Succession sucks, On and on it goes... Options

[RMHED]

This has to be one of the most pointless list articles, The line of succession to the British throne. I could just about understand having a list of the top 100 but this lists over 2500!

Only a small minority of those on this list are actually referenced, how can an 'encyclopedia' have a list like this that is 95% unreferenced?

What is the fucking point of this ridiculously long list? Why has it been semi-protected for over 2 years?

[The Joy]

This has to be one of the most pointless list articles, The line of succession to the British throne. I could just about understand having a list of the top 100 but this lists over 2500!

Only a small minority of those on this list are actually referenced, how can an 'encyclopedia' have a list like this that is 95% unreferenced?

What is the fucking point of this ridiculously long list? Why has it been semi-protected for over 2 years?

Oh, it gets worse. Look at all the "lines of succession" on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_succ...round_the_world

[RMHED]

This has to be one of the most pointless list articles, The line of succession to the British throne. I could just about understand having a list of the top 100 but this lists over 2500!

Only a small minority of those on this list are actually referenced, how can an 'encyclopedia' have a list like this that is 95% unreferenced?

What is the fucking point of this ridiculously long list? Why has it been semi-protected for over 2 years?

Oh, it gets worse. Look at all the "lines of succession" on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_succ...round_the_world

Of those other lists not one is over a 100 names, indeed most are under 20. So why over 2500 on the British one?

[Malleus]

This has to be one of the most pointless list articles, The line of succession to the British throne. I could just about understand having a list of the top 100 but this lists over 2500!

Only a small minority of those on this list are actually referenced, how can an 'encyclopedia' have a list like this that is 95% unreferenced?

What is the fucking point of this ridiculously long list? Why has it been semi-protected for over 2 years?

Oh, it gets worse. Look at all the "lines of succession" on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_succ...round_the_world

Of those other lists not one is over a 100 names, indeed most are under 20. So why over 2500 on the British one?

What's your beef? That the list is too long or that it's unreferenced?

[Sololol]

This article is priceless if you intend to murder your way to the Throne.

[RMHED]

This has to be one of the most pointless list articles, The line of succession to the British throne. I could just about understand having a list of the top 100 but this lists over 2500!

Only a small minority of those on this list are actually referenced, how can an 'encyclopedia' have a list like this that is 95% unreferenced?

What is the fucking point of this ridiculously long list? Why has it been semi-protected for over 2 years?

Oh, it gets worse. Look at all the "lines of succession" on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_succ...round_the_world

Of those other lists not one is over a 100 names, indeed most are under 20. So why over 2500 on the British one?

What's your beef? That the list is too long or that it's unreferenced?

Both. For all anyone knows half the names on that list could just be invented.

What is the obsession with the British line of succession, this list takes trivia to new dimensions of absurdity.

[Doc glasgow]

Both. For all anyone knows half the names on that list could just be invented.

What is the obsession with the British line of succession, this list takes trivia to new dimensions of absurdity.

Nope, Wikipedians obsessed with Pippa Middleton's buttocks do that.

[RMHED]

Both. For all anyone knows half the names on that list could just be invented.

What is the obsession with the British line of succession, this list takes trivia to new dimensions of absurdity.

Nope, Wikipedians obsessed with Pippa Middleton's buttocks do that.

At least one can get to grips with a pair of buttocks, but 2500+ would be too many to handle.

[RMHED]

Also, doesn't every one of those 2500+ names listed require a reference to comply with Wikipedia's BLP policy?

Oh, and they spelt my name wrong.

[lilburne]

This thread needs a picture:

[Somey]

That doesn't really need a caption...

Also, doesn't every one of those 2500+ names listed require a reference to comply with Wikipedia's BLP policy?

It's not only that, but some enterprising individual has almost certainly put each listee's position in the line of succession in that person's BLP, so every time there's a change at the top, everyone's number changes - it looks like about 20 percent of them have articles, so that's roughly 500 changes each time just to maintain accuracy.

Frankly, they should stop the list at the point where they'd prefer to abolish the monarchy altogether rather than allow the person in that position to ascend to the throne - that would be #67, tops. Personally, I'd stop it at #45.

Oh, and they spelt my name wrong.

Mine too!

[Casliber]

This has to be one of the most pointless list articles, The line of succession to the British throne. I could just about understand having a list of the top 100 but this lists over 2500!

Only a small minority of those on this list are actually referenced, how can an 'encyclopedia' have a list like this that is 95% unreferenced?

What is the fucking point of this ridiculously long list? Why has it been semi-protected for over 2 years?

Oh, it gets worse. Look at all the "lines of succession" on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_succ...round_the_world

Of those other lists not one is over a 100 names, indeed most are under 20. So why over 2500 on the British one?

What's your beef? That the list is too long or that it's unreferenced?

Both. For all anyone knows half the names on that list could just be invented.

What is the obsession with the British line of succession, this list takes trivia to new dimensions of absurdity.

What a spoilsport

[anthony]

Frankly, they should stop the list at the point where they'd prefer to abolish the monarchy altogether rather than allow the person in that position to ascend to the throne - that would be #67, tops. Personally, I'd stop it at #45.

I'd stop it at #1.

[EricBarbour]

Frankly, they should stop the list at the point where they'd prefer to abolish the monarchy altogether rather than allow the person in that position to ascend to the throne - that would be #67, tops. Personally, I'd stop it at #45.

I'd stop it at #1.

I'm for that!! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!

[Gruntled]

Frankly, they should stop the list at the point where they'd prefer to abolish the monarchy altogether rather than allow the person in that position to ascend to the throne - that would be #67, tops. Personally, I'd stop it at #45.

What have you got against the Norwegian royal family? Or are you just trying to troll Norwegians?

[Doc glasgow]

Frankly, they should stop the list at the point where they'd prefer to abolish the monarchy altogether rather than allow the person in that position to ascend to the throne - that would be #67, tops. Personally, I'd stop it at #45.

What have you got against the Norwegian royal family? Or are you just trying to troll Norwegians?

There was a Scandinavian King of England once - Canute.

I don't think we want a royal with wet feet again.

[lilburne]

Frankly, they should stop the list at the point where they'd prefer to abolish the monarchy altogether rather than allow the person in that position to ascend to the throne - that would be #67, tops. Personally, I'd stop it at #45.

What have you got against the Norwegian royal family? Or are you just trying to troll Norwegians?

There was a Scandinavian King of England once - Canute.

I don't think we want a royal with wet feet again.

We had 'Foggy' Philips doesn't he count? 'Foggy' cos he's wet and thick.

[The Joy]

Frankly, they should stop the list at the point where they'd prefer to abolish the monarchy altogether rather than allow the person in that position to ascend to the throne - that would be #67, tops. Personally, I'd stop it at #45.

What have you got against the Norwegian royal family? Or are you just trying to troll Norwegians?

There was a Scandinavian King of England once - Canute.

I don't think we want a royal with wet feet again.

We had 'Foggy' Philips doesn't he count? 'Foggy' cos he's wet and thick.

Would it be possible for a UK monarch to come from Northern Ireland?

[Somey]

What have you got against the Norwegian royal family? Or are you just trying to troll Norwegians?

Is there anyone out there who isn't trying to troll Norwegians?

I mean, sure, I'd stop it at #1 too, but I'm talking about UK popular sentiment here. It isn't a question of what would actually happen if all 67 of those people were to die in a short span of time - presumably if that occurred, it would be because someone was systematically assassinating them one-by-one, correct? So if the assassins got all the way to #60, and you were #67, you'd probably be thinking maybe this whole English royalty thing isn't really something I want all that much really, and you'd renounce your claim to the throne anyway.

Or else it could be something like the plot of 28 Days/Weeks/Months Later, in which the entire population of Great Britain turns into raging zombie-psychopaths, including the Royal Family (as if anyone could tell the difference). So if you're in Norway when that happens, and none of the 67 people in front of you were spared due to their being on vacation in Monaco or some other jet-set locale, then sure, go ahead - but do you really want to be the titular monarch of a nation of raging zombie-psychopaths? Especially when you're already the titular monarch of a bunch of Norwegians?

So clearly, cutting off the list at #67 is a purely practical move. And #45 would actually be better, since it's pretty obvious that most English folks (or at least the sane ones) would rather have the King of Norway on the throne than Jeremy Lascelles.

[Doc glasgow]

What have you got against the Norwegian royal family? Or are you just trying to troll Norwegians?

Is there anyone out there who isn't trying to troll Norwegians?

I mean, sure, I'd stop it at #1 too, but I'm talking about UK popular sentiment here. It isn't a question of what would actually happen if all 67 of those people were to die in a short span of time - presumably if that occurred, it would be because someone was systematically assassinating them one-by-one, correct? So if the assassins got all the way to #60, and you were #67, you'd probably be thinking maybe this whole English royalty thing isn't really something I want all that much really, and you'd renounce your claim to the throne anyway.

Or else it could be something like the plot of 28 Days/Weeks/Months Later, in which the entire population of Great Britain turns into raging zombie-psychopaths, including the Royal Family (as if anyone could tell the difference). So if you're in Norway when that happens, and none of the 67 people in front of you were spared due to their being on vacation in Monaco or some other jet-set locale, then sure, go ahead - but do you really want to be the titular monarch of a nation of raging zombie-psychopaths? Especially when you're already the titular monarch of a bunch of Norwegians?

So clearly, cutting off the list at #67 is a purely practical move. And #45 would actually be better, since it's pretty obvious that most English folks (or at least the sane ones) would rather have the King of Norway on the throne than Jeremy Lascelles.

Good grief, we can't have a foreign monarch ascend to the throne of Britain, can we?