Talk:Prince of Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] old talk

The Old Pretender was never created Prince of Wales during his father's actual reign in England. Perhaps that should be changed john 02:25 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

He was "styled" Prince of Wales from birth, though. Deb 20:37 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

I thought that while the heir to the throne became Duke of Cornwall on birth, he actually had to be created prince of wales. I suppose we can say that while he wasn't created PofW, he was treated as such. ÉÍREman 21:31 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Well, if he was styled as such, I suppose that's alright. Perhaps we should dsitinguish between those who were actually Prince of Wales, and those only styled as such. Were either the future Henry VI or the future Edward III ever styled Prince of Wales? john 21:41 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

It's very difficult to say what was going on in those early days - the title was a novelty then, and didn't become automatic till the later Middle Ages. I don't know if there's a hard and fast rule now as to when the title kicks in, but there certainly wasn't one in the period we're talking about. I think the Hanoverians liked to make their sons Princes of Wales as early as possible because it usually got them an extra financial allowance from parliament. If I remember rightly, the present queen announced that Charles was going to be Prince of Wales about ten years before he was actually invested. Deb 21:44 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

But until then he was Duke of Cornwall. Similarly Prince George was Duke of York and remained so until created Prince of Wales by his father, Edward VII. ÉÍREman 21:49 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, but we're talking about two people who weren't born the sons of monarchs. And George V's creation was delayed because his mother, Alexandra, had enjoyed being Princess of Wales so much that she was reluctant to give up the title even after she became queen (!) Deb 21:52 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Here's my understanding. The eldest son of the monarch automatically becomes Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, and Prince and High Steward of Scotland. (whew!) Someone who is heir-apparent, but not son of the monarch (such as the future George III), does not get these titles.

The titles of Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, by contrast, are acquired by specific creation by the monarch. Thus, the present Prince of Wales was only "HRH the Duke of Cornwall" until he was created Prince of Wales in 1959 (or 1958?). It is created for any male heir-apparent, usually. This has been the case at least since the Hanoverians. I'm pretty sure the Dukedom of Cornwall and associated titles have always worked as they do now. It would seem that in Stuart times, at least, princes were styled "Prince of Wales" without actually being created as such. A distinction ought to be made, I think. john 22:01 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

I can't remember where I originally got the list of Princes of Wales from, but I believe it's the "official" version. I would go and check www.royal.gov.uk if I wasn't too tired. At any rate, the list doesn't include people like Edward III who were never called Prince of Wales even though nowadays they would have had the title. Deb 22:05 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

I'm a late entrant to this discussion. Charles may have been Duke of Cornwall, but he would never have been referred to as "HRH The Duke of Cornwall" edcept in some very specific context. He is a Royal Prince and the heir apparent, so his royal Highness stems from that, and any other titles he may have had prior to becoming Prince of Wales were subsumed into his Princedom.

Re the reference to Diana losing her style HRH when she divorced Charles. I doubt that this had anything to do with him being Prince of Wales. Again, he was HRH from birth as a Royal Prince, and he remained HRH when he became Prince of Wales. Diana may have been the Princess of Wales by virtue of being married to the Prince of Wales, but her style HRH would have applied by virtue of his Royal Princedom, whether he was also Prince of Wales or not. I think this needs to be fixed. Cheers JackofOz 12:52, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is a picture of Charles in the souvenir programme for the coronation of Elizabeth II which is titled: "HRH The Duke of Cornwall". Bbombbardier 14:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What about sons of the Prince of Wales? For example, William, Prince of Wales and his young brother Henry, Prince of Wales are currently styled "Prince of Wales" even though none of them are currently "the oldest son of the monarch". None of them are obviously the "Duke of Cornwall" or somesuch, nor styled as such. Is this styled used wholly incorrectly? —Gabbe 16:42, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

  • Prince Charles's sons ,William & Henry do not have the title Prince of Wales, only their father does. William is called Prince William of Wales & Henry, Prince Henry of Wales, Example: Prince(ss) (name) of Wales means the person is the Child of the Prince of Wales. Another similar Example: Prince Andrew ,Duke of York. His daughters Beatrice & Eugenie ,are called Princess Beatrice of York & Princess Eugenie of York (daugthers of the Duke of York), neither girl are Duchess of York.


"But unlike other elements of the Garter, the Princedom of Wales can be bestowed upon the eldest son of the sovereign and nobody else. If a Prince should predecease the Sovereign, the principality does not pass on to his heirs; instead, it revests in the Crown."

Is this a hard and fast rule? George III was Prince of Wales despite being George II's grandson and some books indicate that this was entirely due to political demands on a reluctant King. If Charles were to die before the Queen many would suggest conferring the title on William - what is there to stop this? Timrollpickering 22:50, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is a hard and fast rule that if the Prince of Wales dies the title reverts to the Crown. But the Crown will bestow the title "Prince of Wales" AGAIN on the NEW Heir Apparent (who need not be an eldest son of a Monarch -- that is a restriction that applies to Duke of Cornwall, not Prince of Wales). So, when Prince Frederick died his son (future George III) did in time become Prince of Wales. But the title did not "pass from" Frederick to Prince George, nor did Prince George "inherit" the title from his father. George II created Frederick Prince of Wales, Frederick died, and then George II created Prince George Prince of Wales.64.131.188.104 (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
If Charles dies then Elizabeth dies, doesn't Prince Andrew become King? If that's so then I should think Andrew would be a more likely Prince of Wales than William, in the event of Charles's death. JamesMLane 06:26, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No it's William as next in line. Again the precedent is George III - eldest son of deceased eldest son succeeding, not the monarch's eldest surviving son. (And also Andrew succeeding will cause a lot of uproar over the male bias in the succession.) Timrollpickering 08:00, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Actually an earlier precedent is Richard II, grandson of Edward III. His father (Edward, The Black Prince) was the kings' eldest son and predeceased him. The crown passed down to the grandson, not to any of the surviving sons. --StanZegel 23:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, I always assumed it worked the other way. Your reply prompted me to read order of succession, which gives the impression that, in every hereditary system referred to, William would come ahead of Andrew. (The systems appear to differ only in whether female descendants are completely excluded, completely equal, or included but with inferior rights.) Do you happen to know whether any common system, for hereditary monarchy or lesser titles of nobility, would give Andrew precedence over William? JamesMLane 10:04, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Not sure, but didn't the Manchu Emperors pass strictly from one generation to the next, often going to nephews/cousins once removed? Timrollpickering 19:54, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, they did (although Guangxu was an exception: he was of the same generation as his predecessor Emperor Tongzhi, because at the time of Tongzhi's death no-one had been born of the next generation yet). But they weren't supposed to: towards the end of the Qing Dynasty, the rules for succession were spectacularly hijacked by the Dowager Empress Cixi, who adopted this rule because it suited her own power-base to adopt weak monarchs (Guangxu and Puyi, the last two Qing Emperors, were both chosen by Cixi; both were selected ahead of their fathers, who were both brothers to a previous Emperor and both still alive during their sons' reigns; Guangxu's mother was Cixi's younger sister; both were forced to marry close members of Cixi's family). The Tang Dynasty and Ming Dynasty both clearly sanctioned succession by brothers. Besides, European successional tradition has absolutely nothing to do with Chinese successional tradition, and draws no precedents from it! BartBassist (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Queen Elizabeth II was never Princess of Wales, and this seems to be because of her gender. However, I had to study the article carefully before coming to this conclusion. Could some royalty expert please add a note to the article about female descendants, just to make the issue clear?

Only an heir apparent can be Prince of Wales. Elizabeth was only heiress presumptive - had her father had a son, she would have been displaced in the succession. john k 22:40, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Henry, the short lived

This little fella was never PoW right? It's on vfd at the moment... Dunc|☺ 12:33, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • If you mean, Henry (1511), the shortlived eldest son of King Henry VIII & Queen Catherine (of Aragon), then I think he was PoW. Mightberight/wrong 0:38 ,14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-NPOV edits

A number of anonymous users and user:Cardiff have edited this article, and made it less 'Welsh.' This includes removing the Welsh princes from the section "The Princes of Wales, past and present".

The edits began on 18:20, 25 April 2006 86.112.253.144.

This is a violation of WP:NPOV, IMO, and seems to be part of a pattern, making such non-NPOV edits to a number of prominent articles about Wales.

I am planning to revert the entire batch of edits to the previous edit by Grouse. All comments are welcome.Econrad 19:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at the edits, I agree with you, and so I have reverted to the last version by Grouse, as you suggested. Proteus (Talk) 20:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No change in order

The paragraph reading "However, Elizabeth II has changed the order of succession by making it gender-neutral" is not accurate. The queen has not changed the order of succession to remove male primogeniture, and in fact she doesn't have the power to, as succession is determined by Parliament. Succession to the British throne tells us that the current rules come from the Act of Settlement in 1701.


Corrected. An attempt was made to change the line, through a Private Bill (which would have needed Royal Assent), in 2005. The attempt was unsuccessful.HarvardOxon 04:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King's son's son

The Heir presumptive / Heir apparent section appears to imply that the King's grandson (whose father is dead) can never be Prince of Wales - is that right? Morwen - Talk 20:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This can't be true; for instance, George III was Prince of Wales when his grandfather was king. Warofdreams talk 02:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree it can't be true. This restriction (title held only by an Heir Apparent who is a son of Monarch, not grandson or lower) applies to Duke of Cornwall, not Prince of Wales. George III was a Prince of Wales. He never got to be a Duke of Cornwall.64.131.188.104 (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

If this "heir apparent" status is really the guiding principle, it implies that a women could accede as Princess of Wales. For instance, if their father was the monarch's oldest child, they were an only child, and their father died, then they could not be displaced in the order of succession by any possible birth. Warofdreams talk 04:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If the daughter of the king were the king's only child, and the king died, then she would be queen, not princess of Wales.HarvardOxon 21:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, but that's not what he said. Proteus (Talk) 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. What was said is A is King, B is male Heir Apparent of A, C is female Heiress Presumptive of B. B dies while A and C are alive. C is not the the daughter but the granddaughter of the King. And no matter how many sons King A cranks out after Prince B dies, none of them can precede Princess C in the line of succession. It appears that in those circumstances Princess C WOULD be that rare example of a Female Heiress Apparent (not Presumptive).
I don't know if this has ever occurred but if it has the female Heiress Apparent was NOT made Princess of Wales (for there never was a Princess of Wales except by marriage), and so precedent is set. BUT, if a female Heiress Apparent has NEVER occurred and occurs in the future then, absent any precedent to the countrary, is she prevented from becoming a suo-jure Princess of Wales? Elizabeth II is not a counterexample because she was NOT Apparent, she was Presumptive.
My understanding is that an Heiress Presumptive is not barred from certain honors because females are snubbed but, rather, because of heraldry's principle that an honor conferred should never be taken back except by misconduct of the recipient. An example is the Queen Mother. She had the honors of a Queen Consort. Then her husband died. That is no misconduct on her part, so she was not deprived of any honors (except those required to allow Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip to replace the former ruling couple) that she held before her husband died. Her titles "Queen Dowager" and "Queen Mother" (two slightly different things that don't always coincide) refer to her as Queen, for instance, not demoted to "Princess". Under male primogeniture an oldest daughter if given honors (and created Princess of Wales) would, if her parents created a younger brother, have to surrender those honors to that younger brother (so he could become Prince of Wales). The birth of a younger brother is no misconduct on her part, so it'd be wrong for her to have to surrender these honors. To prevent this scenario of her having to surrender these honors in the event of a baby brother, she is never given the honors in the first place. If that is the only logic excluding Heiresses Presumptive from becoming suo-jure Princesses of Wales, then there is no such impediment for an Heiress Apparent.64.131.188.104 (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

[edit] Responsibilities

I am curious as to what the legislated responsibilities of the Prince are or are not as an aspect of the Monarchy and regard to his role representing the state. I think it is particularly interesting with respect to his actions that have called the impartiallity of the monarchy into question on the BBC and elsewhere. Can anyone provide more information on this? There's all this stuff about the history of who had it when, but what are the actual responsibiities of the holder of this title to the public, if any? Are there laws imbedded in the UK Constitution regarding this position, or does only the monarch have legislated responsibilities? Sandwich Eater 20:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I answered my own question with a web search that hit the Prince's web site. http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/about/rol_index.html

He has no formal responsibilities but he has self-imposed 3 responsibilities which he believes he can conduct without undertaking a political position. Sandwich Eater 21:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

He has some formal responsibilities e.g.

- As Duke of Cornwall he has some feudal rights that in the rest of England are retained by the Head of State e.g. right to recieve any unclaimed property when someone dies (which he gives to charity). - As a Counsellor of State he acts on behalf of the Queen when she is abroad to meet foreign dignitaries, give Royal Assent etc. - He has the right to be consulted on some Scottish matters, although technically this is not because he is Prince of Wales but rather as he is Duke of Rothsay. - He may attend the State Opening of Parliament and he may sit on the steps of the throne in the House of Lords during debates.


[edit] Removed:

Removed unsourced information below. The designation of Prince for the native Welsh rulers of Wales (Gwynedd, Deheubarth, Powys) was appropriate as these leaders were semi-independent and while part of the Angivine Empire were outside of the Kingdom of England's legal jurisdiction until the Edwardian conquest. It was the Welsh leaders themselves who first used the title Prince, as Gruffydd ap Cynan did as Princepts Wallensium, who also used the title Prince of Gwynedd.

The translation as "Prince" was used by Englishmen to undermine the power of the rulers of Wales, causing them to appear inferior to the Kings of England (as a Prince is lower than the King in the hierarchy).[citation needed]

[edit] Question

Is there an official "22nd Prince of Wales" right now? 89.139.89.202 20:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope – the Principality isn't like a peerage, it isn't numbered. Even if it were, Charles would be 1st Prince of Wales, because almost every Prince has been a new creation... † DBD 18:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peerage

Is the Princedom of Wales, or has it ever been, a peerage? I ask because I've always placed the PW suc boxes under the "British royalty" heading, but today Charles I's was moved to the "Peerage of England" heading. † DBD 09:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] heir assumptive

i feel bad for prince charles hes heir assumptive which means he won't get to be king his mum is living so long that by the time she dies his son will be old enough to be king and thats who theyre gonna make king is his son that must really suck —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlieh7337 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, you can learn English while you're waiting for that day. Rob Burbidge (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Promoting Nationalisation

Eh? I don't think it's the Prince of Wales' job to promote public ownership of companies. Do you mean nationhood? Nationalism? Nationality???? Rob Burbidge (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] English & British heirs apparent

The English/British section should be devided into two sections English, British. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)