Or “William” like other princes. Edward VIII’s instrument of abdication was witnessed by “Albert,” “Henry,” and “George” instead of “York,” “Gloucester,” and “Kent.”
Special circumstance. If you think it through, the Dukes of York, Gloucester, and Kent observed the King[sup]1[/sup] sign it. Then the King[sup]2[/sup] and the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent signed it as witnesses of the ex-King’s signature to it.
- Edward VIII
- George VI
George VI didn’t sign it as King, though. Edward VIII remained the King until the next morning, when he gave royal assent to His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, which was shoved through both houses of Parliament overnight.
I understand that this was the case prior to William having been named Duke of Cambridge (and still is for Harry), but with William’s new title, does his uniform’s nametag read “Wales” or “Cambridge”?
I’ve read that in the interest of simplicity, he decided to remain William Wales in the RAF. ETA: In March of this year, it definitely still said Wales.
IIRC, they’re trying to change this requirment, and make it so that the first born is automatically the heir apparent-- male or female. (Sorry, I got the terms wrong. I should have known that!) I’m guessing it’ll happen sooner or later.
An example from history is Queen Victoria. She was heir presumptive, because any male issue by any of her uncles (or even surviving female issue from her uncle the king) would have displaced her. She survived all three of her uncles AND all of their legitimate children and so became queen when William IV died.
There can be only one of either at any one time. And the definition of “heir apparent” is that the HA will inherit if the monarch, and only the monarch, dies. No “heir” exists while the person in question is still living. There are only heirs after death. And at the time of the monarch’s death, only one person can be the heir, so before the monarch’s death, only one person can be the heir apparent.
I want to make it clear that the British Law on what defines a "commoner’ is peculiar to them.
In any other Monarchy, any Royal child would be Royalty, even if they didn;t possess their own particular Title. It breaks down Royalty, Nobility, Knights, Gentility, Commoners. In the UK it’s only The Queen, a Peer, and everyone else.
In British law, a commoner is someone who is neither the Sovereign nor a peer. Therefore, any member of the Royal Family who is not a peer, such as Prince Harry of Wales or Anne, Princess Royal, is (technically) a commoner, as is any member of a peer’s family, including someone who holds only a courtesy title, such as the Earl of Arundel and Surrey (eldest son of the Duke of Norfolk) or Lady Victoria Hervey (a daughter of the 6th Marquess of Bristol).[1]
Per Law they really don’t have “Nobles” or even “Royalty”, let alone Gentility. Except of course* in reality*, they do so. “Squire” still means something, even if it only gets you into the right clubs and parties.
And of course the Queen is the Queen of England, 
even tho they don’t list that one separtely out anymore.
The word is gentry. Gentility, I suppose, is the state of not being Jewish.
2. The condition of being born to the gentry.
3. Persons of high social standing considered as a group.
Which does not affect the fact that in the context you used it, the correct word is gentry.
Nobody refers to “the gentility”, they refer to the gentry.
OK. I’ll sit corrected on this matter of terminology. Googling finds a few others who agree with my term, but we do seem to be a small minority.
Though conceding defeat, I’ll spend the rest of this post defending my position. :smack:
One expert uses the phrase “eldest living male heir apparent” which would be silly if there could only be a single “heir.”
Dictionaries take my side (“An heir whose claim cannot be set aside by the birth of another heir.”) unless you argue that William is not an “heir.”
Yes, I do argue that William is not Elizabeth’s heir. If Elizabeth dies today, William gets nothing of hers by inheritance, so he is not her heir. Only Charles is. And under the strict definition of “heir” Charles isn’t her heir now, because she’s still alive. He will become her heir upon her death. That’s why he’s called the “heir apparent” instead of the “heir.”
No, I think “heir apparent” is meant to distinguish a particular kind of heir, where “heir” is used in the ordinary sense of “someone who will eventually inherit the rank of someone now living”.
The common phrase “heir to the throne” is used in the same way: we don’t say that Prince Charles will be the heir to the throne once his mother passes away, we say that he is the heir to the throne.
I’ve seen the phrase “future heir apparent” used in reference to Prince William, which seems like a reasonable way to make it clear that he’s in the category of (to quote Blackstone’s Commentaries) heirs “whose rights of inheritance are indefeasible provided they outlive their ancestor”, even though he’s not the current heir apparent.
I can’t quite read that. What does it say, above and below the winged crest, please?
Looks like Search and Rescue and either Will Wales or Wll Wales.
Will Wales. Larger picture.