This category is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
This seems to me a strange page. Where male-preference promogeniture applies, no female can be heir apparent, only heir presumptive, except in rare cases, such as Anne of England. A recent addition is Frances, Baroness Dudley, but she was never an heir apprent, only an heir presumptive, becasue her grandfather might have married and had a son. Lady Wentworth is correctly included in Category:Hereditary suo jure peeresses. So what is the poiunt of this category? Peterkingiron (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article about primogeniture and the the description of the category itself describes quite clearly that a female can indeed be heir apparent where male-preferance primogeniture applies in only one case. The grandfather of the 6th Baroness Dudley could have married six times and even if he had sixteen sons, she would still be his heir apparent because she was the only child of his eldest son. Queen Victoria was the heir presumptive to her uncle William IV, although William IV had younger brothers and that's because Victoria's father was older than her other uncles. George III was the eldest son of the eldest son of George II and as such he was heir apparent although his grandfather had other sons. So, it's quite clear that female could and still can be heir apparent where male-preferance primogeniture applies. Surtsicna (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? There is a category called Category:Heirs apparent. As you can see, female heirs apparent are rare and having all the women who found themselves in odd situations which made them heirs apparent in one category is useful. Surtsicna (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The account of the Stuarts is wrong in two ways. First, Mary was co-monarch with William and never heir apparent to him. True, only William exercised royal powers, in the name of both of them, but they otherwise shared the throne equally. There was no need for one to "succeed" the other. Second, Anne's accession upon William's death was due to the Bill of Rights 1689, not the Acts of Settlement 1701. 108.20.114.62 (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
