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
 
  #881  
Old 04-24-2013, 12:56 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
I don't think there is anything to stop William from naming a first born female child Princess of Wales in her own right. The Duchy of Cornwall could be a different problem since that would require Parliament to amend the Letters Patent.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #882  
Old 04-24-2013, 01:31 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,219
Heirs apparent and heirs presumptive will still exist under the new legislation when it takes effect whenever that will be.

An heir apparent can't be replaced e.g. Charles is the heir apparent.

William is Charles 'heir apparent'.

Harry is William's heir presumptive and will soon drop to being William's child's heir presumptive.

The difference that this legislation makes is that no longer will a child be replaced by a younger sibling but others in the line will still be presumptive heirs as they will still be able to be replaced in the line of succession.

The monarch could name their heir Princess of Wales although when that possibility was raised by George VI the answer back was that the title 'Princess of Wales' is for the wife of the Prince of Wales - not cast in law of course but an interpretation none the less.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #883  
Old 04-24-2013, 02:03 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,502
You're right, Bertie. I stand corrected.
Reply With Quote
  #884  
Old 04-24-2013, 02:21 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,215
So many interesting issues are arising as a result of this change regarding the succession.

A possibility is for a future male heir to become "The Crown Prince of Wales" allowing for his wife to be made a princess in her own right and known as Princess (blank) of Wales, with a female heir being known as "The Crown Princess of Wales", with her husband being made a prince in his own right and known as Prince (blank) of Wales. Princess (blank) could, all going well, eventually become Princess (blank), The Princess Consort, and Prince (blank) could become Prince (blank), The Prince Consort.
Reply With Quote
  #885  
Old 04-24-2013, 12:35 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
So many interesting issues are arising as a result of this change regarding the succession.

A possibility is for a future male heir to become "The Crown Prince of Wales" allowing for his wife to be made a princess in her own right and known as Princess (blank) of Wales, with a female heir being known as "The Crown Princess of Wales", with her husband being made a prince in his own right and known as Prince (blank) of Wales. Princess (blank) could, all going well, eventually become Princess (blank), The Princess Consort, and Prince (blank) could become Prince (blank), The Prince Consort.
There cannot be a Crown Prince of Wales because there is no King/Queen of Wales just like there is no Crown Prince of Scotland because there is no King/Queen of Scotland.
Reply With Quote
  #886  
Old 04-24-2013, 01:01 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post

The title Prince of Wales is reserved for the heir apparent - there is no specification as to gender made, however until now it has always been very unlikely that an heir apparent would be female, and has never actually happened.

Previously there were two forms of heirs in the British system; apparent and presumptive. The heir apparent was someone whose status as heir could not be displaced by the birth of another, the heir presumptive was someone whose status could be displaced by the birth of another. Typically heir apparents would have been the eldest son of the monarch, but it could have also been a grandson or even a granddaughter, in the event of the eldest son of the monarch dying after having children, but before his parent. Heir presumptives were daughters, nieces, nephews, younger siblings, and even cousins or aunts and uncles.

Theoretically, a female heir apparent can be Prince of Wales - much like how a female monarch is Duke of Lancaster. If they wish instead to go with gender appropriate terms, then a female heir apparent could be titled Princess of Wales - we won't know until such a time as there is a female heir apparent, which at the earliest would be when William is king if the Cambridge baby is a girl.
Ummm, I believe QEII was a female heir apparent quite recently, and was not Princess of Wales
Reply With Quote
  #887  
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
  #888  
Old 04-24-2013, 01:25 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,502
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
  #889  
Old 04-24-2013, 04:38 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 335
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
  #890  
Old 04-24-2013, 05:02 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,219
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
  #891  
Old 04-24-2013, 05:03 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,407
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
  #892  
Old 04-24-2013, 05:14 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,219
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
  #893  
Old 04-24-2013, 05:41 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,502
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
  #894  
Old 04-24-2013, 06:13 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 416
I believe the DoCm, as the QM would be first in line as Regent.
Reply With Quote
  #895  
Old 04-24-2013, 06:27 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 717
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
  #896  
Old 04-24-2013, 06:34 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,502
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
  #897  
Old 04-24-2013, 07:34 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,219
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
  #898  
Old 04-24-2013, 07:44 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,502
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
  #899  
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
  #900  
Old 04-24-2013, 08:11 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,219
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
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
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 942 03-09-2015 10:32 PM
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
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 Royal History 4 07-25-2012 03:17 PM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium best outfit brussels camilla carl philip chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death fashion fashion poll funeral general news infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia maxima nobility official visit picture of the week poland president gauck president hollande president komorowski prince carl philip prince daniel prince henrik princess charlene princess claire princess madeleine princess mary princess mary fashion princess mette-marit princess of asturias queen fabiola queen letizia queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima fashion queen maxima style queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sonja royal fashion sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague visit wedding willem-alexander william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:38 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2015
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]