Originally Posted by Admiral Horthy
Isn't it simply tradition to refer to someone by the highest title they received in life even though they no longer "hold" the job? Former presidents and governors in the United States are always referred to as President Carter or Governor Pataki? So unless a country has a tradition of the former monarch taking a new title, such as Princess Beatrix, they would retain the title for life but not pass it on to their heir. Crown Prince Alexander's son Prince Peter will never be a Crown Prince unless the monarchy is restored.
Pretty much, yes.
While higher titles may be claimed it's not common for such titles to actually be used.
For example, Alexander of Yugoslavia, is the claimant to the throne of Yugoslavia. However as he became the claimant after the monarchy was abolished he doesn't use the title King Alexander II. Instead he is called Alexander II, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia. His heir, meanwhile is titled Peter III, Hereditary Prince of Yugoslavia, despite being the heir apparent.
When restorations do happen it's typical that the numbering is based on the line of monarchs who claimed the throne, even if they didn't ever hold it. So, for example the current claimant to the Jacobite succession is Franz, Duke of Bavaria. While he doesn't actually claim the British throne those who do so for him name him Francis II. There's never been a ruling British Francis I, however Franz's claim comes through Francis V, Duke of Modena, who was called Francis I by the Jacobites.