Jump to content

Heir apparent: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 23: Line 23:
For example, [[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom|Queen Elizabeth II]] was heiress presumptive during the reign of her father, King [[George VI of the United Kingdom|George VI]], because at any stage up to his death, George could have fathered a legitimate son. Indeed, when Elizabeth's ancestor [[Victoria of the United Kingdom|Victoria]] was proclaimed Queen, the wording even gave as a caveat—
For example, [[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom|Queen Elizabeth II]] was heiress presumptive during the reign of her father, King [[George VI of the United Kingdom|George VI]], because at any stage up to his death, George could have fathered a legitimate son. Indeed, when Elizabeth's ancestor [[Victoria of the United Kingdom|Victoria]] was proclaimed Queen, the wording 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."''
:''"saving the rights of any issue of his late Majesty King William IV which may be born of his late Majesty's consort."''


Here, provision was made in case William's wife [[Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen|Queen Adelaide]] was pregnant at the moment of his death — since such a child, when born, would have displaced Victoria from the throne. [http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/brit-proclamations.htm#Introduction].
Here, provision was made in case William's wife [[Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen|Queen Adelaide]] was pregnant at the moment of his death — since such a child, when born, would have displaced Victoria from the throne. [http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/brit-proclamations.htm#Introduction].

Revision as of 20:59, 15 April 2007

For other uses, see Heir Apparent (novel).

An heir apparent is an heir who (short of a fundamental change in the situation) cannot be displaced from inheriting; the term is used in contrast to heir presumptive, the term for a conditional heir who is currently in line to inherit but could be displaced at any time in the future. Today these terms are most commonly used for heirs to hereditary titles, particularly monarchies. It is also used less formally to indicate someone who is the apparent 'anointed' successor to any position of power, e.g., a political or corporate leader.

The phrase is only occasionally found used as a title,[1] but as such it is usually capitalized ("Heir Apparent").

This article is concerned primarily with heirs apparent in a hereditary system regulated by laws of primogeniture; it does not consider cases where a monarch has a say in naming his or her own heir.

Heir apparent versus heir presumptive

In a hereditary system governed by some form of primogeniture, an heir apparent is easy to recognize: he or she is somebody whose place as first in the line of succession to the title or throne is secure irrespective of future births that may occur. An heir presumptive, by contrast, can always be "bumped down" in the succession by the birth of somebody more closely related in a legal sense (according to that form of primogeniture) to the current title-holder.

The clearest example occurs in the case of a titleholder with no children. If at any time he or she produces children, they will rank ahead of whatever more "distant" relative (a sibling, perhaps, or a nephew or cousin) was previously heir presumptive.

For the purposes of many legal systems, it is assumed that childbirth is always possible, irrespective of age or health status. The possibility of a fertile octogenarian, although nonexistent in reality, is never ruled out. In such circumstances a person may be in a practical sense the heir apparent but still legally speaking heir presumptive — science knows that nobody could be born to take his or her place; but the law does not.

Daughters in male-preference primogeniture

The United Kingdom uses male-preference primogeniture: that is to say, daughters (and their lines) may inherit but only in default of sons (and theirs). That is, a female has just as much right to a place in the order of succession as a male would, but she ranks behind all her brothers, regardless of age.

Thus in the normal run of things even an only daughter will not be her father's (or mother's) heir apparent, since at any time a brother might be born who, although younger, would become heir apparent. Hence she is only an heir presumptive.

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. Indeed, when Elizabeth's ancestor Victoria was proclaimed Queen, the wording 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."

Here, provision was made in case William's wife Queen Adelaide was pregnant at the moment of his death — since such a child, when born, would have displaced Victoria from the throne. [1].

Women as heirs apparent

Obviously, in a system of absolute primogeniture which does not take sex into account, a female heir apparent is not surprising; several European monarchies have within the last few decades adopted such a system and furnish practical examples: Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden, is oldest child of King Carl XVI Gustav and his heir apparent; Princess Catharina-Amalia of the Netherlands, Princess Elisabeth of Belgium, and Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway are all heirs-apparent to their fathers (who are in each case heir apparent to their respective countries' thrones).

But even in legal systems (such as the UK's) that apply male-preference primogeniture female heirs-apparent are by no means impossible: if a male heir apparent dies leaving no sons but at least one daughter, then the daughter (or eldest daughter) would replace her father as heir apparent to whatever throne or title is concerned: as the representative of her father's line she would place ahead of any more distant relatives; and since her dead father cannot father any son, she is certain to stay at the head of her father's line.

Such a situation has not to date occurred with the English or British throne; several times an heir apparent has died, but each example has either been childless or left a son or sons.

In one special case, however, Britain may be said to have had a female heir apparent: although the spouses William and Mary, once installed by the Glorious Revolution of 1688, were considered to rule as joint monarchs, it was Mary who had the true hereditary claim. Thus, although after her death William continued to reign, he had no power to beget heirs; any children sired by a subsequent marriage would not have been heir apparent.[2] Thus Mary's younger sister Anne, who had been heir presumptive during Mary's life, became heir apparent upon her death during the remainder of William's reign, eventually succeeding him as Queen Anne.

Not everybody, furthermore, is a complete stickler for avoiding the term 'heir apparent' in cases where an heir presumptive has no practical prospect of being unseated; for instance, Princess Charlotte, Duchess of Valentinois, Isabel of Brazil and the future Marie-Adélaïde, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg were each declared heirs-apparent (though the former renounced her succession rights in favor of her son).

Displacement of heirs apparent

The position of an heir apparent is in the normal run of things unshakeable and it can be assumed that he or she will inherit someday. But sometimes extraordinary events intervene to prevent this, the most obvious example being his or her untimely death.

Some notable examples of heirs apparent who have lost that status

  • Prince Carl Philip of Sweden, who at his birth in 1979 was heir apparent to the throne of Sweden. A year later a change in that country's succession laws instituted absolute primogeniture, whereupon Carl Philip was supplanted as heir apparent by his elder sister Victoria.
  • James Francis Edward Stuart, the infant son of King James II/James VII (of England and Scotland respectively), who was deposed as the King's legal heir apparent when parliament, after it declared that James had de facto abdicated, offered the throne not to the Prince James, whom his father was raising as a Roman Catholic, but to James's oldest daughter, the young prince's much older half-sister, the Protestant Mary (along with her husband, Prince William of Orange). When the exiled King James died in 1701, his Jacobite supporters proclaimed the exiled Prince James Francis Edward as King James III of England and James VIII of Scotland; but neither he nor his descendents were ever successful in their bids for the throne.
  • Crown Prince Gustav (later known as Gustav, Prince of Vasa), son of Gustav IV Adolf of Sweden, who lost his place when his father was deposed and replaced by his aged uncle, the Duke Carl, who became Charles XIII of Sweden. The aged King Charles XIII did not have surviving sons, and Prince Gustav was the only living male of the whole dynasty (besides his deposed father), but the prince was never regarded as heir of Charles XIII, although there were groups in the Riksdag and elsewhere in Sweden who desired to preserve him, and, in the subsequent constitutional elections, supported his election as his great-uncle's successor. Instead, the government proceeded to have a new crown prince elected (which was the proper constitutional action, if no male heir was left in the dynasty), and the Riksdag elected first August, Prince of Augustenborg, and then, after the death of the latter, the Prince of Ponte Corvo (Marshal Jean Baptiste Bernadotte).

In some jurisdictions, an heir apparent can automatically lose his or her status should he or she breach certain constitutional rules. Today, for example:

  • a British Prince of Wales would lose his status as heir apparent if he
    • became a Catholic, or
    • married a Catholic
  • a Crown Prince/Princess of Sweden would lose his/her status if he/she
    • married without the approval of the monarch
    • married the heir to another throne, which is always contrary to Swedish law
  • a Dutch Prince/Princess of Orange would lose his/her status if he/she
    • married without the approval of the Dutch parliament
    • should decide to renounce it
  • a Spanish Prince of Asturias would lose his status if he married against the express prohibition of the monarch or the Cortes.

Famous Heirs Apparent who never inherited the throne

  • Arthur, Prince of Wales - the Prince of Wales and heir apparent of King Henry VII of England and first husband of Catherine of Aragon. His sudden death within four months of his marriage led to the succession to the throne of his younger brother, as Henry VIII, who also married his widow. The question of whether Catherine had lost her virginity to Arthur was central to Henry's demand for a marriage annulment.
  • Tsesarevich Alexei Nikolaevich of Russia - youngest child and only son of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, and heir apparent to the Russian throne. When Nicholas abdicated in March 1917, he also abdicated in the name of his son, which was, in effect, against the law in Russia. However the monarchy was abolished only days later, so it made little difference. Historians have presumed Alexei to murdered in 1918, although, many people continue to believe he escaped his killers, since his body (along with one of his sisters) was never found with the rest of his family's and servants.
  • Yinreng - Yinreng was an Heir Apparent to the imperial throne of Qing Dynasty China. During the course of his life, Yinreng was deprived of his position twice by the Kangxi Emperor.

(Heir presumptive: Henri, comte de Chambord - grandson and practical heir of King Charles X of France Charles abdicated in favour of the young Henri, only for the throne to be seized by a cousin, King Louis-Philippe of France in 1830, and Henri's uncle Duke Louis of Angouleme, the Dauphin also abdicated. Henri turned down a second chance to receive the French throne from the French National Assembly in the early 1870s because he would not accept the tricolour as the French flag.)

Heirs Apparent as of 2007

Notes

  1. ^ Many monarchies give the heir apparent the title of "Crown Prince"; others have a more specific version, such as Prince of Orange in the Netherlands. See Crown Prince for more examples.
  2. ^ 'King James' Parliament: The succession of William and Mary - begins 13/2/1689', The History and Proceedings of the House of Commons : volume 2: 1680-1695 (1742), pp. 255-77. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=37644. Date accessed: 16 February 2007.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Heir_apparent&oldid=123069910"