Talk:List of heirs to the English throne

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Omissions[edit]

There are lots and lots of omissions here, including Henry VIII's sons and Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales. 195.137.79.247 20:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching the Henry Frederick omission. If you know of others please update the article, it is a new article and still has some errors I assume. Also, the official heir may have been in dispute in several reigns, such as Henry VIII's, Edward VI's, the early part of Elizabeth I's. The notes column can be used to indicate when the heir was in dispute. NoSeptember 13:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Added the heirs to the Tudors and some more notes. As you can see it's all a bit complicated and I'm starting to think a narrative approach might be better than a table, as in (the presently incomplete) List of heirs of Scotland. I need to finish that one off before starting any more projects, though! 195.137.79.247 12:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we ever add a very long note, we can always include it as a footnote at the bottom of the page. So far the chart still looks fine with the notes that are there so far. NoSeptember 13:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest changing the "Notes" column to a row under those entries which have them. What think ye? DBD 21:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That could work too. Anyone who wants to be bold and arrange the article in what they think is a better format is welcome to do so. NoSeptember 00:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, my taking that suggestion to discussion was about equal parts soliciting opinion and not being bothered to implement it. Perhaps I'll do so later... DBD 01:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heirs of Henry VI[edit]

With the death of the last of the King’s uncles, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, on 23 Feb. 1447 the heir is unclear. None of his uncles or aunts had any heirs so it is necessary to revert to his great uncles and great aunts, the children of John of Gaunt. Following this line, the line descends through his eldest daughter Philippa who married John I, King of Portugal. The heir is then Afonso V, King of Portugal.

If foreigners (especially foreign Kings) are ignored the line (as seems reasonable) descends through Elizabeth, second daughter of John of Gaunt. The heir is then John Holland, 2nd Duke of Exeter.

If, however, the Beauforts, legitimated children of John of Gaunt, were entitled to inherit the crown, the heir would be Margaret Beaufort, subsequently Margaret Tudor and mother of Henry VII (and source of his claim to the throne). I ignore this claim as the Beauforts were legitimated by Statute 20 Rec. II (1397), but were not thereby enabled to inherit the Crown.

I prefer the claim of the Duke of Exeter which is as shown but I think that there should be a note to why he was the heir presumptive.

Also in October 1460 the Act of Accord was passed by the English parliament. This drew up a new order of succession to Henry VI. Henry “should enjoy the throne of England for as long as he should live”, after which the throne would pass to Richard, Duke of York and his descendants, thus by-passing Edward, Prince of Wales. Therefore Richard Duke of York should be shown as Heir Apparent as of October 1460.

Does anyone have any views?

James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.238.35 (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think foreigners or foreign Kings should be excluded. Being a foreign King didn't prevent Henry V from having himself made heir-apparent to France, John of Gaunt pressed his claim to be King of Castile, and Henry VIII felt the need to specifically exclude the King of Scots from the English succession through legislation - obviously being a foreigner or even a foreign monarch was regarded as no bar. Opera hat (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, the Duke of York should be shown as heir-apparent after 1460. Also, during the Readeption of Henry VI George, Duke of Clarence was second-in-line (after the Prince of Wales). Opera hat (talk) 08:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heirs of Stephen[edit]

Couldn't anybody explain me, who was heir of Stephen between death of Eustace IV of Boulogne (17 August 1153) and Treaty of Wallingford (Nov.1153)? Thanks. --Worobiew (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split suggestion[edit]

I think this should be two separate articles: List of heirs to the English throne, for 1066-1707, and List of heirs to the British throne, for 1707-present. Both subjects being covered by the same article implies that the English-British succession is more important than the Scottish-British succession. There is already a pre-1707 list of Scottish heirs which is not even mentioned in this article. Opera hat (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the list should be split, the two are different, but related subjects. Bevo74 (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the split. Both English and Scottish heirs are predecessors to the "British" ones. Dimadick (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The split is only fair, as England and Scotland were equally predecessor states of Great Britain; this article presents a slanted view of British history. "List of heirs to the English throne" and the existing article List of heirs of Scotland (perhaps to be renamed, to match up? but that's for another discussion) should direct to "List of heirs to the British throne" as coming afterwards chronologically. Compare, for example, List of English consorts, List of Scottish consorts and List of British consorts.Andrei Iosifovich (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, here's what I'm going to do.

I think this is the easiest way. Opera hat (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable[edit]

I'd like some sources for some of these claims. Specifically:

  1. The second heir column for the early years seems to often be generally dubious, to me. There were no formalized laws of succession. In general, beyond the idea that the king's sons succeeded him, and if none of those, his brothers, I am doubtful that many of these entries are correct.
  2. What source backs up the contention that Henry of Guelph was John's heir for the first 8 years of his reign? Although Arthur had been usurped and was engaged in a war against John, I would still think that he would almost certainly have succeeded had John died before Arthur's own death in 1203; did John actually recognize this other nephew as his heir? What is this based on?
  3. Was Philippa really seen as Richard II's heir-presumptive for the first two years of his reign? The article itself indicates that Roger Mortimer was recognized as heir in 1385. That would suggest that there was no recognized heir to the throne between 1377 and 1385. I think we should only include recognized heirs on this page, not people whom we can genealogically construe to be the heir.
  4. The heir after Humphrey of Gloucester's death: I find it puzzling that the footnote fails to mention the idea that Richard of York, as both heir-male and heir-general of Edward III in the event of the king's death, might have succeeded to the throne. Given that Henry IV's usurpation had been based on a kind of quasi-salic law ignoring of Edmund Mortimer's right through his paternal grandmother, why is the Yorkist claim ignored in favor of questionable kings of Portugal and dukes of Exeter? I am glad, however, that the heir is listed as "uncertain"
  5. Similar deal with Elizabeth of York as with Philippa. Did anyone really consider her heir? If Edward IV had died in 1468, is there any real chance she would have been allowed to become queen?
  6. Margaret Tudor - are there sources which would indicate that she was considered heiress-presumptive before Mary I's birth?

In general, I think less certainty is in order here - we should only include heirs who were widely recognized as such, or at least discussed as such. john k (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is very true. In fact, this article has no sources or references, and relies on various assumptions and much guesswork. Either it requires MULTIPLE sources, or it may be a candidate for afd. I notice that someone has tagged it for the lack of references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.213 (talk) 07:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with John K. There is absolutely no evidence that Elizabeth (or any other woman) was considered heir at the time. It is not enough to look for "the next in line" by today's (or even 16th century) rules.
Also there were strange mistatements like described Richard III as "deposed and killed" - he was simply killed. Richard of Shrewsbury did not simply lose his heir status because his brother was deposed but because all of Edward's children were declared illegitimate. That Richard succeeded also proves that he (not Elizabeth) was next in line. Deposuit (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding a fourth voice to this. The bulk of the article before 1603 is essentially made-up. And the Jacobite section looks dubious. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There has often been dispute over who was the legitimate heir. 12:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it is problematic to say that a distant relative was a clear heir, when it may well have been that the dynasty would simply have failed if the monarch had died in such a situation. Nevertheless, to say that everything before 1603 is made up seems to me to be gross hyperbole. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heirs who did not succeed to the throne[edit]

I added this section in order to make it easier for the reader to extract its information, which seems of interest. My purpose is to put the information in terms of stories with which the reader can engage, which should be a task of an encyclopedia. Another user has twice deleted the section, claiming that it is unsourced (and yet, it is just as well sourced as the tables in this article, from which it was taken) and that it contradicts the information in the talbes (and yet, not a single example has been cited).

If there is consensus that this section is inappropriate and should be deleted, I'll accept that. However, I think discussion is needed. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not improved by the repetition of uncited information already given in the article anyway. If anything, all the uncited information should either be removed or cited. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In your edit summary, you selectively quoted WP:V, which also says that citations are required for "any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged." This means that you cannot remove material simply because it doesn't have a citation; rather, you must be able to coherently say that the information is at least possibly wrong. All the information here is so broadly known that I have a hard time seeing it as "challenged or likely to be challenged." You have repeatedly thrown around accusations that this material is wrong or contradictory (including in your edit summaries [1] [2] [3]), but have yet to provide a single specific example of a problem.
Your assertion that "[t]he article is not improved by the repetition of uncited information already given in the article anyway" is unresponsive to my explanation of exactly why putting the information into this form does improve the article. Things are not true just because you say them. If you think this format is not helpful, and/or that the accuracy of the information is in question, then the onus is on you to support your case. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the onus is on you to provide a citation. Things are not true just because you say them. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The more snappy comebacks you reel off, the harder it is for me to believe you are arguing in good faith. Nevertheless, I persist.
As I have already pointed out, you must coherently argue that specific assertions in the text at issue are at least possibly wrong ("challenged or likely to be challenged") in order to put the onus on me to provide a citation. If you continue to decline to do so, I will replace the text. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no citation, it shouldn't go in. You said yourself: citations are required for material that is challenged. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material not with the editor who removes it. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But you haven't articulated a coherent challenge. All you have said basically amounts to "I just don't like it."
For example, do you want me to document that William Adelin really was the son of Henry I, or that the previous king of the same name was William II, or that his death precipitated a succession crisis that ended with the accession of Henry II, or what? All of these statements could be substantiated, but to be honest it doesn't seem a good use of my time, and they're such common knowledge that it really doesn't seem necessary. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One does indeed wonder why you are wasting your (and my) time. All you have said basically amounts to "I want it." Celia Homeford (talk) 08:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article could be improved if it used a table, so that readers could filter on values such as never became monarch. Or they could sort by date, length of reign, names in alphabetical order or whatever they find important. TFD (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of heirs apparent and presumptive to the British throne which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heirs to Richard II[edit]

In the early years of Richard II's reign, his uncle John of Gaunt was heir to the throne. It is stated that he was replaced in this position by Roger Mortimer in 1386 Parliament, but the source given for this statement also points out that John of Gaunt was made heir again in December 1387 after the victory of the Lords Appellant against Richard II. It also gives no evidence that Richard ever subsequently regarded Edmund Mortimer (Roger's son) as heir, instead pointing out that the king then began to favour his heirs male, namely the dukes of Lancaster and York, as successors. The author gives compelling though not fully conclusive evidence that Edmund Duke of York was seen as heir to the throne until Richard's deposition in 1399.

I would suggest that Roger Mortimer be put as heir from October 1386 only to December 1387, John of Gaunt from then until c. 1394, and that the succession be marked as uncertain from then until 1399. 1911l41 (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Tudor?[edit]

The article currently states that there was no-one in the succession after Arthur Prince of Wales until the birth of the future Henry VIII in 1491, and "No recognised heir 1509–1511" and "1511-16". I suggest that Margaret Tudor may have been considered next in line at these points. See [1] which refers to 'her status as heiress presumptive in England" immediately after Flodden and [2] which says that the Earl of Angus "tactlessly remarked that as Henry and Katherine had no family (their first child, a boy, had died in 1510) Margaret was heiress-presumptive to the English throne.' Alekksandr (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Curthose?[edit]

The article currently states that there was no recognised heir between 1087 and 1100, during the reign of William Rufus. But see [3] "Further, an attempt was made to forestall a possible succession controversy by providing that if either of the brothers should die without a son born in lawful wedlock, the survivor should become sole heir of all his dominions.". David cites the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for 1091, which states "It was also agreed that if the earl died leaving no legitimate son the king should be heir of all Normandy, and in like manner if the king died, that the earl should be heir of all England.".[4] Alekksandr (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Beem, Charles. Queenship in Early Modern Europe. Red Globe Press. ISBN 9781137005076.
  2. ^ Chapman, Hester W. (1974). The Sisters of Henry VIII. Chivers. p. 59.
  3. ^ David, Charles Wendell (1920). Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. p. 61.
  4. ^ Giles, John Allen (1914). The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. London: G Bell & Sons Ltd. p. 165.

Should be heirs-apparent & heirs-presumptive[edit]

The page should be re-named List of heirs-apparent and heirs-presumptive to the English throne. As legally, the 'heir' is the monarch. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity of tables[edit]

The tables would be easier to read if the "no recognised heir" lines (and similar) had a different background colour. ---- Ehrenkater (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_heirs_to_the_English_throne&oldid=1218755792"