Talk:History of the British line of succession

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Er, theres a problem with this page - it goes from 1300 to 1800 - what happened to everything inbetween?

I haven't finished it yet! (this is the author speaking.) If you know anything about primogeniture, please feel free to help fill in the blanks. Mark J 20:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Every King in this article before 1603 is the King of England. British is useful shorthand for Monarchs after that year.

Hope I'm helping a bit! :) Feel free to edit anything I've written; I'm just coming up into the trickiness of the Wars of the Roses. Any advice on how to treat the swapping of crowns between Edward IV and Henry VI? Technically their reigns were distinct and as such should have a 'first instance' and a 'second instance'... and Henry VI's line is different from his first reign to his second so derves its own section. Awinkler (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the list for 6th February 1685 (death of Charles II) is incorrect: number 8 is listed as Louise Marie von Simmern, but she died in 1679. Also, the brothers and sisters (full and half) of Charles II Elector Palatine need to be taken into account. Don't want to edit page directly because not an expert in this area. Lines of succession for any date are available at www.royalist.info, but these may not be complete. Bedetech (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why internal links are not always appropriate

This comment is to address a recent request to add citations and internal links to the article. The vast majority of the names are listed in bulk in the existing references at the bottom of the article. Inline citations make sense for one-off changes. An alternative to in-line citations are citations in the edit history, citations in HTML comments, or discussion on this talk page. Because many of the edits are in the form of deletions or skips, inline citations may become unwieldy. Citations in HTML comments in combination with good edit-log remarks and discussions on the talk page will be more than adequate for most cases. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] English or British

Should this page be renamed the English line of succession? From James I or maybe Anne it is correct to say British, but before then the monarchs were the Kings and Queens of England. (Often Wikipedia says English when British would be more appropriate). Bevo74 (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the from 1603 could remain British linked to to a seperate page for before then, and maybe even a Scottish page. Bevo74 (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] English or Scottish

Re the Heirs of James VI & I this is relevant. After no. 7 the list should split because the crowns had only merged in the person of James - the countries remained separate until the Act of Union.

James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.20.102 (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)