You’ve answered your own question. They’re not the heir until they inherit; until then - just in case they predecease their parent - they’re the apparent (probable) heir. In mediaeval times, the monarch always faced a certain tension between (a) wanting to ensure their next in line was acknowledged as such by any potential challengers or troublemakers and (b) not wanting the next in line to get above themselves and think of helping nature along.
Exactly so. There are a fair few pillar-boxes still around with the insignia of monarchs from Victoria onwards.
But it’s just as likely that the (now privatised) Royal Mail will have some entirely different design of box without insignia, like the ones for parcels.
Come to think of it, a coronation ceremony on ice could add to the gaiety of nations.
As opposed to female sons? Or nongendered sons? Japanese law isn’t that specific . . .
As opposed to male son apparent and male son presumptive.
That’s the modern law, but under the old common law relating to land and feudal rights, there was an heir at law, based on male primogeniture. The holder of the land or title couldn’t disinherit the heir, unlike chattel property, which could be disposed of by will away from the male heir of the real estate.
The Crown descends through those old feudal principles, so it is accurate to say that the monarch has an heir at law.
Isn’t that known as a “fee tail”?
That was an even more specific type of land tenure. But under the common law, even fée simple was governed by primogeniture. (Except in Kent. The devolution of real property there was different. Since Kent was traditionally said to have been settled by the Jutes, rather than the Angles or Saxons, it’s thought that this quirk of inheritance law may date back to different Jutish customary law.)
That’s why modern statutes about the devolution of estates normally provide that land will descend as if it were chattel property, which did not descend by primogeniture, but entirely by will or intestacy rules.
See the Alberta Estate Administration Act:
That provision undoes the centuries-old common law rule of primogeniture for real estate.
One that amuses me, considering the history between the UK & Ireland, is that when the Irish Post Office was set up after the break with the UK it simply repainted existing post boxes in green (rather than red) - everything else was left, including the royal cypher.
Post-boxes in Dublin showing the cyphers of Queen Victoria & King George.
</sidetrack
Well they are cast iron.
Accepted … but I’m surprised the brave volunteers of the 'RA didn’t consider them a legitimate target because of the royal cyphers and stuff a couple of ounces of gelignite (No semtex then) into them.
All tongue in cheek, I’ll add - but this is taking the thread off topic so </end
Yes, they really ran amok in Kent.
But … but … they’re green! Isn’t that all that matters?
Actually, Britain dodged a bullet there. Edward VIII would’ve been a horrible king. So in this case, it was a good thing he didn’t have that right.
I’ve heard the theory that the real problem the British establishment had with Edward was his political views. But forcing a king to abdicate over political questions would have caused a major crisis. So they side-stepped the controversy by blowing up the marriage question and pushing him to abdicate over that.
You mean were they actually making him abdicate because of his politics, and his marriage was just an excuse? No, I highly, highly doubt that.
Britain did, however, get lucky that they ended up with Edward’s brother instead. Hell, they even had problems with the guy (Edward) even after he abdicated – they had to send him to the Bahamas during the War.
Something similiar happened with their father – George V was not the eldest son. His brother, Albert Victor, the Duke of Clarence was, but he died of pneumonia shortly before his marriage*. The Duke wasn’t really a bad guy, per se, but he was thought to be kind of slow and not all that bright.
*His fiance, Princess Mary of Teck, who ended up marrying George.
The problem with Edward VIII wasn’t so much the fact that he had views, but that (a) he wouldn’t keep them to himself (nor, it was suspected, government business that he should have kept quiet about), and (b) he was careless and inconsistent both about his official business and potentially about any attempt to engage in his own foreign policy. Mrs. Simpson, and all she seemed to represent, was a symptom as much of a cause of Establishment misgivings about him.
A likely apocryphal story, from when Edward (later Edward VIII) and George (later George VI) were children. But it will lighten up the thread:
It had snowed in London, and local children were out playing in the snow. Edward and George watched from the windows of Buckingham Palace, and decided to get in on the fun. So they went out, and got involved in a snowball fight. One of their allies was a local child, and the three threw many snowballs at their opponents.
Until a London bobby intervened. “Snowballs are dangerous, so that’s enough of that. Who are you, so I can send you home?”
“I’m the Prince of Wales,” said Edward.
“I’m the Duke of York,” said George.
The local child got with the program pretty fast, and said, “I’m with my buddies, guv’nor–I’m the Archbishop of Canterbury!”
Like I said, likely apocryphal, but it’s a fun little story.
Absolutely, since they weren’t given those titles until they were almost or fully adult.
I remember seeing some pre Independence post boxes in Pakistan with the cypher for GVI, though it said George RI (King Emperor)