Re: heir presumptive, history of the phrase (was Re: Distinguishing Willam and Harry in relation to the throne.

On Mar 9, 12:41 pm, CJ Buyers <susuha...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 9, 3:05 pm, David <ds...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 9, 7:25 am, Stan Brown <the_stan_br...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Sat, 08 Mar 2008 17:14:21 -0600 from François R. Velde
<ve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

The modern distinction between "heir apparent" and "heir
presumptive" (note how the adjective and substantive were moved
around) emerges in the 1670s in the midst of efforts to exclude the
duke of York from the succession. I suspect the distinction, by
making the h.p. less of an heir than the h.a., was intended to ease
the disinheriting of the former.

Interestingly, this use of h.p. shows a hole in the definition.
James could have been displaced by a legislative act making the Duke
of Monmouth (or any other of Charles' sons) legitimate, not just by
the "the contingency of some nearer heir being born".

Of course, that's only theoretical. I don't think even the ardent
Exclusionists were prepared to accept an illegitimate son as Prince
of Wales and future king, were they?

That was exactly what they were not only prepared to do but were
agitating to do. Read Dryden's _Absalom and Achitophel_: Achitophel
is Shaftesbury (Anthony Ashley Cooper), a Roundhead-turned-Royalist
and sometime member of King Charles' cabinet who led the exclusionist;
Absalom is the Duke of Monmouth, who was the candidate to displace the
Duke of York as Charles' heir.

The political clash that followed resulted from a difference in
philosophy. Shaftesbury, and his followers, saw the kingship as an
_office_, into which any suitable person could be slotted. At the
Restoration they had accepted Charles II as a suitable candidate for
the office, and, effectively, as Cromwell's successor: what they
wanted was a modified Parliamentarian regime with a crowned King as
its head. They regarded the whole notion of hereditary right as passé
and irrelevant to (then-) modern times, and were probably genuinely
shocked to find that Charles did not agree with him.

Charles, on the other hand, took his hereditary title to the kingship
very seriously; it was perhaps the only principle he was not prepared
to compromise. In his mind, he was king because he was his father's
eldest son, not because a Parliament had condescended to elevate him
to a chief executive office. As far as he was concerned, he was
Charles I's heir, not Cromwell's, and the attempt to change the
succession struck directly at his own title to the throne, and that of
his family.

In this assessment --of the Exclusionists' ultimate tendency, if not
their present intentions-- he was doubtless correct, as events
proved. The Whig doctrine of kingship-as-office prevailed, and the
next several years saw a musical chairs of monarchs, changing not
according to established laws of succession but according to the
political whim of the moment.

The Whig notion that the monarchy is an office to be vacated or filled
by the will of the government has survived to this day, though George
I and his descendants have usually been careful not to put the
doctrine to the test. Cases where governmental _de facto_ authority
over the succession has been exerted (since 1714) are rare, but might
include the Regency acts which conferred George III's royal authority
on his son (naturally without his consent, since he was demented) and
Mr. Baldwin's displacement of Edward VIII by his brother.- Hide quoted text -

Prinny "suitable"?

One way or another there had to be a regency, considering George III's
condition. At least the second time round. But the chosen regent
wasn't 'just anyone who would do' but the next in line. Nor was the
King deposed in his favour, simply a regent appointed to act for him
and in his name. Hardly a demonstration of your theory.

A careful consideration of the points debated shows that in fact the
issues were similar.

The point was not about the Prince of Wales' suitability from a
political perspective, but rather about the assertion of Parliamentary
authority to transfer regal authority -- a transfer which was of
course necessary, but from a technical standpoint rather dubious as
the King was still alive and (presumably) kicking and had *not*
consented to the regency, or indeed to any legislative action; nor was
there prior legislation covering the situation.

The first Regency Bill debated in 1788-1789 was quite a contentious
affair because the Prince of Wales was perceived to be on the side of
the Foxite Whigs, and the government was managed by Pittites (the
forerunners of the Conservative Party). Oddly enough, the Foxites
argued that the Prince of Wales could simply assume the regency
without legislation, while the Pittites argued for Parliamentary
supremacy over the choice of regent, insisting that while the Prince
might be the most suitable candidate, in principle Parliament could
appoint anybody they chose as Regent -- the exact point of Whig theory
at issue.

King George III recovered in 1789 before the Prince could exercise his
regency, but the establishment of this precedent eased his assumption
of power in 1810-1811.
.

Relevant Pages
Loading