Forum: Author Hangout

Somebody on the radio said there's a big difference between apparent heir and heir apparent. Most people, she said, mean apparent heir when they say heir apparent.
Her explanation was this:
(1) an apparent heir is someone who it appears will or is likely to inherit a position, such as an executive VP expected to take over when a chief executive retires or dies.
(2) an heir apparent is someone who has a right to succeed someone if they outlive the incumbent, such as the line of succession in a monarchy., i.e., Prince Charles was the heir apparent to Queen Elizabeth.
was this commentator nitpicking or, if she's right, is it a distinction worth making?

I never heard of "apparent heir" as a special term. Of course, it's a perfectly grammatical fragment, but it has no specific meaning other than what's conveyed by the words, e.g. "John, Alan's favorite nephew, is his apparent heir."

Heir Apparent is the specific term as described by your second definition.

Her description is accurate and they do have meaningful distinctions. If someone is referring to the person who appears to be the successor as the heir apparent that is incorrect.

"heir apparent" is a specific historical term. It doesn't simply mean a person who has the right to succeed the monarch, but rather a person whose right to succeed cannot be set aside. An heir apparent cannot refuse the appointment of give up their right, but they can be supplanted if a more eligible heir is born (hence the apparent part).

A more eligible heir would become the "heir presumptive". An heir presumptive can always be bumped down by an even more eligible heir being born.

For example, if the current monarch has no surviving children then their nephew (oldest son of oldest sibling of the monarch) would be the heir apparent. If the monarch suddenly did produce a child, this would be the heir presumptive. In some places any child could inherit the crown, but one sex was given preference.

So if the monarch produced a second child of the preferred sex and the first was of the other sex, then the new child would be the heir presumptive and the first born would be second in the line of succession.

I've never heard "apparent heir" used in this context and typing it into Google results in it being corrected to "heir apparent," so I'd guess that the speaker was just making it up. That said, in terms of literal word meaning I could see apparent heir being used in a casual sense to refer to the person the public assumes to be the heir regardless of actual standing.

Say, for example, that birth order of William and Harry was reversed (or Charles and Andrew). Assuming all other elements of personality and history are the same, the heir apparent would be the older son but the public would be VERY unhappy about that.

Someone should tell her it's not meant to be 'correct' but meant to be a symbolic comparison of what will be.

I wonder how she responds to "It's raining cats and dogs out there"?

Heir-apparent is a person LEGALLY designated to inherit a position of authority.
Apparent heir is a presumptive (not legally designated) designation for a person presumed to be the one to inherit a position of authority and/or worldly possessions.
Heir-presumptive (or presumptive heir) would be a person that has legal standing/recognition to inherit a position of authority BUT has not been officially designated as such.

Heir-presumptive would typically be used in a gender-biased monarchy succession such as Dicrostonyx listed in their response or in a monarchy succession where the heir is NOT automatically the first born but is instead ability-based or favor-based. Before the heir can be legally/officially designated, they need to have time to showcase their ability to lead or gain the favor of the monarch. (ex. Fiona is the oldest, but it is Eleanor that is heir-presumptive due to her outstanding leadership.)

Apparent heir could pertain to either a position of authority or worldly goods.
However, neither Heir-apparent nor Heir-presumptive would apply when speaking solely of inheritance for worldly goods. Those terms would only apply to a position of authority and those terms would be capitalized as a recognized title usually if the position of authority was a monarchy.
While apparent heir and Heir-presumptive are virtually identical in meaning when used for a position of authority, there is another slim difference in the usages. An apparent heir is one who has had NO official recognition of their right/ability/favor to inherit. An Heir-presumptive HAS HAD an official recognition of that right/ability/favor to inherit but HAS NOT been CONFIRMED as the Heir-apparent. So the public may say "Fiona is the apparent heir" then later the younger sister Eleanor is officially recognized as "Heir-presumptive" due to her leadership...from this point, with no change Eleanor would eventually be confirmed as Heir-apparent. However, Fiona could buckle down and start showing more leadership, genius strategic mind, diplomacy, etc and later pass her sister to be named Heir-apparent. Or a 3rd person could also be designated. Heir-presumptive can stay the same or change many times before a final Heir-apparent is officially recognized. And even then they might not inherit if they don't outlive the current monarch.