK parliament and people, but the parliaments and people of the 15 other Commonwealth realms. Unless Charles himself suddenly renounced the throne he's been patiently waiting in line for for the past 62 years, there is no reason in the world why such an act would ever be considered. "We like William more than Charles" is not a reason.
: However, Charles would become ineligible if he were to convert to Catholicism, or married a Catholic (which assumes Camilla has first died or been divorced from him). -- ] </font>]] 21:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
::Presumably Camilla converting to Catholicism would also count? ] (]) 23:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
:::Nope. Become a papist or marry one. Being married to a convert doesn't count. I'm sure there was a recent example... &#10013;''']]]''' 23:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:28, 8 June 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Succession to the British throne article.
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: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 12 months 
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 article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBritish Royalty Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBiography: Royalty and Nobility
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Mid-importance).

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)

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)

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)

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)
Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ 19:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

I don't see how that's possible without strong reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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 20:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Suppose a new succession act places the crown on a new person. That person has four children, the second of whom is deceased childless. The succession chart would look strange if they were not shown.
The best way to simplify the chart is to use a reliably sourced line of succession that assigns numbers to everyone in line. TFD (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I actually just looked at the Debrett's link and everyone on our list is also on that list, which was updated at least in 2023 to add Ernest Brooksbank. Piratesswoop (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll tag more people who edit these types of articles to see what they think. @DrKay @Surtsicna @Estar8806 @Srnec Feel free to tag more. Killuminator (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that the only reason William of Gloucester is included in this list is his appearance in the 1952 list. I tracked down the corresponding diff: Since this list is over 70 years old, which is quite old for current biographical data, and we now have another monarch, we could replace the 1952 list with a 2022 list, if one exists, or drop it altogether. Those on the 1952 list who are not descendants of George V are already excluded from the list. With this change, we should drop "dead ends" that have no relevance to the current line of succession and no longer appear in any current source. On the other hand, I advise against the removal of Edward VIII, as it may confuse readers when a reigning monarch is missing from the backtrace of the line of succession. I also advise to not restrict the current line to a more limited scope, as long as current up-to-date reliable sources maintain this list at a reasonable length. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
That all seems sensible to me. Richard75 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
That seems like an arbitrary distinction. What about heirs presumptive who become replaced by heirs apparent, people who lose their position for various other reasons or princes of Wales who die before they become king?
Curiously, Victoria's initial ascension was not secure because of the possibility that a son or daughter could be born to the widow of one of her late uncles. TFD (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I am afraid I do not really understand your point here. Please elaborate if I am wrong. Of course we need to trace the line of succession from the earliest common ancestor to the current monarch in an understandable way. A Prince of Wales who never became monarch and had no descendants is in general not relevant to the current line of succession. If your last comment is an argument against the removal of William of Gloucester: He died 52 years ago and was never married. I think we can safely assume that he will no longer produce a legitimate heir. However, if he does, we could put him back in the line. As always, the best way is to stick to the reliable sources and not to start any synthesis on hypothetical cases. -- Theoreticalmawi (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The article presents the line of succession as a family tree for which reliable sources exist. Alternatively, we could present it as a numbered list, as some sources do. Either alternative is acceptable.
I oppose a hybrid version where we use a family tree and develop criteria for removing some members since it is original research. It could give the false impression that people who failed to produce heirs never existed. TFD (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for clarification. It didn't came to my mind that this could be understood as a complete family tree. To avoid any confusion, I would propose to add a short explainer and refer to Family tree of the British royal family for the full family tree. Showing the relation in such a list, which is, by law, based on relation, is in my opinion, very helpful to understand the list. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
But don't you agree that omitting names from the family tree would require editorial judgment, which is OR? For example, some members listed on the Royal Family website are considered to be excluded in other reliable sources, hence their heirs would also be excluded. Although perhaps unlikely, there could be heirs that are unknown, or members made ineligible for various reasons. TFD (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The family tree of the British "royal family" should include people that are royal by law (as determined by letters patent). Otherwise we would have to add the names of thousands of people who are/were descendants of monarchs. This is not editorial judgment, this is common sense. On the other hand, you don't have to be royal yourself to be in the line of succession. You just need royal ancestry. And if a person is dead with no living heirs there would be no point in including them in a line that is supposed to feature living people who have the prospect of sitting on the throne. As to why we have listed living people who themselves are barred from inheriting the throne: Because their heirs can still be included in the line, as has been the case for Nicholas Windsor's children. Keivan.f 19:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Someone placed questions marks for them so there's a chance that their inclusion is original research. If the parents are Catholic, there's a high likelihood the children are too but their remote position in the line of successions makes this hard to verify. Killuminator (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
We just have to follow the sources, and in this case the other two sources include them in the line. Obviously, children tend to follow the same religious beliefs as their parents or siblings but that's not always the case. Amelia Windsor is indeed in line to the throne but her siblings are not. This will be more clear when the said children reach the age of maturity. Keivan.f 20:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The proposal is only about removing people who are not relevant to the line of succession, from a list of people in the line of succession, because they are dead and have no living descendants. That's not OR. Richard75 (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@TFD I need your assistance, as I am unable to figure it out for myself: which people are included on the Royal Family website, but are considered excluded in other reliable sources? --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I think we should remove William of Gloucester as irrelevant to the current line of succession. I think we should remove the 1952 citation because it was only added by a now indefinitely-blocked user in an attempt to extend the list to the Harewoods and we've already come to the consensus not to include them. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Should we just proceed with removing William of Gloucester's name then? It appears that the majority think its inclusion is of no use. Keivan.f 12:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree, but I think also at the same time we should remove the 1952 succession notes as well. It was relevant during the Queen's reign but isn't really needed now. And it was the only reason William was on this list. Richard75 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

English Royal Succession and the Common Law

I am going to go out on a limb here and respectfully suggest that the second sentence of this article contains a fundamental factual error. "Under common law , the Crown is inherited by a sovereign's children or by a childless sovereign's nearest collateral line." In strictly legal terms, that statement is not true. Succession to the English crown has never been governed by common law. Prior to the passage in 1534 of the First Act for the Succession, the royal succession was governed by a mixture of feudal custom, military might, and what amounted to public opinion. I suspect the original author of that sentence confused common law with common practice, but the terms are not synonymous.

It must first be noted the common law developed only after Magna Carta (1215) and did so as an outgrowth of the specific terms of that charter. And since the common law did not exist until the end of the reign King John (d.1216), it cannot have governed the seven or so royal successions between 1066 and the death of John's successor Henry III in 1272.

Similarly, feudal custom was not yet well established in England in 1066 when William of Normandy became King of England as a result of military conquest. This is evidenced by the fact that William was succeeded in England in 1087 by his second son rather than by his still-living first-born son. So we are already off to a bad start if one wishes to assert that the royal succession was governed at that early stage by either feudal custom or common law.

Further, of the almost two dozen times the crown changed hands, fully half of those monarchs attained the crown by military conquest, usurpation, or treaty. Stephen of Blois, Edward IV (x2!), Henry VI (1470), and Henry VII each ascended the throne by military conquest. Henry I, Edward III, Henry IV, and Richard III each ascended the throne as a result of deposition and/or assassination of their predecessor. Henry II became king as a result of the Treaty of Wallingford, notably while his mother (who had a superseding claim) still lived.

Those instances between 1066 and 1547 in which the crown passed peacefully and without incident (or at least mostly so) to the eldest son are Richard I, John, Henry III, Edward I, Edward II, Richard II, Henry V, Henry VI (1422), Edward V, Henry VIII, and Edward VI. But even then, feudal custom (not common law!) influenced the royal succession only after Henry III (d.1272). Prior to 1272, peaceful successions resulted from passive acquiescence by the people at large, not law or custom. And in two instances during that early period, a still-living king sought to bolster public support for their eldest son and thus the likelihood of that eldest son inheriting unchallenged by having him crowned as co-king (see the multiple but unsuccessful attempts of Stephen of Blois' to have his son Eustace crowned as co-king, as well as Henry II's similar efforts with his son Henry the Young King).

It must also be noted that, since the Anglo-Saxon period, the coronation ritual has always included as its first formal element 'The Recognition.' In this part of the coronation, the candidate is presented to the assembly and the assembly is asked if they consent to accept the candidate as their sovereign. That is what governs the succession: the people, as represented in the coronation assembly, always have the theoretical right to reject the candidate presented to them. They decide based on a number of factors, but relative "popularity" (in the sense of a favorable or unfavorable held in relation to the candidate) is perhaps the most significant. See, for example, the instances in which a king became unfavorable in the public eye and was subsequently deposed or murdered (William I, Edward II, Richard II). All English monarchs have had to contend with the issue of relative public popularity and the waxing and waning of threats to their continued reign in times of lesser popularity.

Quoting from my book manuscript: None of these changes from one monarch to the next were decided in accordance with any kind of law. No solicitors or barristers were assigned briefs, no litigation was filed, no law courts and panels of judges were convened, no evidence was heard, no arguments were marshaled, and no binding decisions were handed down. Even had such a process been followed, there was no mechanism in place to enforce any judicial decision. Instead, inheritance of the crown was decided largely by the will of the people as a whole, both nobles and non-nobles.

The royal succession did not fall under the governance of any kind of law until Henry VIII asked Parliament in 1534 to bar his eldest daughter Mary from the succession. But Henry's motivation for requesting that First Succession Act had far less to do with the succession than with an attempt to resolve the questionable nature of his divorce/annulment from Mary's mother, Katherine of Aragon. The Act was principally intended to declare Mary illegitimate as a further way to reinforce in the public mind that his marriage to Katherine had been non-canonical and was therefore void (an effort that notably failed when Mary ascended the throne in July 1553 to great rejoicing and despite still being statutorily illegitimate. Leaving her in the line of succession despite the divorce/annulment would have opened the door to accusations that the marriage had in fact been fully legal.

The unintended but ultimate outcome of the passage of the First Act was to confirm that the issue of the royal succession was governed by the will of the people as a whole as that will is expressed through their representatives in Parliament. And since 1689, the royal succession has been governed in exactly that manner: by the will of the people as a whole and as that will is enshrined in Parliamentary statute law through statute law passed by the people's representatives. See the three Exclusion Bills of 1679-1681, the English Bill of Rights, the Settlement Act of 1701, the Succession Act of 2013, and others.

Now let the Wiki-games begin! DesertSkies120 (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Categories: