This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all
list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
It is entirely consistent with that article. Look at all the people between Charles and Anne in the current line of succession. None of them existed between 1952 and 1960. Hence, they were not and can not have been in line.
Celia Homeford (
talk)
09:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Requested move 8 June 2018
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: consensus to move the pages to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below.
Dekimasuよ!00:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose. In this case, shorter is not better because it is not clear enough. Worse yet, it is not correct. The heir to the throne, legally, is the person occupying the throne. Elizabeth II is queen because she is the rightful heir (of
Sophia of Hanover, i.e. to the throne). That is why the expressions
heir apparent and
heir presumptive exist: it is apparent that Charles will be the heir once Elizabeth dies, and during George VI's reign it was presumed that Elizabeth would be the heir upon his death. In common parlance, however, the term "heir" most commonly refers to the heir apparent or heir presumptive, but can also refer to anyone in the line, especially those expected to eventually succeed. Thus, Prince William and Prince George are commonly referred to as heirs.
[1][2][3] That said, the proposed titles would be neither factually accurate nor sufficiently clear.
Surtsicna (
talk)
09:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Support. It's the job of the title to be
WP:CONCISE and only
WP:PRECISE enough to be clear; not to be a definition or explanation, which is what the lead is for. Using tumid titles also makes it harder to find the intended article via searching and by guessing at titles. If I were to get at one, it would be "List of heirs to the Foo throne" or "List of Foo throne heirs", though the latter leans toward
journalese (but should probably exist as redirects). —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.