The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #221  
Old 04-24-2013, 01:11 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Ummm, I believe QEII was a female heir apparent quite recently, and was not Princess of Wales
QEII as Princess Elizabeth was never heir apparent only heiress presumptive. As long as George VI lived there was always the remote possibility that he could have had a son by Queen Elizabeth or by a second wife. She was never made Princess of Wales because her father believed that title was only for the wife of a Prince of Wales.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 04-24-2013, 01:25 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post

Ummm, I believe QEII was a female heir apparent quite recently, and was not Princess of Wales
QEII was the heir presumptive - it was always possible (however unlikely) that her father could have had a legitimately born son, who would have been the heir apparent. It was pretty clear, at least by the time KGVI came to the throne that QEII would inherit, and her being made Princess of Wales was discussed but ultimately determined that Princess of Wales is a lesser title, used by the wife of the Prince of Wales.

Until now, in order for there to be a female heir apparent the male heir apparent would have to have a daughter (and only daughters) then die before the monarch, making his daughter the heir apparent of the monarch. So, theoretically King X has a son, Y, Prince of Wales, who has one child, a daughter, Princess Z of Wales. If Y dies before X, then Princess Z becomes the heir apparent. In British history, this has never happened - British Queens have always only ever been heir presumptives.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 04-24-2013, 04:38 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 285
This Act restores Prince Michael to the list of succession.

Does this mean Prince and Princess Michael will become official working royals? Will they still be required to pay rent? Will the Queen fund them?
__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 04-24-2013, 05:02 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,718
This is a longish post answering a number of the questions posed above.

At over 70 I doubt that Prince and Princess Michael of Kent would become working royals. His older siblings are cutting back and both have had/do have illnesses this year.

They will continue to pay rent.

George V was known as Duke of Cornwall and York throughout 1901, until 9th November, nearly 9 months after his father's accession. In those days people were more educated about titles etc and so used the full title all the time. My great-grandparents were friends of the Cornwall/Yorks at the time and kept lots of papers etc about them, including their tour of Australia to open the first Australian parliament and all the press cuttings refer to them as The Duke/Duchess of Cornwall and York - not just in editorials or CCs but even in the local rags reporting about them.

William will become HRH The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge the instant The Queen dies. Charles will then decide if, and when, to create him Prince of Wales and there is a chance that William will never get that title as the Welsh assembly will be consulted and that body may very well ask that it not be given.

Charles became Duke of Cornwall on 6th February, 1952 but wasn't created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester until 1958. He was then invested in 1969 and that was only the 2nd such investiture.

To be an heir apparent a person has to be in a position of not being replaced in the line of succession so Charles is heir apparent to The Queen and William is heir apparent to Charles but Harry is only heir presumptive to William as he can (and will) be replaced by the birth of a child to William at which point he will become the heir presumptive to that child. Elizabeth, like Victoria, Anne, Mary, Elizabeth and Mary, before her, were all heirs presumptive as they could all have been replaced by an appropriate child (even James I and VI was at best the heir presumptive to Elizabeth).

As for Camilla's title - it is a matter of 'wait and see' at this point in time but the stated line from 2005 and always stated on the PoW website is that 'it is intednded that she will be known as Princess Consort'.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 04-24-2013, 05:03 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,198
Bertie while the longish post is quite explanatory, it was hardly needed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
This Act restores Prince Michael to the list of succession.

Does this mean Prince and Princess Michael will become official working royals? Will they still be required to pay rent? Will the Queen fund them?
They are official working royals, they do pay rent and I imagine being re-added to the succession list in what 20 something place? Won't affect the money they receive from The Queen if any. Re-adding Catholics is going to make very little difference
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 04-24-2013, 05:14 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Bertie while the longish post is quite explanatory, it was hardly needed.
I thought personal attacks weren't allowed on this site.


Quote:
They are official working royals, they do pay rent and I imagine being re-added to the succession list in what 20 something place? Won't affect the money they receive from The Queen if any. Re-adding Catholics is going to make very little difference
The Michael's of Kent are not official working royals. They don't get money from the Queen for doing official duties, or from the government.

Take a look at the visits Michael has been making recently overseas - none listed in the CC.

Like the York girls they only attend the big events and don't undertake regular duties on behalf of the Queen - last year they did about 40 between them - the same number as Beatrice and Eugenie and that was a busy year in the CC for them.

The CC on the British monarchy website doesn't even list them as members of the royal family - although it still has The Queen Mother, Margaret and Alice. As that list is approved by The Queen it is clear that she doesn't regard them as working members of the family. (Beatrice and Eugenie aren't on that list either but William, Kate and Harry are). I find it intersting that Catherine is listed below Andrew which I assume is because those listed above her all are Counsellors of State and can therefore sign the legislation if The Queen is away.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 04-24-2013, 05:41 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,379
Bertie, question - at this time, is the third in line to the throne Harry or the Cambridge Fetus?

Say, in the unlikely hypothetical situation that HM, Charles, and William all died before the birth. Does Harry become king, or does he become regent for the unborn child?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 04-24-2013, 06:13 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 388
I believe the DoCm, as the QM would be first in line as Regent.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 04-24-2013, 06:27 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 580
The DoCm would not be the QM. I believe Prince Henry would be Regent for the unborn child, and for the duration of that childs minority.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 04-24-2013, 06:34 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by padams2359 View Post
I believe the DoCm, as the QM would be first in line as Regent.
The DoCm would be the Dowager Duchess of Cambridge, nothing more. In order to be QM one must have first been a Queen Consort.

According to the Regency Act of 1937, the regent is the next person in the line of succession who is over the age of 21, a British subject who lives in the UK, and capable of succeeding to the crown under the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701. As Catherine is not in the line of succession, as it stands now she would not be regent. In the future, a regency act specific to the Cambridge children might be passed, as happened during the reign of HM when Charles was under age, but such an act had not happened yet and likely won't happen until William is king (if his heir is underage then).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 04-24-2013, 07:34 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,718
Harry would become King if the position becomes vacant before the baby is born as there is no possibility in Britian for there to be no monarch. When Queen Victoria first became Queen there were two theories put forward as to the rights of the unborn child if Queen Adelaide was actually pregnant and they were a) Victoria would have to abdicate in favour of the child and then act as regent until the child turned 18 and the other was that the child and its line would take precedence ahead of Victoria's own children.

With regard to a regency they would also have to consider the 1953 Regency Act that made the surviving parent the regent - in this case it did specify Philip with certain other conditions such as no other child or grandchild able to be regent but the precedent for the parent is there. Margaret was allegedly very upset that she was replaced as the potential regent by her brother-in-law.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 04-24-2013, 07:44 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,379
Thanks Bertie!

My understanding of the 1953 act was that it was specific to the instance of the Queen dying while her children were under age, resulting in Philip becoming the regent over Margaret. While the provisions of the act could set a precedent for another such act to be created establishing Catherine as regent over Harry, the 1953 act in itself doesn't automatically make the spouse of the deceased or incapacitated monarch the regent, just specifically Philip (and even now, the provisions of the act no longer apply owing to the age of both the Queen's children and grandchildren).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 04-24-2013, 07:55 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
I think it highly unlikely in this day and age that the unborn heir would be bypassed and Harry placed on the throne. The public would not accept it. More likely some sort of Regency would be declared.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 04-24-2013, 08:11 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,718
The point is that until the child is born there still has to be a monarch and that monarch is Harry. The child isn't in the line of succession until born - that is the British way.

The situation in Britain is 'the King/Queen is dead - long live the King/Queen' not the King/Queen is dead - let's wait and see whether we will have a new King/Queen' - it is instantaneous and so Harry would become King.

Whether he would then be forced to abdicate when the child is born or would continue to reign with that child as his heir would be determined by parliament.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 04-24-2013, 08:24 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,103
Could William and Kate keep their DOC and the POW be held for (later use) one of their children?


LaRae
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 04-24-2013, 08:29 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Whether he would then be forced to abdicate when the child is born or would continue to reign with that child as his heir would be determined by parliament.
An interesting situation. I think public opinion, and pressure from the Middletons, would see Parliament deciding Harry should abdicate and be regent during the child's minority.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 04-24-2013, 08:37 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Could William and Kate keep their DOC and the POW be held for (later use) one of their children?


LaRae
There is no legal requirement for Charles III to create his eldest son Prince of Wales, however he could not bypass his son and make his grandson Prince of Wales while William lives as that title can only be held by the heir apparent. If William is not created Prince of Wales he could still create course his own eldest child Prince/Princess of Wales when he comes to the throne. There has never been a Princess of Wales in her own right but it is not impossible to imagine it with the lastest changes in succession laws.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 04-24-2013, 08:40 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,103
Ok confused myself...did you mean the POW can only be held by the son of the monarch?


LaRae
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 04-24-2013, 08:45 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The point is that until the child is born there still has to be a monarch and that monarch is Harry. The child isn't in the line of succession until born - that is the British way.

The situation in Britain is 'the King/Queen is dead - long live the King/Queen' not the King/Queen is dead - let's wait and see whether we will have a new King/Queen' - it is instantaneous and so Harry would become King.

Whether he would then be forced to abdicate when the child is born or would continue to reign with that child as his heir would be determined by parliament.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post

An interesting situation. I think public opinion, and pressure from the Middletons, would see Parliament deciding Harry should abdicate and be regent during the child's minority.
I would think that in accordance with primogeniture, Harry would have to give up the throne in such a situation.

It would be a tricky situation all around, and public opinion would be huge. However, I doubt that the Middletons are so powerful that their opinion would be of great importance here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Could William and Kate keep their DOC and the POW be held for (later use) one of their children?

LaRae
William and Catherine will remain Duke and Duchess of Cambridge until either the day William dies or the day he becomes king. The Cambridge title will be used with the Cornwall title while Charles is king, but if William does while still the Duke then his eldest son will inherit the Duke of Cambridge title.

The title Prince of Wales is not one that is inherited. It is created separately for each heir apparent, and does not have to be created at all. When William is heir apparent he will most likely be created Prince of Wales. When his child is heir apparent he or she is likely to also be created Prince of Wales as well.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 04-24-2013, 08:46 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Ok confused myself...did you mean the POW can only be held by the son of the monarch?

LaRae
POW can only be held by the heir apparent.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary's Official Visit to Australia: November 19-26, 2011 Princess Robijn Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary and Family 295 08-28-2014 08:34 PM
The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change GrandDuchess Royal House of Sweden 276 06-30-2014 12:52 AM
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 926 04-15-2014 11:41 PM
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary's Official Visit to Brazil: September 16-21, 2012 ricarda Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary and Family 81 10-05-2012 04:15 PM
The Third Succession Act (Henry VIII, 1543) Daz_Voz British Royals 4 07-25-2012 03:17 PM




Popular Tags
belgium carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:40 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]