Ish
Moderator Emeritus
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 4,112
- City
- Vancouver
- Country
- Canada
Here's an argument regarding the title of Prince of Wales that I don't think has been considered yet.
To quote Wikipedia (the great source that it is) "Prince of Wales is a title traditionally granted to the heir apparent to the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain..." etc.
The wording of this (which of course by no means is official) implies that the title "Prince of Wales" can be similar to that of "Duke of Lancaster" or "Lord of Mann" - masculine in title regardless of the gender of the holder.
In all technicality, there has never been a female heir apparent before, but it has always been a possibility. The heir apparent is not the first born son but rather the heir whose position cannot be supplanted by the birth of another heir. As a princess, HM was not the heir apparent because her father could have always had a son (however unlikely). Similarly, Queen Victoria was not heir apparent because her uncle, William IV, could have had that unlikely child.
In the case that the monarch's eldest surviving son has only daughters, then predeceases the monarch himself, the heir apparent is female - she cannot be displaced in the line of succession - this would have happened had George IV died before his father, in which case his daughter, Princess Caroline of Wales would have been the heir apparent and could have been eligible for the title Prince of Wales. Had both Edward VIII and George VI predeceased their father (or had Edward VIII remained on the throne with the stipulation that his offspring could not inherit, and George VI still died first) then HM would have been heir apparent as well.
So yeah. My argument is that the female heir apparent, be it under the new laws or the unlikely circumstances of the old ones, is eligible for the masculine title Prince of Wales, and as such their is no need to change things.
To quote Wikipedia (the great source that it is) "Prince of Wales is a title traditionally granted to the heir apparent to the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain..." etc.
The wording of this (which of course by no means is official) implies that the title "Prince of Wales" can be similar to that of "Duke of Lancaster" or "Lord of Mann" - masculine in title regardless of the gender of the holder.
In all technicality, there has never been a female heir apparent before, but it has always been a possibility. The heir apparent is not the first born son but rather the heir whose position cannot be supplanted by the birth of another heir. As a princess, HM was not the heir apparent because her father could have always had a son (however unlikely). Similarly, Queen Victoria was not heir apparent because her uncle, William IV, could have had that unlikely child.
In the case that the monarch's eldest surviving son has only daughters, then predeceases the monarch himself, the heir apparent is female - she cannot be displaced in the line of succession - this would have happened had George IV died before his father, in which case his daughter, Princess Caroline of Wales would have been the heir apparent and could have been eligible for the title Prince of Wales. Had both Edward VIII and George VI predeceased their father (or had Edward VIII remained on the throne with the stipulation that his offspring could not inherit, and George VI still died first) then HM would have been heir apparent as well.
So yeah. My argument is that the female heir apparent, be it under the new laws or the unlikely circumstances of the old ones, is eligible for the masculine title Prince of Wales, and as such their is no need to change things.