Talk:Heir apparent

message: I have added the general meaning of heir apparent.  The specific case given until now was for a monarchy.  
I cannot see that an Heir Apparent has to be a direct descendant.  This seems to be the case but that is because of the rules of succession, not because of the definition of Heir Apparent.  Examples:
*Would the brother of a King who happened to be a eunuch not be the Heir Apparent?
*If the rules of succession were such that the monarchy always went to the next oldest brother of the King (I think there are tribal chiefdoms like this) before the oldest son then the King's brother is the Heir Apparent before and after the birth of the King's son.  And the King's son would be Heir Presumptive awaiting the possible birth of an uncle.
*What if the title could be willed?  Property certainly can.  Who is the heir apparent then?
Maybe these changes could be criticised on the basis that Heir Apparent (capitalised) is only an official title in certain states.  If so then this article should be changed to say: "This article refers to HA, the official title - please refer to heir apparent."
But this does introduce the question of capitalisation and Wikipedia's weird case (in-)sensitivity.
Psb777 07:13, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Pre-U version was nothing-if-not-punctilious-to-a-fault<g>. - Nunh-huh 04:10, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: From what I've seen it is heir apparent. –– Constafrequent (talk page) 02:30, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old discussions

message: * There are a couple of errors that I corrected:
**The legal definition of "heir" is not someone who is in possession of something through inheritance; strictly, speaking it is someone who will inherit something in the absence of a will.  In common usage, it denotes someone who will inherit something, or in the context of the settlement of an estate, inherits something.  Once it is in his/her possession, he/she is no longer an heir.
**It may be worth distinguishing between an heir apparent of a throne from an heir apparent to something else, but it is not done through capitalization.  Dictionaries (look 'em up) are very clear that an heir apparent is " An heir whose right to inheritance is indefeasible by law provided he or she survives an ancestor."  This applies only to titles and such, and should in this article be extended to include heirs apparent to hereditary peers (in the UK).
*As regards capitalization, the long discussion makes it pretty clear to me that the term Heir Apparent (uppercase) only applies when it refers to a title; as a descriptive term, it should be lowercase.  Since Wikipedia should explain what the descriptive term means, it should be written in lowercase except when it clearly denotes a title.  --Leifern 22:46, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Now: Will someone argue for the proposition that heir apparent to the earldom of Emsworth is a title rather than a description? —Tamfang (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revising article 

message: According to the article
A Crown Princess of Sweden would lose her status if she
*married without the approval of the monarch
*married the heir to another throne, which is always contrary to Swedish law.
Question: What if the Crown Princess were to marry someone from another royal family who was not the heir.  Let's say, she were to marry the second son of another king.  However, if that person were to become heir, say, the first son died, would she then lose her status, since her husband was now heir?  Would it be possible for her to retain her status if her husband were to renounce his succession rights? Nik42 05:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can see, the only thing actually prohibited, in addition to marrying without the king's approval, is gaining regent status in another country, and even that (while unlikely of course, as consorts don't normally become regents) is possible if the king and the parliament approves it. § 8 of the Order of Succession reads, roughly translated: "Prince and princess of the Swedish Royal House may not, without the King's and the Riksdag's approval, become regent in a foreign state, either through election, inheritance or marriage. Should otherwise occur, be he or she with descendants not allowed to succeed to the Swedish Throne." -- Jao 08:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweden 

message: I have read that the title of Duke of Rothesay in Scotland, like the title of Duke of Cornwall in England, goes to the heir apparent.  I will edit the article if I can find the reference. J S Ayer 06:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duke of Rothesay 

message: This may be relevant:
The Belgian constitution explicitly forbids marriages between the royal house of Belgium and that of the Netherlands (Oranje-Nassau). Should it happen, all royal rights and privileges will be taken away (this could influence the succession, in theory). But please check because I'm not sure I have all the details right, W 85.127.115.217 20:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaching of the legal qualifications of heirs apparent 

message: Does Yinreng of Qing qualify as an heir apparent?  Even though he was named the imperial heir, the succession law of the Qing Dynasty allows the heir to be changed any time, and Yinreng himself does not qualify for the throne more than his brothers apart from having the favor of the Emperor.  o 15:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above.  The Chinese title taizi 太子 doesn't mean "heir apparent" because it doesn't refer to someone whose right to succeed to the throne is indefeasible. Taizi is more like "crown prince": the royal prince who is currently expected to inherit the throne, subject to the current sovereign's continued support.--98.111.164.239 (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case of Yinreng 

message: Does anyone know what would happen in the UK if the following situation were to happen. This is an example: In the future, we have King William and Queen Kate and they have one daughter Victoria who is an only child. Queen Kate is pregnant with a male child when King William dies. Does Victoria become Queen? Does the male child become King on birth? What happens? --81.103.41.71 (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting scenario, which has been previously discussed (although hardly unambiguously answered) at the Line of succession to the British Throne talk archives. -- Jao (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The male child becomes King on birth. That scenario actually happened in Spain (Spain follows male-preferance primogeniture, just like the UK): When King Alfonso XII of Spain died, Queen Maria Christina was pregnant, so the throne was in abeyancy, depending on whether Maria Christina's unborn child was a male or a female; a female would place her elder daughter, Infanta Maria Mercedes, on the throne. However, Mercedes was unlucky and she got a brother, Alfonso XIII of Spain. Surtsicna (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  yeah orright,  so at the time the King died,  it was known that his wife was pregnant and might have a son,  so the throne was kept in abeyance.   But suppose that it was no at all known that the queen was pregnant.  Suppose she was only 1 week pregnant and nobody knew about it.   So then Mercedes was proclaimed as Queen.   If the previous queen then has a child 8 and a half months later,   and it is a boy,   then does that child bump Mercedes off the throne when she is already ensconced ?   I don't think so.122.106.255.204 (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually, now I believe the child of King William V and Queen Kate would become Queen Victoria II automatically. That's how Queen Victoria (I) became queen. Had Queen Victoria (I)'s aunt given birth to a child after her husband's death, Victoria (I) would have lost her crown. So, Victoria II would be a monarch until the birth of her brother because the British throne can't be vacant. At the moment of her brother's birth, she would be succeeded by him as if she died and would instead become his heir presumptive. Surtsicna (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible situation 

message: There is every reason to include the United Kingdom as the nation for which Prince Charles is the heir apparent. The firstly is because it is true. It is the only nation for which the Heir apparent acts directly as Head of State (ie without a represenative governor-general). --129.78.64.100 (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom 

message: : Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich of Russia (1904–1918) .... His body, and the bodies of one of his sisters, the rest of his family, and his servant were found in 2007.
Was this last sentence mangled by multiple editors?  It's peculiar to specify "one of his sisters" and "the rest of his family" separately like that.
As I understand Shooting of the Romanov family, most of the bodies were found in 1991 but Alexei and one sister were missing until 2007.  —Tamfang (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you're correct.  I'd assume this is multiple editor mangling. john k (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanov 

message: What do we think about the King of Rome and Louis XVII for the list of heirs-apparent who never held the throne? john k (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguably, they did, however brief that time may have been... it's questionable. Seven Letters 00:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Napoleon II was arguably emperor for a few weeks in 1815; he was in Vienna at the time, and had no authority, though.  Louis XVII never reigned at all; he was proclaimed by monarchists, and I guess the monarchist flag was briefly raised in Toulon in 1793, but that's about it.  There was never any government or administration of France that recognized Louis XVII as king. john k (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about... 

message: The current definition at the top of the article says, "An heir apparent or heiress apparent is a person who cannot be displaced from inheriting, except by a change in the rules of succession." Under this definition, it seems like multiple people could be heirs apparent -- e.g. the eldest son of the monarch (this is obvious), and also the eldest son of the eldest son, etc. The latter is because, even though the eldest son of the eldest son is not first in the line of succession, he still "cannot be displaced from inheriting" the monarchy eventually. He may not inherit it *directly* from the current monarch, but the current definition does not seem to require that to be the case.
However, from what I've read on the rest of Wikipedia and the Internet, the heir apparent seems to only indicate someone who inherits directly from the current position-holder, which would make the heir apparent unique. If this is the case, then the definition should be edited to more accurately reflect this. --67.169.97.192 (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "An heir apparent or heiress apparent is a person who is first in line of succession and cannot be displaced from inheriting, except by a change in the rules of succession"? Surtsicna (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I'd call Willy Cambridge a "second heir apparent", but agree that the phrase heir apparent on its own means only the first. —Tamfang (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  he's an heir presumptive.Ericl (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: He is neither heir apparent nor heir presumptive. He is simply in the line of succession. Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Increasingly I've noticed used of the term heir eventual for someone who is not first in the line of succession to a crown, but also cannot be displaced and is expected to inherit the throne in the normal (chronological) course of events. FactStraight (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does definition allow multiple heirs apparent? 

message: Is the Saudi Crown Prince really an heir apparent?  I have the impression that he is appointed and removed at the whim of the king. —Tamfang (talk) 06:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saudi Arabia 

message: For example, Queen Elizabeth II was heiress presumptive during the reign of her father, King George VI, because at any stage up to his death, George could have fathered a legitimate son.
That is indeed an example of daughters in male-preference primogeniture. But the following part is not.
If a son born to consort of George VI by him even few after few months from his dead, that particular person would succeed as king from birth.
eg:-Alfonso XII of Spain was succeeded by his posthumous son Alfonso XIII.
Indeed, when Queen Victoria succeeded her uncle King William IV, the wording of the proclamation even gave as a caveat:
"...saving the rights of any issue of his late Majesty King William IV, which may be born of his late Majesty's consort." This provided for the possibility that William's wife, Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen, was pregnant at the moment of his death—since such a (so-named posthumous) child, if born and regardless of the gender of the child, would have displaced Victoria from the throne. Adelaide was 44 at the time, so pregnancy was possible even if unlikely.
If a man was in place of Victoria, he would still have been replaced by the hypothetical posthumous son of William.  
--Flygon1509 (talk) 11:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daughters in male-preference primogeniture 

message: The person who is given as heir apparent seems to be the reigning monarch. Something is wrong. 92.131.35.167 (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The emir's father just abdicated within the last year. It appears the position of heir apparent is vacant until a new one is appointed, so I will remove Qatar from the list for now. Tad Lincoln (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Qatar

message: So the opening paragraph says an heir apparent “cannot be displaced from inheriting, except by death or a change in the rules of succession”.  But any heir to the Commonwealth thrones can be disinherited by converting to Roman Catholicism.  Since no death or rule change is involved does that mean that the Commonwealth can’t have an heir apparent?  Just curious.--Lairor (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for noting the mistake. An heir apparent is actually someone who cannot be displaced by the birth of another person. He or she can be displaced by a number of other reasons. Surtsicna (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Commonwealth realms

message: I reverted the last edit without completing my explanation.  The first letter in "heir" is not pronounced, so the word begins with a vowel sound, which determines that the indefinite article is "an".  J S Ayer (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent reversion 

message: Nobody ever seems to mention gender transition in male-preference primogeniture systems as a method of displacing heirs apparent.  E.g. monarch starts with daughter Alice and then a son Bob.  Bob is heir apparent.  Alice comes out as trans male, so now there are two sons (let's say Alice's new name is Albert).  Albert being older than Bob, now precedes Bob in the line of succession if I understand things right.  This possibility has amused me for years.  I wonder if there is any citeable research about this.  It doesn't seem like a crazier possibility than the fertile octogenarians (etc.) that always figure into these calculations.  173.228.123.190 (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the law will first need to provide for that. In the UK for example, it doesn't seem to.  The UK also seems to be set to leave the EU, and to say screw you to any human rights other that what they decide so they're probably not going to be forced to change other than by their own people. (And in any case, I'm not sure how likely it is for a human rights case to establish that it's okay to keep male-preference primogeniture but that it must allow for legal gender recognition changes.) Which places actually provide for changes in legally recognised gender to affect inheritance of titles? Nil Einne (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender transition 

message: For the ninth time, I think, I have deleted the mention of Leonor, Princess of Asturias from the list of heirs apparent.  If King Felipe and Queen Letizia have a son, which I suppose they still might, the son will become Prince of Asturias, Girona, Viana, etc. and Leonor will lose those titles.  Therefore she is heiress presumptive, and is listed there.  I hope not to revert this a tenth time. J S Ayer (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leonor, Princess of Asturias 

message: Here, her title is quote Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland. Should it not be Queen of Britain, Scotland and Ireland, as Britain is England and Wales, what became Great Britain when Scotland joined, and UK together with Ireland, later reduced to Northern Ireland? If not so, was she Queen of England in Scotland? HansInHannover (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: First, she was not the daughter of William III but his cousin.  Second, the title was King/Queen of England, even though the Principality of Wales was included. J S Ayer (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

text: In Scotland, she was Queen of Scotland until the Union of 1707, after which she was Queen of Great Britain on both sides of the border. J S Ayer (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles of Anne, daughter of William iii 

message: I'm quite intrigued by the uncited claim in the introduction of the article that the term "heir apparent" is sometimes used - "metaphorically" - to refer to expected successors to other positions. (I did a few control-F scans of the article for terms that I thought would find me an explanation somewhere, but it's entirely possible that I missed something since, I must admit, I didn't peruse the whole thing.) I can't say I've ever heard the term in any context besides hereditary titles, and in fact, it would strike me as glaringly bizarre to read something like "Musk appoints new heir apparent to SpaceX CEO" or the like. I also have to think that, if it were used often enough to warrant that aside, people would use the descriptor more often in discussions of lines of succession to elected political positions (e.g. I'd expect to read "The Vice President of the United States is heir apparent to the presidency" rather than "The Vice President... is first in the line of succession to discharge the duties of the presidency"). I make no claim to be particularly well-versed in all this, so perhaps it is used in some special cases of which I'm not aware, but a citation for/example of that claim would be nice. Renaissance Jack (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in reference to non-hereditary positions 

message: I. The firstborn male dated back to king James 1 and rightful king of the throne by blood right legetamently dated I am that I am 136.34.193.65 (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: How's that working out for you? —Tamfang (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am that I am 

message: Succession to the Saudi throne is subject to the whim of the king, rather than anything approaching automatic as in the monarchies of Europe; so I question whether the term "heir apparent" is meaningful there. —Tamfang (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And the entry has been removed.  Thanks. —Tamfang (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saudi Arabia