Who Would You Choose - William or Harry?

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Polly

William, of course, but only because he's the Heir Apparent.

When did William become the 'heir apparent'?

I didn't hear any news to the effect that something had happened the Prince Charles and he was no longer in the line of succession.

NB The 'Heir Apparent' is the next in line to the throne - not the eldest son of that person.

William will only be 'Heir Apparent' when either his father dies while his grandmother is Queen or when his father becomes king. Until either of these things happen he is the second in line to the throne and not the Heir Apparent.

Forgive me - but I do like the correct terms to be used and not to jump people up the line of succession.

I don't think him particularly good-looking but I do think that he's somewhat serious about himself and his future role. And if one's going to have king, then that's what he should be like.

Harry, now. Well, after the Nazi uniform affair,I couldn't care less about him. He's the product of an expensive and comprehensive education, but still, he was so ignorant of his offence.

His alleged partying and wild life doesn't bother me: he's a young, silly man, after all. But he doesn't display any sense of dignity whatsoever, towards his family, his name and his royal house.

Polly

[kittencrews]

HARRY!!! he looks like much more fun and much less baggage!!

[Polly]

William is the 'heir apparent' because his father is the Heir. Period. 'Heir apparent' means that, if all goes well, he/she will inherit. Charles is not the Heir Apparent; he is the definite and acknowledged Heir. Period.

As for Prince Harry's "ignorance" of his offence - why, he said so himself!

I should have made the distinction more clear.

HRH Charles of Wales is the Heir Presumptive, not, like his first-born son, the Heir Apparent.

Polly

[ysbel]

Distinction between heir apparent and heir presumptive from the http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/heir_apparent:


heir apparent - an heir whose right to an inheritance cannot be defeated if that person outlives the ancestor

Antonyms: heir presumptive - a person who expects to inherit but whose right can be defeated by the birth of a nearer relative

According to the order of succession of many monarchies, the heir apparent is a descendant of a monarch who is the heir to their throne, whose status as heir cannot be defeated by the birth of someone else who would then become the heir. An heir apparent differs from an heir presumptive in that, although an heir presumptive inherits the throne upon the death of the monarch, the right of the heir presumptive could be defeated by the birth of another person who would then be the heir apparent. For example, in Britain, if the monarch has a daughter and no sons, the daughter is the heiress presumptive, who becomes Queen if the monarch dies. But if the monarch later has a son, the son is then the heir apparent. In most monarchies, the monarch's oldest son, even if not the oldest child, becomes heir apparent. A growing number of monarchies, however, now allow the monarch's oldest child, irrespective of sex, to become heir apparent. Where that heir has died leaving children, their oldest child (or oldest son) becomes heir apparent.

It is an error to call the heir apparent simply the "heir." The heir is the person who currently owns the estate, having inherited it— in this case, the currently reigning monarch.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to this definition, neither Charles or William is the heir presumptive because no one else can assume their right to the throne ahead of them if they live long enough. If Charles outlives the Queen, he will be King. If William outlives the Queen and Charles, he will be King. Also neither one of them is the heir. According to this definition, the Queen is the heir because she has inherited the throne.

I'm only used to seeing the immediate heir (in this case Charles) called the heir apparent but under this definition, I suppose William could be also the heir apparent.

Chrissy, do you know if both William and Charles could be the heir apparent or is there only one at one time?

[Polly]

My understanding is that the Heir Presumptive is the acknowledged Heir to the throne unless someone of superior claim supplants them, eg., where the Salic law operates and a female is replaced by a male. This is not so in HRH Prince Charles' case. He is the Heir Presumptive.

The Heir Apparent is someone who, in the normal course of events, might reasonably be expected to ascend the throne, i.e HRH, William of Wales, the Heir Presumptive's eldest son.

If I'm wrong, I'd be grateful to be enlighted.

Polly

[Sereta]

I'd choose William I think. He seems more mature and smarter (he got better grades at school). He doesn't do as many controversial things.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Polly

My understanding is that the Heir Presumptive is the acknowledged Heir to the throne unless someone of superior claim supplants them, eg., where the Salic law operates and a female is replaced by a male. This is not so in HRH Prince Charles' case. He is the Heir Presumptive.

The Heir Apparent is someone who, in the normal course of events, might reasonably be expected to ascend the throne, i.e HRH, William of Wales, the Heir Presumptive's eldest son.

If I'm wrong, I'd be grateful to be enlighted.

Polly

You are wrong because you are confused between heir apparent and heir presumptive.

Heir apparent is the next in line to the throne who cannot be supplanted by anyone - namely Prince Charles. The only way he won't become the next king is if he dies before his mother.

Heir presumptive is the next in line to the throne who could be supplanted by the birth of another - e.g. the current Queen when she was Princess Elizabeth during the reign of her father - she could have been supplanted by the birth of a younger brother. George VI during his brother's reign was only ever heir presumptive because his brother could have married and had a child.

There can only be ONE heir apparent at a time - as the heir apparent is the next in line to the throne who can't be supplanted - that is Charles is the heir apparent and the term is singular in nature and therefore only one.

William is not yet the heir apparent - he will be, in the normal course of events - when either his father dies in the reign of his grandmother or when his father succeeds but he is not yet the heir apparent.

He is the eldest son of the heir apparent. You could say he is the heir apparent to the heir apparent but he is NOT the heir apparent to the British throne.

[TonyaR]

I am apparently and appropriately confused, but not presumptive enough to ask for a clearer explanation!!

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by chrissy57

William is not yet the heir apparent - he will be, in the normal course of events - when either his father dies in the reign of his grandmother or when his father succeeds but he is not yet the heir apparent.

He is the eldest son of the heir apparent. You could say he is the heir apparent to the heir apparent but he is NOT the heir apparent to the British throne.

Thanks chrissy. That is my understanding but the definitions I found were a little murky on that detail. They gave the impression that the heir apparent could be anyone who could inherit the throne if they lived long enough.

Technically speaking William if he outlives the Queen and Charles will inherit the throne but its a little unusual to see him called the heir apparent. What's the rationale for William NOT being the heir apparent; is it because he isn't the immediate successor after the current monarch? If so, its curious that the immediacy is not made clear in the definitions.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by TonyaR

I am apparently and appropriately confused, but not presumptive enough to ask for a clearer explanation!!

Well I guess that makes me presumptive!

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Thanks chrissy. That is my understanding but the definitions I found were a little murky on that detail. They gave the impression that the heir apparent could be anyone who could inherit the throne if they lived long enough.

Technically speaking William if he outlives the Queen and Charles will inherit the throne but its a little unusual to see him called the heir apparent. What's the rationale for William NOT being the heir apparent; is it because he isn't the immediate successor after the current monarch? If so, its curious that the immediacy is not made clear in the definitions.

Remember that the term is HEIR APPARENT which is grammatically singular in tone. (I have capitilised for emphasis only not to shout). That is why the definitions don't need to go further - there can only be one

If the term was heirs apparent then more than one could use the term but it isn't.

The reason William isn't the heir apparent is as you stated - he isn't the immediate heir - he is second in line.

The heir apparent is the heir who will next hold the title and no one else.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by TonyaR

I am apparently and appropriately confused, but not presumptive enough to ask for a clearer explanation!!

Tony, I will try again for you



The heir apparent will be the next monarch unless they die before reaching that title. Nothing or no one can stop them except for their own death. They are the obvious and 'apparent' heir.


The heir presumptive is the presumed heir unless something else happens i.e. in the case of the present queen when Princess Elizabeth if a younger brother had been born then she would have dropped in the order behind her younger brother.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by chrissy57

Remember that the term is HEIR APPARENT which is grammatically singular in tone. (I have capitilised for emphasis only not to shout). That is why the definitions don't need to go further - there can only be one

If the term was heirs apparent then more than one could use the term but it isn't.

The reason William isn't the heir apparent is as you stated - he isn't the immediate heir - he is second in line.

The heir apparent is the heir who will next hold the title and no one else.

But chrissy, heir presumptive is also only referred to in the singular. To my mind a good definition is one that cannot be interpreted any other way regardless of who reads it and a definition that simply implies a condition by referring to the term in the singular assumes too much.

However, I wonder if the traditional structure for a definition dictated if a term can be used in the plural, its plural forms must included in the definition. I think that worked when everybody knew the components of a standard definition (or reference) but nowadays I think the definitions have to spell things out more.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by ysbel

But chrissy, heir presumptive is also only referred to in the singular. To my mind a good definition is one that cannot be interpreted any other way regardless of who reads it and a definition that simply implies a condition by referring to the term in the singular assumes too much.

However, I wonder if the traditional structure for a definition dictated if a term can be used in the plural, its plural forms must included in the definition. I think that worked when everybody knew the components of a standard definition (or reference) but nowadays I think the definitions have to spell things out more.

There can only be one heir presumptive at any given time with the proviso that that person is the heir BUT someone could replace them and they would cease to be the heir at all but there is only one.

The heir - either apparent (can't be supplanted) or presumptive (could be supplanted) is singular. There is only one heir - whether apparent or presumptive is the issue and that is determined by applying whether or not the person who is the heir could be supplanted as the heir. In Charles case no one can supplant him so he is the heir apparent. In his mother's case, a younger brother could have supplanted her, so she was only ever the heir presumptive. In Queen Victoria's case any child born to Queen Adelaide could have supplanted her.

Heir is singular regardless of apparent or presumptive and their is only one of either.

[ysbel]

Thanks crissy, you've explained it very well. Since that's the case, I'm just complaining about the lack of clarity in the definitions. If there IS only one heir apparent (or heir presumptive) it seems simple enough to say so in the definition.

But its not a big thing; I'll get over it!

[Warren]

Originally Posted by ysbel

But its not a big thing; I'll get over it!

Don't get too caught up in the definitions (though thanks to Chrissy they are quite clear).
Charles is the Heir Apparent, and William is second in line to the throne. That's all that matters.

[starget1]

Definitely William..

[Penny Lane]

Well to begin with I'm only a few years younger than their mom so they would be kind of like boy toys for me-not that I'm complaing!
I honestly don't care for William's looks I think Harry is far cuter and bertter looking in general,I also love that smile and devil -may-care way.He also has his compassionate as well-they both do but my choice of the two would be Harry.
My real choice would be CP Hakkon though

[Next Star]

I would pick neither both of them are too famous for me but their still going looking princes.

[iowabelle]

I don't picture me as Princess Laura (although that doesn't sound too bad, we have a Laurentien, after all), but I have a soft spot for Harry. He just has that impish look of his mother's, you know he's going to be fun to have around (although he might make a difficult husband for the same reason). Alas, both boys are too young for me!