Discussion:
the title Princess of Wales
(too old to reply)
Grrarrggh
2003-07-19 12:30:17 UTC
Permalink
How could Mary (future Mary I), the daughter of Henry and Catherine of Aragon,
have been the Princess of Wales? I thought that title was reserved for the
wife of the Prince of Wales?

If Anne had been born first to the Queen, would she have been made Princess of
Wales?

Tam
Andy.3rd
2003-07-19 22:27:34 UTC
Permalink
I think the answer is that a female can never be heir apparent - only
heiress presumptive.
I think the answer is that a female can never be heir apparent - only
heiress presumptive.
A female can be heiress apparent. If Charles dies, William marries and has only
one child-a daughter-and then dies and all this happens before Queen Elizabeth
dies them that daughter is heiress apparent to Queen Elizabeth as no birth can
displace her as next in line.




His Illustrious and Most Serene Jadedness, Andy, RSM

"Mrs. J. J. McHale- a wannabe "authority" and the Usenet's most promiscous
posting-whore"
DKM
2003-07-20 03:30:52 UTC
Permalink
Please attribute your quotes properly. The first two lines (which
for some reason you quoted twice) were written by Colin
Post by Andy.3rd
I think the answer is that a female can never be heir apparent - only
heiress presumptive.
A female can be heiress apparent.
You're right. However, the sovereign's daughter can never be heiress
apparent. The only female who can be heiress apparent is the eldest
daughter of a deceased heir apparent who has no surviving sons.
That's rather an unlikely set of circumstances, and I don't think it
has ever happened in the island of Great Britain since 1066 -- if it
has I'd like to know about it.
Actually that is not completely true either. A Queen Regent who only had
daughter and was rendered unable have any more children (i.e. had a
hysterectomy) would have an heiress apparent.

DKM
Graham
2003-07-20 12:03:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by DKM
Actually that is not completely true either. A Queen Regent who only had
daughter and was rendered unable have any more children (i.e. had a
hysterectomy) would have an heiress apparent.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=37b411f1.2777502%40news.erols.com&output=gplain
jlk7e
2003-07-20 16:06:26 UTC
Permalink
Please attribute your quotes properly. The first two lines (which
for some reason you quoted twice) were written by Colin
Post by Andy.3rd
I think the answer is that a female can never be heir apparent - only
heiress presumptive.
A female can be heiress apparent.
You're right. However, the sovereign's daughter can never be heiress
apparent. The only female who can be heiress apparent is the eldest
daughter of a deceased heir apparent who has no surviving sons.
That's rather an unlikely set of circumstances, and I don't think it
has ever happened in the island of Great Britain since 1066 -- if it
has I'd like to know about it.
There's only two occasions that I know of where an heir-apparent has
died leaving offspring - in 1376 and 1751. In both cases, the
deceased heir-apparent had one or more sons.
Colin
2003-07-20 21:12:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy.3rd
I think the answer is that a female can never be heir apparent - only
heiress presumptive.
I think the answer is that a female can never be heir apparent - only
heiress presumptive.
A female can be heiress apparent. If Charles dies, William marries and has only
one child-a daughter-and then dies and all this happens before Queen Elizabeth
dies them that daughter is heiress apparent to Queen Elizabeth as no birth can
displace her as next in line.
His Illustrious and Most Serene Jadedness, Andy, RSM
"Mrs. J. J. McHale- a wannabe "authority" and the Usenet's most promiscous
posting-whore"
Yes - you and Kelly are quite right - I thought about this after I had
posted and while I was retiring for the night. It would be
interesting to know whether such a grand daughter would be created
Princess of Wales
Stan Brown
2003-07-20 00:37:19 UTC
Permalink
Well, I said I wasn't sure about what I THOUGHT I heard on the tv
programme, However, it does make sense, if the heir is female, why
couldn't SHE be Princess of Wales in her own right?
This has been discussed a zillion times. I don't understand why
people have so much trouble understanding it.

Suppose Anne had been born first, and created Princess of Wales, and
then Charles was born. Now you have the situation where the heir to
the throne is not Prince of Wales and the Princess of Wales is
someone other than the wife of the heir to the throne.

It's _possible_ -- the sovereign can grant any title to anyone --
but it would break with centuries of tradition.

If the UK ever goes to a gender-blind succession, then I think the
firstborn child or the sovereign, if a daughter, will be created
Princess of Wales. Until then, no.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Larry G
2003-07-20 03:16:52 UTC
Permalink
"Stan Brown" <***@fastmail.fm> wrote in message ...

[...]
Post by Stan Brown
If the UK ever goes to a gender-blind succession, then I think the
firstborn child or the sovereign, if a daughter, will be created
Princess of Wales. Until then, no.
There is something I've always wondered though. I've seen a few sources
Post by Stan Brown
As well as attending meetings and ceremonies connected to these
organisations and his capacity as heir presumptive, Prince Charles
undertakes numerous overseas visits. These serve several functions: <<
-- http://www.worldstudysolutions.com/ukInfo/royalFamily.shtml

Is this always mistaken terminology, or was (is) there a point that Charles
was (is) considered "heir apparent" and not "heir presumptive"?

Larry
Larry G
2003-07-20 03:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry G
Is this always mistaken terminology, or was (is) there a point that Charles
was (is) considered "heir apparent" and not "heir presumptive"?
*Was (is) there a point that Charles was (is) considered "heir presumptive"
and not "heir apparent"?

Larry
jlk7e
2003-07-20 16:03:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy.3rd
Post by Larry G
Is this always mistaken terminology, or was (is) there a point that
Charles
Post by Larry G
was (is) considered "heir apparent" and not "heir presumptive"?
*Was (is) there a point that Charles was (is) considered "heir presumptive"
and not "heir apparent"?
No, he has been the heir apparent since his maternal grandfather's
death in 1952, as nobody can displace him from succeeding his mother
should he be alive at the time of her death. Before that, his mother
was heiress presumptive (from Dec. 1936). Her father had been heir
presumptive for several months before that, during the reign of Edward
VIII.
Jaak Suurpere
2003-07-21 07:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy.3rd
Post by Larry G
Post by Larry G
Is this always mistaken terminology, or was (is) there a point that
Charles
Post by Larry G
Post by Larry G
was (is) considered "heir apparent" and not "heir presumptive"?
*Was (is) there a point that Charles was (is) considered "heir presumptive"
and not "heir apparent"?
Larry
Prince Charles is heir apparent and has been since 1952. He is not
heir presumptive because noone can displace him - only he himself can
do this by dying or (iniquitously) marrying a Roman Catholic or
becoming a Roman Catholic himself.
Presumably, he has only been heir apparent since his grandmother was
found not to be pregnant with a posthumous child?

What would have happened to titles and styles of Charles if the case
had been otherwise?
Stan Brown
2003-07-21 14:32:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jaak Suurpere
Presumably, he has only been heir apparent since his grandmother was
found not to be pregnant with a posthumous child?
What would have happened to titles and styles of Charles if the case
had been otherwise?
If the unborn child was male, and was born alive, then Charles's
mother would have been retroactively not Queen and he himself would
have been retroactively not Duke of Cornwall.

He would remain a Prince and a Royal Highness, however, as that was
his grandfather's action, stating that all children of the then
Princess Elizabeth would be Prince(ss) and Royal Highness.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Jaak Suurpere
2003-07-22 07:31:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Jaak Suurpere
Presumably, he has only been heir apparent since his grandmother was
found not to be pregnant with a posthumous child?
What would have happened to titles and styles of Charles if the case
had been otherwise?
If the unborn child was male, and was born alive, then Charles's
mother would have been retroactively not Queen and he himself would
have been retroactively not Duke of Cornwall.
Does this mean that in case of a posthumous accession, United Kingdom
and Realms will have a retroactive interregnum, or that the boy will
retroactively have ruled from womb...

Last known posthumous accession was in Spain. Did Alfonso XII rule
from womb, or was there an interregnum, or did Spain have a queen...
Post by Stan Brown
He would remain a Prince and a Royal Highness, however, as that was
his grandfather's action, stating that all children of the then
Princess Elizabeth would be Prince(ss) and Royal Highness.
Don Aitken
2003-07-24 18:10:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Jaak Suurpere
Presumably, he has only been heir apparent since his grandmother was
found not to be pregnant with a posthumous child?
What would have happened to titles and styles of Charles if the case
had been otherwise?
If the unborn child was male, and was born alive, then Charles's
mother would have been retroactively not Queen and he himself would
have been retroactively not Duke of Cornwall.
Not if the precedent of the Regency Act 1831 was followed. That
provided that, in the analogous situation, the throne should pass from
Victoria to a posthumous child of William IV "as if the said priness
were naturally dead", and that "there shall be a demise of the crown".
Nothing retroactive at all.
Post by Stan Brown
He would remain a Prince and a Royal Highness, however, as that was
his grandfather's action, stating that all children of the then
Princess Elizabeth would be Prince(ss) and Royal Highness.
One would imagine, of course, that it was physically impossible that
Queen Elizabeth was pregnant in 1952.
The law takes no account of whether or not it was impossible. No-one
is ever assumed to be incapable of having children. Otherwise there
would be too many difficult borderline cases.
--
Don Aitken
David Salo
2003-07-24 19:25:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
Not if the precedent of the Regency Act 1831 was followed. That
provided that, in the analogous situation, the throne should pass from
Victoria to a posthumous child of William IV "as if the said priness
were naturally dead", and that "there shall be a demise of the crown".
Nothing retroactive at all.
Hm, most remarkable. If I'm reading you correctly -- and most
likely I'm not -- that would mean that, if William IV died leaving
Queen Adelaide pregnant, Alexandrina Victoria would succeed him, then
-- at the birth of the child -- Alexandrina Victoria would be deemed to
be "naturally" dead, and the child, let's call her Caroline, would
become Queen.
Now let's imagine that the infant Queen Caroline is very sickly and
dies one hour after birth. If Victoria is legally dead at this point,
doesn't that render her -- and her offspring -- permanently ineligible
to succeed Caroline? That would be a bizarre and counterintuitive
situation!

D. Salo
Francois R. Velde
2003-07-24 19:35:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Salo
Post by Don Aitken
Not if the precedent of the Regency Act 1831 was followed. That
provided that, in the analogous situation, the throne should pass from
Victoria to a posthumous child of William IV "as if the said priness
were naturally dead", and that "there shall be a demise of the crown".
Nothing retroactive at all.
Hm, most remarkable. If I'm reading you correctly -- and most
likely I'm not -- that would mean that, if William IV died leaving
Queen Adelaide pregnant, Alexandrina Victoria would succeed him, then
-- at the birth of the child -- Alexandrina Victoria would be deemed to
be "naturally" dead, and the child, let's call her Caroline, would
become Queen.
Now let's imagine that the infant Queen Caroline is very sickly and
dies one hour after birth. If Victoria is legally dead at this point,
doesn't that render her -- and her offspring -- permanently ineligible
to succeed Caroline? That would be a bizarre and counterintuitive
situation!
Should a child of William IV be born under Victoria's reign, the crown
passes, as if Victoria had become naturally dead. The "as if" serves
to explain how a demise of the crown occurs. That is not the same as
saying that, should a child of William IV be born under Victoria's reign,
Victoria becomes as if naturally dead. In your scenario, Victoria begins
a second reign.
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Stan Brown
2003-07-21 00:42:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry G
There is something I've always wondered though. I've seen a few sources
refer to the current Prince of Wales as "heir presumptive".
I don't think that's right. The person who would succeed if the
present occupant dies is either heir apparent (meaning that no birth
could ever displace him from being the next heir) or heir
presumptive (meaning he could be displaced by a birth).

Charles is heir apparent; I don't believe he can also be called heir
presumptive.

The only way I think a man can ever be heir presumptive, in the UK,
is if it is his childless elder brother who is the current holder of
the title. For instance, when Edward VIII was King Prince Albert
(future George VI) was heir presumptive because if the King had any
children they would succeed before George. As it happened, Edward
didn't have any children before the Abdication business, so Albert,
who was heir presumptive, duly succeeded as King.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Rick
2003-07-21 12:19:24 UTC
Permalink
Charles was an heir presumtive from his birth to the death of his
grandfather, as he could have had an uncle while his George VI was alive.
Thats the only time he was presumtive. Willaim is heir presumtive as his
father is ahead of him.
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Larry G
There is something I've always wondered though. I've seen a few sources
refer to the current Prince of Wales as "heir presumptive".
I don't think that's right. The person who would succeed if the
present occupant dies is either heir apparent (meaning that no birth
could ever displace him from being the next heir) or heir
presumptive (meaning he could be displaced by a birth).
Charles is heir apparent; I don't believe he can also be called heir
presumptive.
The only way I think a man can ever be heir presumptive, in the UK,
is if it is his childless elder brother who is the current holder of
the title. For instance, when Edward VIII was King Prince Albert
(future George VI) was heir presumptive because if the King had any
children they would succeed before George. As it happened, Edward
didn't have any children before the Abdication business, so Albert,
who was heir presumptive, duly succeeded as King.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Paul
2003-07-21 13:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick
Charles was an heir presumtive from his birth to the death of his
grandfather, as he could have had an uncle while his George VI was alive.
Thats the only time he was presumtive. Willaim is heir presumtive as his
father is ahead of him.
This is NOT correct. Heir presumptive has nothing to do with the
second-in-line, which is what Charles was whilst GeorgeVI was alive, and
what William is now.

It works like this:
There is either an heir apparent or an heir presumptive to the throne at any
one time, but not both.
If the next-in-line to the throne will succeed (assuming only that he/she
does not die before the current monarch), then that person is the heir
apparent.
If someone could (at least in theory) be born between now and the death of
the current monarch who would be ahead of the current next-in-line, then the
current next-in-line is the heir presumptive.

It follows that an heir apparent either pre-deceases the monarch or
succeeds, whereas an heir presumptive may pre-decease the monarch, or
succeed, or be displaced by an heir apparent or another heir presumptive.

So, for example, if the monarch has at least one son, the eldest is heir
apparent. If the monarch has only daughters, the eldest is heir presumptive
as (at least in theory) a son could be born who would succeed ahead of the
daughter(s).

Nobody has an heir until they die. That's why we don't describe Charles as
the present queen's heir, but as heir apparent.
jlk7e
2003-07-21 18:02:50 UTC
Permalink
Charles was an heir presumptive from his birth to the death of his
grandfather, as he could have had an uncle while his grandfather, George VI,
was alive.
IIRC, it was posted somewhere in the newsgroup that George VI and Queen
Elizabeth decided not to have any more children some time after Princess
Margaret was born.
Obviously, Queen Elizabeth was 48 years old at the time of Charles's
birth, and rather unlikely to even be capable of having children.
But, of course, she might die, and the king remarry, and have a son.
As long as it's conceivably possible that another heir might be born,
you don't have an heir apparent. In fact, I think there are some
circumstances where it would not even conceivably be possible for the
presumptive heir to be displaced, but yet they are not heir apparent.
For instance, let's say all of Queen Victoria's sons die in a boiler
explosion in 1862 (silly, I know). The Queen does not remarry. In
1879, she is 60 years old, and obviously incapable of having any more
children. Still, Vicky would not be the heiress-apparent, although,
in actual fact, there is no physically possible way that anybody could
displace her. (This only really works with queens regnant, I'd add,
since with a King it's always conceivable that they might be able to
father a child)
a) HM George VI
b) HRH the Princess Elizabeth
c) HRH Prince Charles (LP 1948)
d) HRH Princess Anne (LP 1948/b. 1950)
e) HRH the Princess Margaret
f) HRH the Duke of Gloucester + family
g) HRH the Duke of Kent + family
no family
h) HRH Prince Michael of Kent
i) HRH Princess Alexandra of Kent
Succession at the end of 1950:

HM George VI
1. HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh (heiress presumptive)
2. HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh
3. HRH Princess Anne of Edinburgh
4. HRH the Princess Margaret
5. HRH The Duke of Gloucester
6. HRH Prince William of Gloucester
7. HRH Prince Richard of Gloucester (now the Duke of Gloucester)
8. HRH the Duke of Kent
9. HRH Prince Michael of Kent
10. HRH Princess Alexandra of Kent
11. HRH the Princess Royal
12. The Earl of Harewood
13. Viscount Lascelles (b.1950)
14. Hon. Gerald Lascelles
15. HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught (AKA the suo jure Duchess of
Fife)
16. Lord Carnegie (now the Duke of Fife)
17. HRH Crown Prince Olav of Norway
18. HRH Hereditary Prince Harald of Norway (the present King)
19. HRH Princess Ragnhild of Norway
20. HRH Princess Astrid of Norway

Wow, exactly 20 descendants of Edward VII. Who'd have thought? And
only one of these (Gerald Lascelles) wholly untitled, although
Viscount Lascelles and Lord Carnegie did not possess substantive
titles.
Stan Brown
2003-07-22 10:55:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by jlk7e
Charles was an heir presumptive from his birth to the death of his
grandfather, as he could have had an uncle while his grandfather, George VI,
was alive.
IIRC, it was posted somewhere in the newsgroup that George VI and Queen
Elizabeth decided not to have any more children some time after Princess
Margaret was born.
Obviously, Queen Elizabeth was 48 years old at the time of Charles's
birth, and rather unlikely to even be capable of having children.
But, of course, she might die, and the king remarry, and have a son.
As long as it's conceivably possible that another heir might be born,
you don't have an heir apparent.
But what is perhaps more to the point is that when he was born
Charles was not heir presumptive. His mother The Princess Elizabeth
was.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Rick
2003-07-22 13:12:13 UTC
Permalink
The word presumtive, comes from the word presume. Presume means, it can
happen this way. Therefore, Princess Elizabeth (current HMQE2)was a
presumtive heir because she could become queen, Charles was a presumtive
heir, it was presumed that he could become the King, his place in succession
from second to third could occur during his fathers lifetime. Anne (has gone
from 2nd-3rd-4th then all the way to 7th and will change later this year),
Andrew (was second is now fouth) and Edward (was 3rd is now sixth), are
presumtive heirs, their place in succession changes, and it is still
possible that any one of them may be called to the throne.

Apparent means, it will happen this way. Charles is now an heir apparent,
he is definately first in line, his place can't change, William is an heir
presumtive as his place in the succesion could change from second to first
place.


You can have any number of people claiming succession rights, these people
are presuming that they could become the monarch, you have only one heir
apparent, because only one person can succede at anytime.
Post by Stan Brown
Post by jlk7e
Charles was an heir presumptive from his birth to the death of his
grandfather, as he could have had an uncle while his grandfather, George VI,
was alive.
IIRC, it was posted somewhere in the newsgroup that George VI and Queen
Elizabeth decided not to have any more children some time after Princess
Margaret was born.
Obviously, Queen Elizabeth was 48 years old at the time of Charles's
birth, and rather unlikely to even be capable of having children.
But, of course, she might die, and the king remarry, and have a son.
As long as it's conceivably possible that another heir might be born,
you don't have an heir apparent.
But what is perhaps more to the point is that when he was born
Charles was not heir presumptive. His mother The Princess Elizabeth
was.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Paul
2003-07-22 13:26:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick
The word presumtive, comes from the word presume. Presume means, it can
happen this way. Therefore, Princess Elizabeth (current HMQE2)was a
presumtive heir because she could become queen, Charles was a presumtive
heir, it was presumed that he could become the King, his place in succession
from second to third could occur during his fathers lifetime. Anne (has gone
from 2nd-3rd-4th then all the way to 7th and will change later this year),
Andrew (was second is now fouth) and Edward (was 3rd is now sixth), are
presumtive heirs, their place in succession changes, and it is still
possible that any one of them may be called to the throne.
Apparent means, it will happen this way. Charles is now an heir apparent,
he is definately first in line, his place can't change, William is an heir
presumtive as his place in the succesion could change from second to first
place.
You can have any number of people claiming succession rights, these people
are presuming that they could become the monarch, you have only one heir
apparent, because only one person can succede at anytime.
This is quite WRONG! Look in the FAQ, and/or look up the definitions of
'heir apparent' and 'heir presumptive' (usually given under 'heir') in a
dictionary. But please don't post grossly misleading information as though
it's correct!
Rick
2003-07-23 10:12:22 UTC
Permalink
I'll repeat my comment.

Presume (as in heirs presumtive), all persons in line to the throne are
'Heirs of the body of Sophia'. They are in line to the throne, therefore
one PRESUMES they can inherit the throne

Apparent (as in heir apparent), only one person can ascend to the throne,
that person is the eldest son of the monarch. APPARENTly (it definately
looks like), he will become king
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Rick
The word presumtive, comes from the word presume. Presume means, it can
happen this way. Therefore, Princess Elizabeth (current HMQE2)was a
presumtive heir because she could become queen, Charles was a presumtive
heir, it was presumed that he could become the King, his place in
succession
Post by Rick
from second to third could occur during his fathers lifetime. Anne (has
gone
Post by Rick
from 2nd-3rd-4th then all the way to 7th and will change later this year),
Andrew (was second is now fouth) and Edward (was 3rd is now sixth), are
presumtive heirs, their place in succession changes, and it is still
possible that any one of them may be called to the throne.
Apparent means, it will happen this way. Charles is now an heir apparent,
he is definately first in line, his place can't change, William is an heir
presumtive as his place in the succesion could change from second to first
place.
You can have any number of people claiming succession rights, these people
are presuming that they could become the monarch, you have only one heir
apparent, because only one person can succede at anytime.
This is quite WRONG! Look in the FAQ, and/or look up the definitions of
'heir apparent' and 'heir presumptive' (usually given under 'heir') in a
dictionary. But please don't post grossly misleading information as though
it's correct!
Paul
2003-07-23 13:11:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick
I'll repeat my comment.
Presume (as in heirs presumtive), all persons in line to the throne are
'Heirs of the body of Sophia'. They are in line to the throne, therefore
one PRESUMES they can inherit the throne
Apparent (as in heir apparent), only one person can ascend to the throne,
that person is the eldest son of the monarch. APPARENTly (it definately
looks like), he will become king
Repeat it as often as you like, Rick, but it will still be WRONG! It would
just be more helpful to others if you didn't repeat it in this newsgroup.
Stan Brown
2003-07-23 13:54:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick
I'll repeat my comment.
Presume (as in heirs presumtive), all persons in line to the throne are
'Heirs of the body of Sophia'. They are in line to the throne, therefore
one PRESUMES they can inherit the throne
If you're going to keep repeating your error, you might want at
least to learn to spell it right.

And post right side up.

And trim your quotes.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
jlk7e
2003-07-23 20:42:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick
I'll repeat my comment.
Presume (as in heirs presumtive), all persons in line to the throne are
'Heirs of the body of Sophia'. They are in line to the throne, therefore
one PRESUMES they can inherit the throne
Apparent (as in heir apparent), only one person can ascend to the throne,
that person is the eldest son of the monarch. APPARENTly (it definately
looks like), he will become king
You can't define terms with a specific technical meaning based on the
common English meaning of the individual terms contained within.
Gidzmo
2003-07-22 22:14:11 UTC
Permalink
Apparent means, it will happen this way. Charles is now an heir-apparent, he
is definately first in line, his place can't change, William is an
heir-presumptive as his place in the succesion could change from second to
first place.

Charles is the PRESENT heir-apparent. William will be heir-apparent after
Charles.
William can't be an presumptive heir because there isn't anyone who can move
him DOWN in the line of succession. He will move UP when his father becomes
King.

Anne moved from second (after Charles at the time of HM's accession) to eighth
(presently, after her youngest brother Edward). She will move to ninth later
this year (providing that Sophie's pregnancy goes full-term and the baby isn't
stillborn).

Current British Line of Succession:
http://www.etoile.co.uk/Rsucc.html
Charles Stewart
2003-07-21 22:03:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick
Charles was an heir presumtive from his birth to the death of his
grandfather, as he could have had an uncle while his George VI was alive.
Thats the only time he was presumtive. Willaim is heir presumtive as his
father is ahead of him.
You seem to be using "heir presumptive" to mean "heir apparent to
the heir apparent". There are two "p"s in the word, and that's not
what it means.
I don't believe there's a simple word or short phrase in English for
the concept you're using.
Agreed. That's why I often use "heir-eventual" with specific meaning
indicated by context.

Charles Stewart
Michael Rhodes
2003-07-22 10:40:23 UTC
Permalink
Just suppose that the future King William V has two daughters. The
elder daughter, Princess Diana, succeeds to the throne but never
marries. She lives to be 102, and her younger married sister - at 98 -
is heir pres or apparent ?

--

Michael Rhodes
Andy.3rd
2003-07-22 12:59:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Rhodes
Just suppose that the future King William V has two daughters. The
elder daughter, Princess Diana, succeeds to the throne but never
marries. She lives to be 102, and her younger married sister - at 98 -
is heir pres or apparent ?
--
Michael Rhodes
Her married sister is heiress presumptive. Yes, it is silly and against science
but the supposition is that the 102 *could* get married and produce a child.


His Illustrious and Most Serene Jadedness, Andy, RSM

"Mrs. J. J. McHale- a wannabe "authority" and the Usenet's most promiscous
posting-whore"
Stephen Stillwell/Tom Wilding
2003-07-22 17:24:51 UTC
Permalink
Not necessarily against science any longer - there are cases of
post-menopausal women being impregnated via "artificial" means and
delivering healthy children. Not common now - but in a future world that is
being discussed in this "what if."

-- Stephen Stillwell
Post by Andy.3rd
Post by Michael Rhodes
Just suppose that the future King William V has two daughters. The
elder daughter, Princess Diana, succeeds to the throne but never
marries. She lives to be 102, and her younger married sister - at 98 -
is heir pres or apparent ?
--
Michael Rhodes
Her married sister is heiress presumptive. Yes, it is silly and against science
but the supposition is that the 102 *could* get married and produce a child.
His Illustrious and Most Serene Jadedness, Andy, RSM
"Mrs. J. J. McHale- a wannabe "authority" and the Usenet's most promiscous
posting-whore"
duffy
2003-07-22 21:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Stillwell/Tom Wilding
Not necessarily against science any longer - there are cases of
post-menopausal women being impregnated via "artificial" means and
delivering healthy children. Not common now - but in a future world that is
being discussed in this "what if."
-- Stephen Stillwell
My understanding is that the rule is derived from the so-called "fertile
octogenerian" rule which developed at common law and was used in determining
remainders and executory (future) interests. It was based, interestingly,
not on science but in the book of Genesis --- Sarah --- the wife of
Moses--- was around eighty years old when she gave birth.

Einstein was reported to have said that eventually science would prove the
Existence of God (I apologise but I do not have the source for this quote at
hand) --- Science seems at least to be catching-up with Moses.

Duffy
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
2003-07-23 04:22:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by duffy
octogenerian" rule which developed at common law and was used in determining
remainders and executory (future) interests. It was based,
interestingly,
Post by duffy
not on science but in the book of Genesis --- Sarah --- the wife of
Moses--- was around eighty years old when she gave birth.
Ninety years, actually, according to Gen. 17:17. (Perhaps ninety-one
years, since she was 90 before she became pregnant.)
[deletions]

People, people, people, surely someone else here besides this thoroughly
relapsed Catholic knows that Sarah was the wife of Abraham, not Moses:

"Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall
a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that
is ninety years old, bear? . . . And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear
thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish
my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after
him. . . But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear
unto thee at this set time in the next year."
--
Frank in Seattle

___________

Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney

"I leave you now in radiant contentment"
-- "Whistling in the Dark"
Magda
2003-07-23 05:09:22 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:22:15 -0700, in alt.talk.royalty, "Frank R.A.J. Maloney"
<***@blarg.net> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :


... People, people, people, surely someone else here besides this thoroughly
... relapsed Catholic knows that Sarah was the wife of Abraham, not Moses:
...
... "Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall
... a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that
... is ninety years old, bear? . . . And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear
... thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish
... my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after
... him. . . But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear
... unto thee at this set time in the next year."

Maybe god was counting in dog's years.
duffy
2003-07-23 13:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by duffy
Post by duffy
octogenerian" rule which developed at common law and was used in
determining
Post by duffy
remainders and executory (future) interests. It was based,
interestingly,
Post by duffy
not on science but in the book of Genesis --- Sarah --- the wife of
Moses--- was around eighty years old when she gave birth.
Ninety years, actually, according to Gen. 17:17. (Perhaps ninety-one
years, since she was 90 before she became pregnant.)
[deletions]
People, people, people, surely someone else here besides this thoroughly
"Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall
a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that
is ninety years old, bear? . . . And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear
thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish
my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after
him. . . But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear
unto thee at this set time in the next year."
--
Frank in Seattle
___________
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"I leave you now in radiant contentment"
-- "Whistling in the Dark"
Mea Culpa ---- What ever would those nuns in grade school think of me! You
are, of course correct! My apologies
Duffy

Although --- I think I got the part about Sarah right
Stan Brown
2003-07-23 13:53:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank R.A.J. Maloney
octogenerian" rule which developed at common law ... was based ...
not on science but in the book of Genesis --- Sarah --- the wife of
Moses--- was around eighty years old when she gave birth.
Ninety years, actually, according to Gen. 17:17. (Perhaps ninety-one
years, since she was 90 before she became pregnant.)
People, people, people, surely someone else here besides this thoroughly
relapsed Catholic
Gack! I focused on the small bit of duffy's ignorance (80 years) and
overlooked the big bit (Moses). You're right, of course.

I think you might mean "lapsed Catholic". I believe a "relapsed X"
would be someone who struggled up out of being X and then fell back
into it.

Myself, I'm a recovering Lutheran.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
2003-07-23 15:53:18 UTC
Permalink
"Stan Brown" <***@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:***@news.odyssey.net...

[deletions]
Post by Stan Brown
I think you might mean "lapsed Catholic". I believe a "relapsed X"
would be someone who struggled up out of being X and then fell back
into it.
Myself, I'm a recovering Lutheran.
It is a sign of the depths to which I've sunk that I cannot even use the
proper term to describe my apostasy.
--
Frank in Seattle

___________

Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney

"I leave you now in radiant contentment"
-- "Whistling in the Dark"
duffy
2003-07-23 21:51:06 UTC
Permalink
"Sarah --- the wife of
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Frank R.A.J. Maloney
Post by duffy
Moses--- was around eighty years old when she gave birth.
Ninety years, actually, according to Gen. 17:17. (Perhaps ninety-one
years, since she was 90 before she became pregnant.)
People, people, people, surely someone else here besides this thoroughly
relapsed Catholic
Gack! I focused on the small bit of duffy's ignorance (80 years) and
overlooked the big bit (Moses). You're right, of course.
hmm --- query if Sarah did actually give birth in her ninetieth year we
would have proof only that she had been fertile in her eighties ----
menstruation having ceased during her pregnancy ---

I had been writing an article on a sculpture of Moses in Syracuse and took a
break and read atr --- it was then that I too quickly wrote his name (Moses)
instead of Abraham --- I apologize for that "slip" and most especially for
my ignorance --- both great and small ---- I forgot that in Cortland, NY the
greatest scientific minds reside --- and that they have a monopoly on truth
and knowledge vastly exceeding my own --- Of course their mistakes are
understandable and pardonable, unlike my own --- How typically American :)

Duffy

Deposuit potentes de sede, et
exaltavit humiles
duffy
2003-07-23 13:24:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by duffy
octogenerian" rule which developed at common law and was used in determining
remainders and executory (future) interests. It was based,
interestingly,
Post by duffy
not on science but in the book of Genesis --- Sarah --- the wife of
Moses--- was around eighty years old when she gave birth.
Ninety years, actually, according to Gen. 17:17. (Perhaps ninety-one
years, since she was 90 before she became pregnant.)
Post by duffy
Einstein was reported to have said that eventually science would prove the
Existence of God (I apologise but I do not have the source for this quote at
hand) ---
I do not have an encyclopedic knowledge of everything Einstein ever
said, but this is not at all in the spirit of Einstein's well-known
beliefs. Whether he himself believed in any sort of supreme being,
he would not have said anything so silly since it is logically
impossible to prove the existence of god unless you beg the
question -- which is cheating.
I agree it was not in keeping with his general views on the subject
which is why I remembered it --- He may have been sarcastic in saying it but
that also doesn't seem to be in keeping w/ his reputation. I remember him
fishing here in Cazanovia w/ one of my cousins whose children retain most of
the books about him. If I get a chance to, I'll get the text and let you
know
Post by duffy
Science seems at least to be catching-up with Moses.
I do not understand what, if anything, that might mean.
Only that biblical events --- once thought pure fantasy by so many in the
"scientific community" seem to be on the way to be proven quite possible as
mankind's technology improves and as our knowledge increases

Duffy
Stan Brown
2003-07-23 01:24:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy.3rd
Her married sister is heiress presumptive. Yes, it is silly and against science
but the supposition is that the 102 *could* get married and produce a child.
Actually, science is every day making that less unlikely. Think
cloning, or previously frozen eggs, or whatever.

It's unlikely by our lights today that a royal would do such a
thing, but who knows what the mores will be over a century from now?
After all, a century ago it was inconceivable that a woman could be
monarch of Denmark or heiress apparent to the throne of Sweden!
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Michael Rhodes
2003-07-22 15:03:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Rhodes
Just suppose that the future King William V has two daughters. The
elder daughter, Princess Diana, succeeds to the throne but never
marries. She lives to be 102, and her younger married sister - at 98 -
is heir pres or apparent ?
The case of the Countess of Dysart is interesting. The lady is 89 and
unmarried, and her 85 year-old yr sister is heir to the title.

The younger sister has surely to be "heir apparent" ?

--

Michael Rhodes
Kelly
2003-07-22 20:20:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Rhodes
Post by Michael Rhodes
Just suppose that the future King William V has two daughters. The
elder daughter, Princess Diana, succeeds to the throne but never
marries. She lives to be 102, and her younger married sister - at 98 -
is heir pres or apparent ?
The case of the Countess of Dysart is interesting. The lady is 89 and
unmarried, and her 85 year-old yr sister is heir to the title.
The younger sister has surely to be "heir apparent" ?
--
Michael Rhodes
No, because even though it would take a medical miracle for the Countess to
conceive and bear a child, never say never. It could always happen (though
I'm willing to stick my neck out and say it won't in this case). A sibling
cannot be heir-apparent (unless there are some weird remainders to the
title), because whoever's got the title, regardless of age or physical
infirmity, must be presumed able to bear heirs. His Jadedness Andy once
posted that even if the current holder of a title was comatose and
castrated, you must always assume that the holder could bear heirs.

Kelly
--
What we see depends mainly on what we look for.
jlk7e
2003-07-23 06:01:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kelly
Post by Michael Rhodes
Post by Michael Rhodes
Just suppose that the future King William V has two daughters. The
elder daughter, Princess Diana, succeeds to the throne but never
marries. She lives to be 102, and her younger married sister - at 98 -
is heir pres or apparent ?
The case of the Countess of Dysart is interesting. The lady is 89 and
unmarried, and her 85 year-old yr sister is heir to the title.
The younger sister has surely to be "heir apparent" ?
--
Michael Rhodes
No, because even though it would take a medical miracle for the Countess to
conceive and bear a child, never say never. It could always happen (though
I'm willing to stick my neck out and say it won't in this case).
No, it could not possibly happen. There is absolutely no chance that
the Countess of Dysart could conceive and bear a child. Her sister
*will* succeed her unless she dies first. Nevertheless, as Francois
points out, by the way that the terms "heir apparent" and "Heir
presumptive" are defined, the sister of the Countess of Dysart is not
her heir-apparent.
Kelly
2003-07-23 06:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by jlk7e
Post by Kelly
Post by Michael Rhodes
Post by Michael Rhodes
Just suppose that the future King William V has two daughters. The
elder daughter, Princess Diana, succeeds to the throne but never
marries. She lives to be 102, and her younger married sister - at 98 -
is heir pres or apparent ?
The case of the Countess of Dysart is interesting. The lady is 89 and
unmarried, and her 85 year-old yr sister is heir to the title.
The younger sister has surely to be "heir apparent" ?
--
Michael Rhodes
No, because even though it would take a medical miracle for the Countess to
conceive and bear a child, never say never. It could always happen (though
I'm willing to stick my neck out and say it won't in this case).
No, it could not possibly happen. There is absolutely no chance that
the Countess of Dysart could conceive and bear a child.
Since science isn't *THAT* advanced yet, I will state that there is no
realistic chance of her bearing a child. But in the eyes of the law, unless
the Countess had a hysterectomy (she could still resort to a surrogate) or
had her overies removed (and even then eggs could be frozen), never say
never.

Her sister
Post by jlk7e
*will* succeed her unless she dies first. Nevertheless, as Francois
points out, by the way that the terms "heir apparent" and "Heir
presumptive" are defined, the sister of the Countess of Dysart is not
her heir-apparent.
Kelly
--
What we see depends mainly on what we look for.
jlk7e
2003-07-23 20:46:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kelly
Post by jlk7e
Post by Kelly
Post by Michael Rhodes
Post by Michael Rhodes
Just suppose that the future King William V has two daughters. The
elder daughter, Princess Diana, succeeds to the throne but never
marries. She lives to be 102, and her younger married sister - at
98 -
Post by jlk7e
Post by Kelly
Post by Michael Rhodes
Post by Michael Rhodes
is heir pres or apparent ?
The case of the Countess of Dysart is interesting. The lady is 89 and
unmarried, and her 85 year-old yr sister is heir to the title.
The younger sister has surely to be "heir apparent" ?
--
Michael Rhodes
No, because even though it would take a medical miracle for the Countess
to
Post by jlk7e
Post by Kelly
conceive and bear a child, never say never. It could always happen
(though
Post by jlk7e
Post by Kelly
I'm willing to stick my neck out and say it won't in this case).
No, it could not possibly happen. There is absolutely no chance that
the Countess of Dysart could conceive and bear a child.
Since science isn't *THAT* advanced yet, I will state that there is no
realistic chance of her bearing a child. But in the eyes of the law, unless
the Countess had a hysterectomy (she could still resort to a surrogate) or
had her overies removed (and even then eggs could be frozen), never say
never.
I would say, though, that even if she had a hysterectemy and had her
ovaries removed, and had no eggs frozen, her sister would *still* not
be heiress-apparent, simply because someone's sister cannot, by
definition, be that person's heir-apparent. Only the eldest son or
the heir of an eldest son can be an heir-apparent. That is to say,
the term "heir apparent" while, perhaps, theoretically based on
biological possibilities and such, is, in fact, defined in a specific
way that, in some circumstances, generally violates biology. Which is
to say, I suspect we actually agree with each other, and are quibbling
over semantics. (Mostly me quibbling over semantics, I suspect)
Kelly
2003-07-24 01:49:17 UTC
Permalink
"jlk7e" <***@juno.com> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...

Which is
Post by jlk7e
to say, I suspect we actually agree with each other, and are quibbling
over semantics. (Mostly me quibbling over semantics, I suspect)
We're in agreement and just using different words, I think.

Kelly
--
What we see depends mainly on what we look for.
Stan Brown
2003-07-25 03:16:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by jlk7e
simply because someone's sister cannot, by
definition, be that person's heir-apparent.
I think you're probably right about that. I can't think of a
counterexample.
Post by jlk7e
Only the eldest son or
the heir of an eldest son can be an heir-apparent.
Here's a counterexample: Charles and all his issue die before the
present Queen, and so does Andrew. Now Beatrice is heiress apparent,
but she was the heir of a second son.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Francois R. Velde
2003-07-23 02:31:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Rhodes
Post by Michael Rhodes
Just suppose that the future King William V has two daughters. The
elder daughter, Princess Diana, succeeds to the throne but never
marries. She lives to be 102, and her younger married sister - at 98 -
is heir pres or apparent ?
The case of the Countess of Dysart is interesting. The lady is 89 and
unmarried, and her 85 year-old yr sister is heir to the title.
The younger sister has surely to be "heir apparent" ?
Not as long as there is a possibility of her being displaced, and the law (not
the present state of medical technology) defines the extent of that possibility.

The law, thoughtfully, is only trying to prevent us on ATR from spending our
time debating whether X is heir apparent or heir presumptive. There is a clean
definition, and it's straightforward to apply.

Sure, you buy that cleanliness with a little discrepancy with reality. But does
it matter? Are there any practical consequences from labelling "heir
presumptive" someone who, in fact if not in law, has probability 1 of not being
displaced?

[There could well be, but as far as I know English is the only language which
has introduced the presumptive/apparent distinction, and I'm not quite sure
why.]
--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Michael Rhodes
2003-07-23 09:36:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Michael Rhodes
Post by Michael Rhodes
Just suppose that the future King William V has two daughters. The
elder daughter, Princess Diana, succeeds to the throne but never
marries. She lives to be 102, and her younger married sister - at 98 -
is heir pres or apparent ?
The case of the Countess of Dysart is interesting. The lady is 89 and
unmarried, and her 85 year-old yr sister is heir to the title.
The younger sister has surely to be "heir apparent" ?
Not as long as there is a possibility of her being displaced, and the law (not
the present state of medical technology) defines the extent of that possibility.
The law, thoughtfully, is only trying to prevent us on ATR from spending our
time debating whether X is heir apparent or heir presumptive. There is a clean
definition, and it's straightforward to apply.
Sure, you buy that cleanliness with a little discrepancy with reality. But does
it matter? Are there any practical consequences from labelling "heir
presumptive" someone who, in fact if not in law, has probability 1 of not being
displaced?
[There could well be, but as far as I know English is the only language which
has introduced the presumptive/apparent distinction, and I'm not quite sure
why.]
Thanks. No doubt spurred on by our jottings Her Ladyship and her
gamekeeper are now hot foot to Harley Street with a syringe. . . . .
Pierre Aronax
2003-07-24 17:45:38 UTC
Permalink
"Francois R. Velde" <***@heraldicanospam.invalid> a écrit dans le message
de news: ***@4ax.com...

<...>
Post by Francois R. Velde
[There could well be, but as far as I know English is the only language which
has introduced the presumptive/apparent distinction, and I'm not quite sure
why.]
En effet, "héritier présomptif" s'emploie aussi en français, mais je ne vois
pas d'équivalent à "heir apparent".

Pierre
Dr J.C. Horton
2003-07-23 16:48:48 UTC
Permalink
IIRC, it was posted somewhere in the newsgroup that George VI and Queen
Elizabeth decided not to have any more children some time after Princess
Margaret was born.
This isn't relevant. To determine whether the first in line to the throne is heir
apparent or heir presumptive, ask yourself this question: "Can the first in line
be displaced by the birth of some other person?". If "Yes", the first in line is
heir presumptive; if "No" heir apparent. From this we see two things:

(1) Heir apparent and heir presumptive are mutually exclusive - if one exists,
then the other does not; and
(2) The definition is a legal one only - it takes no notice of anything so complex
as biology, people's idea of how big a family should be or so on.

Thus, in the above example, the then Princess Elizabeth was heiress (or heir*)
presumptive to King George VI during all the latter's reign.

* Choice between heir and heiress is an aspect of the English language. No doubt
other groups can supply information about this.
Willaim is heir presumptive, as his father is ahead of him.
No--William is Charles' eldest son. An heir-presumptive can be displaced by
the birth of someone with a stronger claim ...
Whilst the above is true, the argument is meaningless. Prince William of Wales is
neither heir apparent or heir presumptive since he is not first in line to the
throne.
Andy.3rd
2003-07-23 22:32:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr J.C. Horton
Prince William of Wales is
neither heir apparent or heir presumptive since he is not first in line to the
throne.
Chareles is the heir apparent of HM
William is the heir apparent of Charles
Harry is the heir presumptive of William


His Illustrious and Most Serene Jadedness, Andy, RSM

"Mrs. J. J. McHale- a wannabe "authority" and the Usenet's most promiscous
posting-whore"
Francois R. Velde
2003-07-24 15:47:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy.3rd
Post by Dr J.C. Horton
Prince William of Wales is
neither heir apparent or heir presumptive since he is not first in line to the
throne.
Chareles is the heir apparent of HM
William is the heir apparent of Charles
Harry is the heir presumptive of William
Heir of what? This is nonsense. William has no title that
Harry could inherit. Charles has no title that William
could inherit.

You can't be heir of an heir. An heir is a person who
stands to inherit from another person. Technically,
there is no heir until there is a death. Until then,
there is an heir *apparent* or *presumptive*: the person
who stands to become heir when the other person dies.
The adjective modifies the noun to indicate that the
person is not yet heir, but stands to become one.
The moment Queen Elizabeth dies, Charles is her heir,
not before. And, at that point, William will not
become an heir, but an heir apparent. At best, you
could invent for him the phrase "heir apparent apparent".
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Andy.3rd
2003-07-24 16:22:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Andy.3rd
Chareles is the heir apparent of HM
William is the heir apparent of Charles
Harry is the heir presumptive of William
Heir of what? This is nonsense. William has no title that
Harry could inherit. Charles has no title that William
could inherit.
Charles is also heir apparent to Philip's peerage. If one substitutes Philip
for HM in the above then it perhaps illustrates my point more precisely.

Otherwise it makes it impossible to trace remainderships to the various
peerages and Offices of state.


His Illustrious and Most Serene Jadedness, Andy, RSM

"Mrs. J. J. McHale- a wannabe "authority" and the Usenet's most promiscous
posting-whore"
Francois R. Velde
2003-07-24 16:33:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy.3rd
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Andy.3rd
Chareles is the heir apparent of HM
William is the heir apparent of Charles
Harry is the heir presumptive of William
Heir of what? This is nonsense. William has no title that
Harry could inherit. Charles has no title that William
could inherit.
Charles is also heir apparent to Philip's peerage. If one substitutes Philip
for HM in the above then it perhaps illustrates my point more precisely.
It's just as wrong.
Post by Andy.3rd
Otherwise it makes it impossible to trace remainderships to the various
peerages and Offices of state.
Then do an order of succession if you want. There's no need to misuse the
word "heir".
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Pierre Aronax
2003-07-24 17:43:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Andy.3rd
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Andy.3rd
Chareles is the heir apparent of HM
William is the heir apparent of Charles
Harry is the heir presumptive of William
Heir of what? This is nonsense. William has no title that
Harry could inherit. Charles has no title that William
could inherit.
Charles is also heir apparent to Philip's peerage. If one substitutes Philip
for HM in the above then it perhaps illustrates my point more precisely.
It's just as wrong.
<...>

Nevertheless, in the British peerage "second" heirs apparent (= heir
apparent of heir apparent) use courtesy titles, as heirs apparent did: this
tend to prove that, despite your good arguments to sustain that there is
nothing like an heir of an heir in British law, that is not entirely true
for what is of the peerage.



Pierre
Francois R. Velde
2003-07-24 19:46:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy.3rd
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Andy.3rd
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Andy.3rd
Chareles is the heir apparent of HM
William is the heir apparent of Charles
Harry is the heir presumptive of William
Heir of what? This is nonsense. William has no title that
Harry could inherit. Charles has no title that William
could inherit.
Charles is also heir apparent to Philip's peerage. If one substitutes
Philip
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Andy.3rd
for HM in the above then it perhaps illustrates my point more precisely.
It's just as wrong.
<...>
Nevertheless, in the British peerage "second" heirs apparent (= heir
apparent of heir apparent) use courtesy titles, as heirs apparent did: this
tend to prove that, despite your good arguments to sustain that there is
nothing like an heir of an heir in British law, that is not entirely true
for what is of the peerage.
I'm not arguing against the concept of an order of succession, be it for
the crown or for a peerage. It's a coherent albeit tricky, genealogical
concept. It plays a role in matters of precedence, courtesy titles, even
in law (to a very limited extent). Validity of the concept, however,
is not a license to press words in its service in spite of their meaning.
All I'm saying is that "heir of the heir" is not a correct phrase to
designate the 2nd in line. Maybe we can make one up, like reversionary heir,
ulterior heir (as in German Nacherbe).
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Francois R. Velde
2003-07-24 20:58:32 UTC
Permalink
But is that not a little more than an order of succession? One can be second
in the line of succession without being "heir apparent of the heir
apparent", as one can be first in the line of succession without being heir
apparent. It happens that, in the peerage, a peculiar rule for title is used
for the "heir apparent of the heir apparent", as for the heir apparent, so
it seems that the previous rank is in some way special, as is the second,
and that enjoying it is something more than being second in the line.
Point taken.
Post by Francois R. Velde
It plays a role in matters of precedence, courtesy titles, even
in law (to a very limited extent). Validity of the concept, however,
is not a license to press words in its service in spite of their meaning.
All I'm saying is that "heir of the heir" is not a correct phrase to
designate the 2nd in line. Maybe we can make one up, like reversionary
heir,
Post by Francois R. Velde
ulterior heir (as in German Nacherbe).
But does not "reversionary heir" have an other sense? And can not a
"reversionary heir" be outranked by a newborn? An "heir apparent of the heir
apparent" can not. Would a "reversionary heir" have to be "heir apparent of
the heir apparent" (I don't think), or does anyone who is second in the line
of succession qualify?
"Ulterior heir" seems less ambiguous, but same question.
I don't know the answer: we're making up terms here. Remember that there
isn't much in the words "apparent" and "presumptive" that would suggest
a priori which means which.
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Stan Brown
2003-07-25 03:34:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
Nevertheless, in the British peerage "second" heirs apparent (= heir
apparent of heir apparent) use courtesy titles, as heirs apparent did: this
tend to prove that, despite your good arguments to sustain that there is
nothing like an heir of an heir in British law, that is not entirely true
for what is of the peerage.
I think your example may actually undermine your point. Courtesy
titles are not legal, but are just aliases. Remember that the formal
style of a peers heir (never mind the heir's heir) is something on
the order of N.N. known as Viscount X.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Pierre Aronax
2003-07-25 09:29:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Pierre Aronax
Nevertheless, in the British peerage "second" heirs apparent (= heir
apparent of heir apparent) use courtesy titles, as heirs apparent did: this
tend to prove that, despite your good arguments to sustain that there is
nothing like an heir of an heir in British law, that is not entirely true
for what is of the peerage.
I think your example may actually undermine your point. Courtesy
titles are not legal, but are just aliases. Remember that the formal
style of a peers heir (never mind the heir's heir) is something on
the order of N.N. known as Viscount X.
My point was that heir apparent of heir apparent is treated in the same way
that are treated heirs apparent. You say that the courtesy title he uses is
just a courtesy title, but the same can be said of the courtesy title of the
heir apparent: does that mean that there is nothing like an heir apparent? I
suspect no.

Pierre

Don Aitken
2003-07-24 21:55:39 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:33:06 +0000 (UTC), "Francois R. Velde"
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Andy.3rd
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Andy.3rd
Chareles is the heir apparent of HM
William is the heir apparent of Charles
Harry is the heir presumptive of William
Heir of what? This is nonsense. William has no title that
Harry could inherit. Charles has no title that William
could inherit.
Charles is also heir apparent to Philip's peerage. If one substitutes Philip
for HM in the above then it perhaps illustrates my point more precisely.
It's just as wrong.
Post by Andy.3rd
Otherwise it makes it impossible to trace remainderships to the various
peerages and Offices of state.
Then do an order of succession if you want. There's no need to misuse the
word "heir".
I don't think that there is anything wrong with Andy's way of putting
it. *Everyone* has an heir apparent or an heir presumptive (but not
both). In the days when real property passed automatically to the heir
at death, this was more important than it is now, when only titles
pass in that way, but it is still true. William still would be
Charles's heir apparent if Charles was a penniless vagrant.

The question is not "Heir of what?" but "Heir of whom?"

It would, of course, be wrong to say that William or Harry was heir
apparent or presumptive *to the throne*, but that is a different
issue.
--
Don Aitken
Francois R. Velde
2003-07-24 22:30:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
I don't think that there is anything wrong with Andy's way of putting
it. *Everyone* has an heir apparent or an heir presumptive (but not
both). In the days when real property passed automatically to the heir
at death, this was more important than it is now, when only titles
pass in that way, but it is still true. William still would be
Charles's heir apparent if Charles was a penniless vagrant.
The question is not "Heir of what?" but "Heir of whom?"
It would, of course, be wrong to say that William or Harry was heir
apparent or presumptive *to the throne*, but that is a different
issue.
All right, I'll assume that's what Andy had in mind and apologize.
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Dr J.C. Horton
2003-07-20 11:19:55 UTC
Permalink
Well, I said I wasn't sure about what I THOUGHT I heard on the tv
programme, However, it does make sense, if the heir is female, why
couldn't SHE be Princess of Wales in her own right? Especially as
changes are afoot in the future of the monarchy, whereas first BORN
not necessarily first MALE may succeed. Of course, this will take at
least 2 generations to come about.
How do you know these changes are afoot?
Block2Block
2003-07-20 20:21:12 UTC
Permalink
From ***@gwmail.nottingham.ac.uk on 20-Jul-03

(From Robert Hall)
Especially as changes are afoot in the future of the monarchy, whereas first
BORN not necessarily first MALE may succeed. Of course, this will take at
least 2 generations to come about.

(From Dr. Horton)
How do you know these changes are afoot?
(My two-pence worth)
Discussion has been allowed--but not an outright change,

Quoting from the BritFAQ:
29. Is it true that HM The Queen has agreed to allow the Government to change
the laws of succession to the throne?

No, it isn't true. The only thing which Her Majesty has done is to agree to
allow discussion of the issue (whereby the right of succession passes to the
eldest child of the sovereign regardless of gender, that is, females would have
the same right of succession as males). Neither Parliament nor the Queen have
decided to do anything beyond discussing the issue.

For additional information, see various issues of the "Electronic Telegraph"
(the online version of "The Daily Telegraph" newspaper) including those of 13
February 1997 (issue 629) and 28 February 1998 (issue 1009).
Rick
2003-07-20 12:45:53 UTC
Permalink
Even if Anne was the eldest child of Her Majesty, she could not be made The
Princess of Wales as she has younger brothers who would be ahead of her in
the line of succession. The grant of the Wales title goes to the heir
apparent, Anne could only ever be heir presumtive.
Post by Grrarrggh
How could Mary (future Mary I), the daughter of Henry and Catherine of Aragon,
have been the Princess of Wales? I thought that title was reserved for the
wife of the Prince of Wales?
If Anne had been born first to the Queen, would she have been made Princess of
Wales?
Tam
Rick
2003-07-20 13:46:05 UTC
Permalink
It's true that the only daughter of a deceasced Prince of Wales, becomes
heir apparent (if she's his only child), but, the custom is the monarchs
eldest son (so long as he has succession rights) is entitled to the Prince
of Wales title. Princess Grandaughter would be styled 'of Wales' anyway.

The title of the male heir apparent (if he's the son of the monarch) is
automatically HRH The Prince, with the style 'of Wales' used after it, once
conferred, styling his only daugher as HRH The Princess of Wales, could be
seen as an incorrect style.

(If wrong, please correct me)
Not necessarily. Eldest son dies leaving as his only child a daughter --
she is heir-apparent.
Post by Grrarrggh
If Anne had been born first to the Queen, would she have been made
Princess of
Post by Grrarrggh
Wales?
Tam
Well, I said I wasn't sure about what I THOUGHT I heard on the tv
programme, However, it does make sense, if the heir is female, why
couldn't SHE be Princess of Wales in her own right? Especially as
changes are afoot in the future of the monarchy, whereas first BORN
not necessarily first MALE may succeed. Of course, this will take at
least 2 generations to come about.
I think the answer is that a female can never be heir apparent
Not necessarily. Eldest son dies leaving as his only child a daughter --
she
is heir-apparent.
Kelly
--
What we see depends mainly on what we look for.
Colin
2003-07-20 21:20:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick
It's true that the only daughter of a deceasced Prince of Wales, becomes
heir apparent (if she's his only child), but, the custom is the monarchs
eldest son (so long as he has succession rights) is entitled to the Prince
of Wales title. Princess Grandaughter would be styled 'of Wales' anyway.
The title of the male heir apparent (if he's the son of the monarch) is
automatically HRH The Prince, with the style 'of Wales' used after it, once
conferred, styling his only daugher as HRH The Princess of Wales, could be
seen as an incorrect style.
(If wrong, please correct me)
I'm not sure about the "entitled" - the conferral of the title Prince
of Wales is in the Sovereign's gift - there is certainly an
"expectation". As to the title of an only daughter of a deceased
prince of Wales - she would be HRH Princess Mary of Wales until she
was created "HRH the Princess of Wales" - this would not affect a
younger sister who would continue to be, say, HRH Princess Wendy of
Wales
Post by Rick
Not necessarily. Eldest son dies leaving as his only child a daughter --
she is heir-apparent.
Post by Grrarrggh
If Anne had been born first to the Queen, would she have been made
Princess of
Post by Grrarrggh
Wales?
Tam
Well, I said I wasn't sure about what I THOUGHT I heard on the tv
programme, However, it does make sense, if the heir is female, why
couldn't SHE be Princess of Wales in her own right? Especially as
changes are afoot in the future of the monarchy, whereas first BORN
not necessarily first MALE may succeed. Of course, this will take at
least 2 generations to come about.
I think the answer is that a female can never be heir apparent
Not necessarily. Eldest son dies leaving as his only child a daughter --
she
is heir-apparent.
Kelly
--
What we see depends mainly on what we look for.
Jaak Suurpere
2003-07-21 09:34:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin
Post by Rick
It's true that the only daughter of a deceasced Prince of Wales, becomes
heir apparent (if she's his only child), but, the custom is the monarchs
eldest son (so long as he has succession rights) is entitled to the Prince
of Wales title. Princess Grandaughter would be styled 'of Wales' anyway.
The title of the male heir apparent (if he's the son of the monarch) is
automatically HRH The Prince, with the style 'of Wales' used after it, once
conferred, styling his only daugher as HRH The Princess of Wales, could be
seen as an incorrect style.
(If wrong, please correct me)
I'm not sure about the "entitled" - the conferral of the title Prince
of Wales is in the Sovereign's gift - there is certainly an
"expectation". As to the title of an only daughter of a deceased
prince of Wales - she would be HRH Princess Mary of Wales until she
was created "HRH the Princess of Wales" - this would not affect a
younger sister who would continue to be, say, HRH Princess Wendy of
Wales
Do children of deceased life peers keep the title of the decedent? For
Wales is a life peerage. How were the brothers of George III known
before they got their own substantive titles?
Post by Colin
Post by Rick
Not necessarily. Eldest son dies leaving as his only child a daughter --
she is heir-apparent.
Post by Grrarrggh
If Anne had been born first to the Queen, would she have been made
Princess of
Post by Rick
Post by Grrarrggh
Wales?
Tam
Well, I said I wasn't sure about what I THOUGHT I heard on the tv
programme, However, it does make sense, if the heir is female, why
couldn't SHE be Princess of Wales in her own right? Especially as
changes are afoot in the future of the monarchy, whereas first BORN
not necessarily first MALE may succeed. Of course, this will take at
least 2 generations to come about.
I think the answer is that a female can never be heir apparent
Not necessarily. Eldest son dies leaving as his only child a daughter --
she
Post by Rick
is heir-apparent.
Kelly
--
What we see depends mainly on what we look for.
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
2003-07-21 16:39:09 UTC
Permalink
"Jaak Suurpere" <***@solo.ee> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...

[deletions]
Post by Jaak Suurpere
Do children of deceased life peers keep the title of the decedent? For
Wales is a life peerage. How were the brothers of George III known
before they got their own substantive titles?
[deletions]

The Principality of Wales is not a peerage, life or otherwise. The
associated Earldom of Chester is a peerage, but it is held only until the
holder succeeds to the throne (assuming no untoward events) therefore it
cannot be called a "life peerage".
--
Frank in Seattle

___________

Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney

"I leave you now in radiant contentment"
-- "Whistling in the Dark"
Jaak Suurpere
2003-07-22 07:43:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank R.A.J. Maloney
The Principality of Wales is not a peerage, life or otherwise. The
associated Earldom of Chester is a peerage, but it is held only until the
holder succeeds to the throne (assuming no untoward events) therefore it
cannot be called a "life peerage".
All peerages, life or hereditary, merge with the Crown if held by heir
to the Crown.
A "life peerage" is a peerage granted for the life of the grantee
only, and does not pass to his issue on his death.
The Earldom of Chester, in every creation since its association with
the Principality of Wales, conforms to this description, and is
therefore surely a life peerage.
For example: Frederick Lewis, Duke of Edinburgh, was created Earl of
Chester on the 8th of January 1729. He died on the 10th of March 1751,
when the (1726) Dukedom of Edinburgh passed to his eldest son, George
William Frederick, while the (1729) Earldom of Chester, which was
granted only for life, became extinct.
Donald Renouf
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
2003-07-22 16:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jaak Suurpere
Post by Frank R.A.J. Maloney
The Principality of Wales is not a peerage, life or otherwise. The
associated Earldom of Chester is a peerage, but it is held only until the
holder succeeds to the throne (assuming no untoward events) therefore it
cannot be called a "life peerage".
All peerages, life or hereditary, merge with the Crown if held by heir
to the Crown.
[deletions]

Thanks for stating the obvious; it's so helpful.

Its exact relevance to what we're tossing around is a mite unclear, however.

The Earldom of Chester is not a life peerage. It is a special case, a
peerage associated with the Principality of Wales, itself unique in the
British system. The sovereign chooses to make his or her son and heir Prince
of Wales, Earl of Chester, etc. and the latter holds those titles until he
succeeds to the throne, at which point the titles are available to the new
sovereign for regranting at an appropriate time, if ever. (If the Prince of
Wales dies without succeeding, then Chester is effectively a life peerage,
but that is mere persiflage and not useful in understanding this peerage.)

In addition, I would not think that I would also have to remind anyone here
that life peerages are always baronies as per a recent thread on this
newsgroup.
--
Frank in Seattle

___________

Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney

"I leave you now in radiant contentment"
-- "Whistling in the Dark"
Donald Renouf
2003-07-22 19:31:43 UTC
Permalink
But the title [the Earldom of Chester] is not granted only for life. If
Charles comes to the throne,
Chester merges with the Crown. Charles can regrant Chester (along with
Wales) to William. That's not a life peerage.
*Any* peerage which merges with the crown ceases to exist, including
life peerages. It doesn't affect their "life peerage" status.

DJR
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...