Talk:Heir presumptive

Daughter of monarch

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)

Those who didn't

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)

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)

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)

Princess of Hanover

Besides the Princess of Hanover, am I wrong to think that there is currently none other heir presumptive to a European throne ?

2nd in line?

The article starts out with An Heir Presumptive (capitalised) is the person provisionally scheduled to inherit a throne but whose position can be displaced by the birth of an Heir Apparent or of a new Heir Presumptive with a better claim to the throne. Fine; this also agrees with my dictionary.

Later on, the article says that Prince William is the Heir Presumptive to the throne of the United Kingdom [because he is] eligible to inherit the throne at any time. This is in contradiction to the first sentence; how could William's position be displaced by anybody's birth?

-- Austrian 20:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

eligible to inherit the throne at any time is a really bad formulation. Its meaning is hazy. And moreover, it is not true. Prince William is not eligible to inherit as long as Charles is heir. And, please, do not make this confusion: this idea is a new meaning to otherwise clear thing. 217.140.193.123 21:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

William's position is not heir presumptive, rather he is a sort of heir apparent, a concurrent heir apparent, in the second position of current heirs apparent. I think that idea should be included in heir apparent, not here. 217.140.193.123 28 June 2005 20:07 (UTC)

But if William and Harry were both girls (Wilhemina and Harriet say), why would Wilhelmina not be an heir presumptive after Charles as heir apparent? Presumuably the argument is that there can only be one heir - it is not that convincing. --Henrygb 03:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

William is Charles's heir apparent, i.e he is heir apparent of the heir apparent... or maybe I'm wrong as it could change at anytime, who knows. But it's very likely Wills will one day be King. --Lyly-Kim

I don't think William is technically anything. He is 2nd in line to the throne, but I don't think you would call him an heir - otherwise we could call all those in the line of succession heirs, its just that, unlike William, it is assumed that none of the others in line will eventually become King/Queen, taking into account the usual nature and timescale of death, birth, death etc.

We could after all call Harry William's heir, but we would just be more likely to call his son/daughter heir. - Matthew238 22:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Heiress presumptive

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)

Land Act

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No Heir presumptive

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)

Leonor of Spain?

Would Infanta Leonor of Spain fit in this category then? Raystorm 16:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Only the 1st-in-line to the Throne is usually called "heir presumptive"... 95.27.91.225 (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Leonor is heir aparent because she is Princess of Asturias, and when you are proclamated princess or prince of Asturias you are the heir apparent. Hinzel 00:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hinzel (talk • contribs)

Capitalisation

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)

This seems a recurrent issue. See Talk:Heir Apparent#Capitalisation for a relevant discussion. Hmmm. Andrewa 01:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm again, it's not just the introduction that doesn't fit. The whole article is predominantly about Heir Presumptive (heir to a throne, so capitalised) rather than the more general heir presumptive. The move was completely inappropriate IMO. Andrewa 13:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Examples of heirs presumptive who did not inherit thrones

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)

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)

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)

There's a note saying which ones are included. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

puzzling lede

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)

Tonga

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)

Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick

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)