What's the difference between heir apparent and heir presumptive?
Hello anon!!! What a lovely question!
The difference between heir apparent and heir presumptive, in a simple way of saying, that the heir apparent is the confirmed heir the throne while heir presumptive is the âunconfirmedâ heir.
For example: Prince William is heir apparent to the British throne because there is nobody who could alter his place in the line of succession. Queen Elizabeth II (when she was heir) was always considered heir presumptive because there was still a chance that she couldâve had a brother to take her spot because of primogeniture rules at that time.
Many monarchies at that time (and a few today ex: Spain) used male preference primogeniture, basically meaning no matter birth order, Men outrank women but women can still inherit the throne. This was the situation in England before 2011 when the law was changed so that is why Princess Charlotte outranks Prince Louis but Princess Anne is outranked by Prince Edward in the line of succession because they were born before the law was changed.
I hope this very basic explanation makes sense and let me know if you have any questions! Thank you for asking, as always!
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Qualityâ Free Actions
Free to watch âą No registration required âą HD streaming
Artist: Sir Peter Paul Rubens (Flemish, 1577-1640)
Date: ca. 1625-1628
Medium: Oil on panel
Collection: National Galleries of Scotland, Edinburg, Scotland
About this artwork
This lively oil sketch illustrates the Old Testament story of Jacob making peace with his twin brother Esau, many years after he had robbed Esau of his birthright.
The Story of Jacob and Esau
Jacob and Esau were the sons of Isaac and Rebekah and the first twins mentioned in the Bible. Even before they were born, they were struggling together in the womb of their mother. Their prenatal striving foreshadowed later conflict (Genesis 25:21-26).
The twins grew up very different. Jacob was âa quiet man, staying among the tentsâ and his motherâs favorite. Esau was âa skillful hunter, a man of the open countryâ and his fatherâs favorite. One day, Esau returned from hunting and desired some of the lentil stew that Jacob was cooking. Jacob offered to give his brother some stew in exchange for his birthright - the special honor that Esau possessed as the older son, which gave him the right to a double portion of his fatherâs inheritance. Esau put his temporary, physical needs over his God-given blessing and sold his birthright to Jacob (Genesis 25:27-34).
When the time came for Isaac to bestow his blessing on his sons, Jacob and his mother contrived to deceive Isaac into blessing Jacob in Esauâs place. When Esau found that his blessing had been given to Jacob, he threatened to kill his brother, and Jacob fled (Genesis 27:1 - 28:7). Years later, Jacob and Esau met and were reconciled (Genesis 33).
Both Jacob and Esau were fathers of nations. God changed Jacobâs name to Israel (Genesis 32:28), and he became the father of the 12 tribes of Israel. Esauâs descendants were the Edomites (Genesis 36). Edom was a nation that plagued Israel in later years and was finally judged by God (Obadiah 1:1-21).
In the New Testament, Esauâs choice to sell his birthright is used as an example of ungodliness - a âgodlessâ person who will put physical desires over spiritual blessings (Hebrews 12:15-17). By his negative example, Esau teaches us to hold fast to what is truly important, even if it means denying the appetites of the flesh. Both Old and New Testaments use the story of Jacob and Esau to illustrate Godâs calling and election. God chose the younger Jacob to carry on the Abrahamic Covenant, while Esau was providentially excluded from the Messianic line (Malachi 1:2-3;Â Romans 9:11-14).
I feel like no one is talking enough about the concept of âSecond Sonsâ in House of the Dragon - even though itâs been a huge factor underpinning and driving most of the events in season one.
What does it do to a person to be âthe spareâ?
Take the examples weâre shown:
Viserys & Daemon
Hobert & Otto Hightower
Aegon & Aemond
Even Corlys & Vaemond Velaryon and Jason & Tyland Lannister
(It is somewhat ironic that Corlys gives that little speech, despite not actually being the second son)
Note: Iâm not including Jacaerys & Lucerys here because of the circumstances that dictated that - while not the Iron Throne - Lucerys was raised to inherit Driftmark in his own right so he doesnât quite fit psychologically into the âsecond sonâ role
Bonus, Real-World Connection:
Fascinating to think about this in the context/in relation to all of the recent British Royal Family drama centered around either Prince Harry or Prince Andrew.
Based on the title of Prince Harryâs upcoming memoir, it sounds like weâre going to hear about it from someone whoâs lived it.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Qualityâ Free Actions
Free to watch âą No registration required âą HD streaming
How does medieval inheritance worked for non eldest children regarding liquid assets such as money, plate, or other riches? or did the eldest male offspring got the land and money?
As anyone whoâs played Crusader Kings II or III can tell you, it depends entirely on what the laws and customs of inheritance were in any given time and place in the Middle Ages.Â
Different cultures, even if they were geographically proximate, could have very different laws - the Welsh custom of cyfran (gavelkind that included illegitimate children) held sway the Welsh side of the border, and then a few miles away on the English side patrilineal primogeniture would be the law. (Naturally, this led to a lot of legal disputes in mixed families.) Customs could also differ within a given polity or culture: while patrineal primogeniture was dominant in most of medieval England, the custom of âBorough-Englishâ (patrineal ultimo-geniture) was widespread in southeast England.
And as anyone whoâs read about the Hundred Years War knows, inheritance laws could change according to political need: the application of Salic Law to the inheritance of the throne of France was more or less invented post-hoc to justify Philip V inheriting ahead of Princess Joan, and then again (when Phillip V and Charles IV both died without sons) to justify Philip VI inheriting ahead of Edward III of England. Similarly, the inheritance of the House of Wessex shifted back and forth between the presumption that the Kingâs son should inherit to the Kingâs brother should inherit, depending on the political necessity of the time.
To answer your question about liquid assets...primogeniture tended to apply more strictly to titles (which can only be held by one person at a time) and lands (where concerns about economies of scale vs. subdivision were dominant) than to moveable property, and it would be rather rare that the younger children would be left with nothing. (After all, thatâs not very condusive to getting them to accept the outcome without a fight.) What you tended to see is that the oldest son would get the biggest share of liquid assets, but that there would be some bequeath to the younger sons.
However, liquid capital had significant limitations in an era without free markets in land, labor, and money - it was rather difficult to turn that lump sum into a continuing income if you couldnât easily buy land. This is why younger sons often went into the military (where you could make a fortune on loot or possibly be given/take conquered estates), the clergy (where you got room and board at a minimum, and potentially could get quite rich from benefices), or into trade (where you could invest your inheritance in income-producing trade).Â
we are taught to interpret Esauâs trading of his birthright for a bowl of stew as impulsiveness, even (in Christian language) as a âweakness of the flesh.â He chooses instant gratification over the farther off but far more valuable thing, and thus proves himself unworthy of his firstborn status and all it entails -- Abrahamâs wealth and social power, but also Abrahamâs relationship with God.
i donât believe that.
Esau gave in to Jacobâs demand because he knew that Jacob would never have the means to compel Esau to make good on his word.
Jacob was physically weaker. Jacob was set to inherit the tiniest fragment of the wealth and resources that Esau would inherit. how on earth would Jacob ever wrest the birthright and the blessing he was owed from Esau?
Esauâs âcrimeâ here is less impulsiveness, and more a trust in the status quo. his world of patriarchy and primogeniture promised him his inheritance, whether he was a good man or bad, an honest man or a liar. he could tell his younger brother whatever Jacob wanted to hear, but down the road he could trust that their father would bestow the blessing on Esau anyway.
his reliance on the status quo is what allows Esau to hand over his birthright so easily -- because he knows that merely saying itâs Jacobâs now does not make it so.
Esauâs great failing is that he assumes that his cultureâs will is Godâs will.
the problem for Esau is that God does not play by human rules.
____________
in the Book of Genesis and throughout the rest of scripture, we see God working within the bounds of cultural assumptions and norms, rolling with the binary systems that human societies construct -- right up to the point where Xe doesnât.
In The Soul of the Stranger: Reading God and Torah from a Transgender Perspective, Jewish scholar Joy Ladin focuses on the elements of gender inherent to the system of primogeniture that places the firstborn Esau over the secondborn Jacob in every way. To her, biblical maleness comes in different âflavorsâ -- the roles expected of a firstborn son are different from those assigned to non-firstborn sons. She says,
âJacob and Esau are both male and are born almost simultaneously, but they are assigned at birth to very different gender roles. Because Esau emerges from the womb first, he is considered the firstborn, heir not only to Isaacâs worldly possessions but also to the relationship with God that Isaac inherited from his father, Abraham. Though Jacob is born holding onto his brotherâs heel, he is considered the second-born, expected to accept the authority of his older brother, who, after their fatherâs death, will be the head of the family.
Like the gender binary, this law of inheritance, called âprimogeniture,â creates a lifelong, life-determining binary division between males who are and those who arenât firstborn sons. And like the gender binary, primogeniture turns biology, in this case birth order, into destiny. The way male children are raised, the roles they are assigned, and the futures toward which they are steered are determined by whether they are or arenât firstborn sons.â (p. 36)
Esau has grown up understanding that his inheritance is his destiny. Itâs what heâs been born for, what heâs been raised for, what he is entitled to. Why would he believe that he would ever have to make good on his silly promise to Jacob to hand over that destiny? Itâs set in stone, inviolable.
at least it is in the eyes of men. but not to God.
âIf God were committed to the gender binary idea that people are unchangeably defined by the gender roles we are assigned at birth, then either Esau would have been destined to inherit Isaacâs relationship with God, or Jacob would have been born first. But as God reveals to Rebekah before the twins are born, God intends for the younger brother to usurp the elder, prenatally linking Godâs blessing to trans experience. (Ladin, pp. 37-38)
in the ancient past and in the present day, countless roles get assigned to us as soon as -- or even before -- we exist the womb. biology is presumed destiny in so many ways: our gender, our race, the class and geopolitical location and family into which we are born, supposedly map out what our personalities will be, how our lives will go. and certainly these things do shape us, both by nature and nurture -- generational traumas come packed into our very cells, while our environment and how others treat us based on our assigned roles impact how we perceive ourselves and the world around us.
but even so, even so, biology is not destiny. especially not if God has any say in the matter.
for God is the great binary breaker, no respecter of persons or prejudices, unbeholden to the status quo. indeed, God almost seems to delight in upending our assumptions about who is blessed. secondborn sons and eunuchs, women and disabled persons, impoverished persons and disenfranchised peoples -- these are the ones whom God selects, again and again, to be recipients and agents of divine blessing. âblessed are the poor;â âthe last shall be first.â
Esau assumes that biology, his status assigned based on birth order, is destiny. he does not fear his younger brother, who is rendered powerless by their culture to claim what he is promised in a moment of hunger. and probably this is safer for Jacob -- because when Esau does finally realize, too late, that Jacob is a real threat, Esau becomes murderously angry.
when Isaac is duped into giving Jacob his blessing after all, Jacob cannot stick around to claim the wealth and status that comes with it -- he must flee, or die under Esauâs hand.
i wonder if some of the violence we see in our time, and across every time and place, stems from the same kind of rage and fear that Esau experiences:
the rage of the ones who are raised to believe the world belongs to them, that they are entitled to certain blessings and privileges, only for the truth to pounce on them unexpectedly -- the shocking truth that biology is not destiny, that they are not inherently superior, that what they thought would be theirs without question might could be snatched from them after all.
the divine right to rule. manifest destiny. the âwhite manâs burden.â
white men who assume they are entitled to white women, so that the mere thought of a Black man winning a womanâs heart is enough to incite them to brutality.
white women who understand that the police are their personal body guards, to call down upon the bodies of Black adults and even Black children on a whim -- and are indignant in the rare circumstance that they are told otherwise.
men and white people who expect the best jobs and properties to go to them, so that anyone else advancing over them seems an appalling injustice.
cis women who perceive trans women as âinvading their spaces;â cishet couples who think LGBTQ/queer couples ruin âthe sanctity of marriage;â persons who are accustomed to being accommodated without even realizing it sneering at âsafe spacesâ and trigger warnings....
and on and on.
Esau had every reason to assume that his biology determined his destiny -- that he could make an impulsive promise, make a big mistake, and everything would still turn out in his favor. he was born into a world that told him so every day -- even that God sanctioned these human assumptions and systems. But God does not.
âGodâs disruptions of gender in these stories make it clear that even the gender roles that matter most to human beings are not sacred to God. ...God in the Torah uses gender, but is not bound by it. On the one hand, God depends on gender to transmit the covenant across time and space, so that even after hundreds of generations, Jews will still see themselves as children of Abraham. On the other hand, God disrupts gender as a way of making Godâs power and presence known. ...In these stories, faithfulness to gender has little to do with faithfulness to God. In fact, God counts on the fact that people are not bound by gender roles. The covenant with Abraham is founded on Abraham, Sarah, and Jacobâs embrace of trans experience: their willingness to live outside the gender roles they were born to and become the kinds of people they are not supposed to be.â (Ladin, pp. 57-58)
Faithfulness to human constructs has little to do with faithfulness to God. God blesses us when we can imagine beyond the narrative we are assigned -- as Jacob does in this story where he demands a birthright the world does not intend for him....and as Esau eventually does.
In Genesis 33, Esau catches up to Jacob after decades apart -- and Jacob expects violence. He sends gifts of livestock to Esau and conceals his most cherished family at the back of his huge household. But to his bewilderment, Esau is no longer murderously angry at having âlostâ what he grew up assuming he was entitled to -- he rushes to his brother, throws his arms around Jacobâs neck, and weeps.
Esau was raised believing that he would own everything, and his brother nothing -- that Jacob would be one of many members of Esauâs household, subservient to him. But now, he does not even feel entitled to the livestock that Jacob offers him: âI already have plenty, my brother. Keep whatâs yours.â
Jacob is relieved by this unexpected reconciliation, exclaiming to Esau that âSeeing your face is like seeing Godâs face, since youâve accepted me so warmly!â He never expected Esau to accept what Jacob has known all along -- that biology is not destiny; that neither of them are bound to human constructs like birthright; that they can live a different way than the way prescribed to them, one in which both of them thrive.
___________
now, this story is by no means perfect. Jacob was able to imagine bigger for himself, to escape the destiny assigned to him -- but he does not imagine big enough. he does not use his new station to liberate others.
he becomes a patriarch -- assimilates into patriarchy and the power to own other human beings, to rule over every member of his household, rather than challenging the whole system that once oppressed him. i am reminded of trans persons, persons of color, women, who once they manage to acquire power for themselves never use it to help their fellow marginalized persons up. they land positions of power and use that power to oppress others as they were once oppressed, rather than using it to try to forge a new, better system for all.
Jacob the second-born becomes Jacob the patriarch. his household will be fraught with all the woes that come with this system that stifles all within it. his wives will hate each other and battle each other for what little power they can grasp. his sons will do the same, subjecting the younger Joseph to violence when, like Jacob, this little sibling dares to dream of being something greater than what his society assigns him.
what if Jacob could have imagined bigger? what if he had used his one fragment of shining clarity about how patriarchy and primogeniture stifled his true self to empower others, not only himself?
what if we could imagine bigger? what new and beautiful world could we build?
It suddenly occurred to me that the Narnia books always had Narnians address the Pevensie children (Peter, Susan, Lucy, and Edmund, yeah?) As Daughters of Eve and Sons of Adam.
And because it's my brain (hi) I immediately thought of mixing them up, making it feel less... Primogeniture-y.
Daughters of Adam.
Sons of Eve.
It's actually kind of difficult to do, to say it LIKE THAT... And I do think I KNOW WHY these old grooves persistent in my mind and in language, but it's difficult to wrap words around right now, just before bedtime, in that liminal brain space.
So anyone who wants to wrestle with the words, feel free, and I'll see what I can find in dreams.
