Talk:Heir presumptive

message: What about a monarch's daughter, who is heir presumptive while the monarch has no sons, but ceases to be heir presumptive if a son is born?  It is not true that that person is not a descendant of the monarch, as this article states. 131.183.84.166 21:40 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
You are of course completely correct. I was in a rush (I was 20 minutes late for an appointment) and didn't get it right. I saved it anyway, planning to come back to it a couple of hours later and correct it. It has now been corrected. FearÉIREANN 03:25 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
What about the case where the first-born of the monarch is a daughter?  The article says "he", but a female can take the place of the Heir Presumptive if the first HP is a brother, cousin, uncle, whatever, and the female is the daughter of the monarch.  RickK 08:15 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Please also see comments in Talk:Heir Apparent.  Psb777 07:21, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Daughter of monarch

message: Are the two examples we have now for heir presumptives actually good examples? They appear, to me, to be heir presumptives that fell victim to misfortunes, rather than presumptives getting nudged down the line of succession by an apparent. --Xanzzibar 00:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Richard II examples are particularly not helpful because they were singled out by Richard as heirs, rather than becoming heirs due to strict application of the laws of primogeniture.  We should really ditch these if we can come up with some better ones... ideally they would be cases when a figure was a well-known heir presumptive for some time before the birth of an heir apparent.  --Jfruh 01:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Correct Xanzzibar, and although your post was a long time ago I've trimmed out the people who didn't inherit because of other events (such as dying before the heir, revolutions, etc). --kingboyk (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Those who didn't

message: The text says "If an heir apparent is born, he becomes first-in-line to the throne, with all of his descendants taking priority over the heir presumptive in the Line of Succession. In the event of there being an heir apparent, the title "heir presumptive" lapses and is not used to describe the most senior person in the Line of Succession who is not a direct male descendant of the monarch. A woman who is in the same position is sometimes called the heiress presumptive but many monarchies increasingly choose to use heir presumptive irrespective of the sex of the holder." which is incorrect and misses the point.
 
- An heir apparent is incapable of being dislodged by the birth of another person. An heir presumptive can be so dislodged, regardless of his/her sex. Heir covers male and female in this context. "Heiress presumptive" is a solecism. Kittybrewster 10:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heiress presumptive 

message: This section appears to risk confusing readers between two seperate things; title to land ie the legal document and a title in terms of dignity:
"Since the title cannot be held by two people simultaneously, two daughters (without a brother) who inherit in this way would do so as co-parceners and before they inherit, both would be heirs presumptive. In these circumstances, the title would in fact be held in abeyance until one of them renounced for herself and her successors in favour of the other. Passage of a title in this fashion is effected under the rules laid down in the Land Law Act 1925."
: I'm sure you can see this probably could lead people to think you could renounce a title as a co-heir to enable your sister to inherit a peerage. Which of course you can't.Alci12 15:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there are two sisters and no brother, then they both inherit the peerage as co-parceners. But neither can use it until one has renounced it. Thus it is in abeyance until one renounces it. At which stage the other can use it. So the renouncer has effectively stepped aside in favour of her sister, renouncing her interest in the title so that her sister could take it out of abeyance and inherit. Examples, the abeyances terminated in favour of (1) Cherry Drummond, 16th Baroness Strange and (2) Myrtle Robertson, 11th Baroness Wharton. - Kittybrewster 17:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm afraid that what you have said is untrue. Abeyance is terminated automatically only when only one heir remains. No heir to a peerage can cause the termination of the abeyance by renouncing their share. Only the monarch can terminate the abeyance of a peerage and they are under no obligation in law to accept any wish from any co-heirs as to how they terminate that abeyance. If one of two heirs states they wish to make no claim that is a very powerful moral influence on the chances of termination in favour of the other but it is of no legal force. The monarch or more specifically the Cmtee for privilages could still refuse the termination. Just as multiple daughters could all petition for the termination in their favour and with no one willing to stand aside the monarch could terminate in favour of one or refuse all the petitions. Alci12 15:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with what you say - the termination in favour of the one is not automatic and is subject to the consent of the Crown (probably the Cttee for Privileges). But I know of no case where the Crown has not acceded to the "powerful moral influence". - Kittybrewster 16:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The consequence of the CfP ruling in the 20s does exactly this of course. There are a good number of peerages who have only two heirs with only one part wanting to petition yet they are denied under the 100 year rule. Historically there are examples of people with an absolute claim seeing termination to a rival unjustified claimant contrary to any logic whatsoever (Abergavenny comes to mind). The point is that you can't 'renounce' your claim or that of your heirs in any legal sense. You can support a rival claimant which may help their claim but that is all and the main article at the moment is misleading.Alci12 16:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I acknowledge you have a good take on this and won't take offence if you would like to amend the text either here or under co-parceners. I don't exactly understand your reference to the 100 year rule or Abergavenny (I looked him up and know nothing of the background) and am greatly interested - also in the context of 1911_Census#Availability - Kittybrewster 17:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Land Act 

message: What about systems of succession where there is no possibiliy of there being an Heir presumptive, on ly an Heir aparent. For example, agnatic seniority ? - Matthew238 22:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Heir presumptive

message: Would Infanta Leonor of Spain fit in this category then? Raystorm 16:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only the 1st-in-line to the Throne is usually called "heir presumptive"... 95.27.91.225 (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Leonor of Spain?

message: Following this move the introduction no longer matches the title... The article title is uncapitalised, so refers to the more general position, but this is not consistent with the introduction.
Nor is the introduction now internally consistent. The capitalisation has been removed from the first line, but the following text is then explicitly describing the position of a presumptive heir to a throne, which is exactly what Heir Presumptive (capitalised), as distinct from heir presumptive, means.
Possibly there are other problems. I'll have a look and see whether there was discussion regarding this move; If not the easiest thing might be just to reverse it.
Or there may be a case to split the article (there are many valid wikilinks to both capitalised and uncapitalised titles), or to rewrite it to match the current title. But as the move appears at first sight to have been conducted without reading even the introduction of the article, let alone the article itself, perhaps reverting the move is also most logical. Andrewa 21:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalisation

message: What is the purpose of this section? There are 1,000s of names that could be included. Piano non troppo (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the section and the "those who didn't" comment above. It's a list of heirs presumptive who did not inherit because an heir apparent displaced them. Since that's a big part of what the title means, the section is useful. PaulGS (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to be coming to this so late (motivated by the Queen's birthday), but the list as described must surely contain many first-born females. As a well-known example, Princess Victoria was heir presumptive for just under a year. Could the section heading be more specific (or else add Vicky to the list). David Brooks (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a note saying which ones are included. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples of heirs presumptive who did not inherit thrones

message: : When lowercased, "heir presumptive" can refer generally to someone who is provisionally scheduled to inherit a title, position or possession, unless displaced by an heir apparent or another heir presumptive. In both cases, the position is however subject to law and/or conventions that may alter who is entitled to be heir presumptive.
The term 'lowercased' is jargon inappropriate for the lead paragraph.  The next sentence invites the question "what's the other case?", since none was clearly specified; does "both cases" here mean upper and lower? —Tamfang (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  puzzling lede 

message: I yhink that the Tongan example has "matured" and probably needs removal -- the new King has a son (heir apparent) and there is no longer an h.p. -- but I could be wrong.  Over to experts. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tonga 

message: His inclusion here is doubtful as the evidence for his being heir presumptive to Richard III is weak. Many historians would argue it would have been illogical for Richard to name or recognise him as heir, as he had a senior claim to the the throne than that of Richard. Warwick being the son of the Duke of York's 3rd son, Clarence, whereas Richard was the 4th son. His father had of course been removed from the succession along with his heirs during the reign of Edward IV. Later Yorkists did use Warwick as a candidate for the throne, but only after Richard was dead. Dunarc (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick 

message: Instead of heirs presumptive who did not assume the throne being listed on this page, should this list not be a category, and thus not be needed on this page? EmilySarah99 (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the list necessary?