![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
We do not have 'Princedoms' in the United Kingdom. The title of 'Prince' does not cover any territorial designation, apart from the obvious association of 'Prince of the United Kingdom'. It is purely a courtesy title granted automatically to sons and grand-sons of the Sovereign. Wales is a 'Principality', not a 'Princedom', so that doesn't apply either. With regard to Prince Charles, he was HRH The Duke of Cornwall from birth (the eldest son of the Sovereign is automatically granted this title at birth by right of Act of Parliament). Ds1994 ( talk) 21:35, 5 September 2010 (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)
"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)
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?
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)
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)
Is there an official "22nd Prince of Wales" right now? 89.139.89.202 20:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
The most important duty of the Prince of Wales is to commit adultery whenever possible. Every single prince of wales who had managed to survive puberty, either cheated on his own wife or cuckolded someone's husband...or both. Ericl ( talk) 19:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the text which said that Princes of Wales who were grandsons of the sovereign use a label of five points, as this is nonsense. The heir-apparent, whether to the Sovereign or anyone else, uses a label of three points regardless of whether he is the eldest son or whether he has succeeded his father as heir-apparent. George III began using the three-point label on his father's death and before he was created Prince of Wales [1]. Opera hat ( talk) 10:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
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. D B D 09:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Is the title "Prince of Wales" a peerage title or not??? Many pages about the princes consider it a title in the peerage of England. To my knowledge this is wrong, it is a royal title. Demophon ( talk) 23:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The House of Lords Act 1999 Section 6 makes it clear that it is a title in the peerage - see [2] Zviki1 ( talk) 11:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The official website of the Princes of Wales specifically states that Edward II did not pass the title on to his son, and names the Black Prince as the next PoW. This used to be reflected in this list, and Ed III's page still does not mention that he ever held the title. Why has he been added to the list? Not to sound rude or anything, but if I don't receive a serious answer in the next few days I'll take a bold step and remove him from the list, leaving his information on this page just in case. Andrei Iosifovich ( talk) 04:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The page says this:
In countries that practice male primogeniture, a daughter or sibling of the sovereign who is currently next in line to the throne is not the "heir apparent" because they would be displaced in the succession by any future legitimate son of the sovereign: they are instead the "heir or heiress presumptive" and cannot therefore take the title of Prince (or Princess) of Wales in their own right.
Now, I would have thought that regardless of succession systems, very few royal children in other countries could be made Princes of Wales. Most other countries don't have Wales, for a start... ;-) Torak ( talk) 01:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The English/British section should be devided into two sections English, British. GoodDay ( talk) 23:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, this should have been done a long time ago. His position is neither Welsh nor English, despite the title, he is part of the British monarchy. -- 78.105.52.52 ( talk) 01:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
From the lists below I have tried to exclude sites whose language is a direct lift from some other page:
Sources stating (but without any explanation offered for what would be a bewilding fact if it were true) that Edward was never created Prince of Wales:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Edward_VI_of_England
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Edward_VI
Source stating that Edward was "proclaimed" Prince of Wales:
http://englishhistory.net/tudor/monarchs/edward6.html
(I include this as a possible source of error. Should it turn out that I am wrong and Edward was NOT ever created Prince of Wales, the fact that he was "proclaimed" Prince of Wales could be the source of an errant belief that he WAS Prince of Wales, should someone believe that "proclaiming" and "creating" are the same thing, or that they're not the same thing but that it would be inexplicable for Henry VIII to have the proclaming done without doing the creating.)
Source stating that Edward was "created" Prince of Wales:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Edward_VI_of_England
The succession-box for the wikipedia article on Edward VI says that he WAS Prince of Wales.
I note without pleasure that the list of previous Princes of Wales at the Royal Family's site,
says (or, rather, implies, by omission from the list) that Edward VI was NOT ever a Prince of Wales.
Source that clears this up entirely:
http://www.gutenberg-e.org/mcintosh/appendix-c.html
So, Edward VI WAS, at one time, Prince of Wales, and all sources to the contrary are deriving their information from the same original error, which is Edward VI's own hand.
Early in his reign Edward wrote of a ceremony cancelled because Henry VIII died and Edward became King. Edward's writing referred to that ceremony as his "creation" as Prince of Wales. Some will wrongly insist that this word "creation" be taken at its MODERN face value, and will say that if the creation was planned, but cancelled because of Henry VIII's death, then Edward was never "created" (in our modern sense) Prince of Wales, which means (in modern English) that he never WAS Prince of Wales.
The mistake lies in taking that word "creation" at its face value when there's so much evidence to the contrary and a simple explanation for Edward's choice of the word "creation". The simple explanation is that the 9-year-old King just wrote the wrong word, or that in the English language of his day the usage of the words "creation" and "investiture" were not as distinct as they are today. That which we would call the "creation" of a Prince of Wales is no ceremony -- it's just the decree of the Monarch. But the thing being cancelled WAS a ceremony. Ergo, the thing being cancelled would be called, in TODAY's English, the "Investiture" of the Prince of Wales, NOT the "creation". Investitures occur for a Prince of Wales only after that person is CREATED Prince of Wales. We know that the Investiture for Edward was planned because he refers to its cancellation (although he uses the word "creation"). Since the Investiture for Edward was planned, and an Investiture is planned only for a person who is aleady created Prince of Wales, Edward must already have been Prince of Wales at that time. QED.
The "abundant evidence to the contrary" referred to above is the usual correspondence we would expect to find in which Edward prior to being King is referred to as "the Prince of Wales", for instance in a document written by Henry VIII while Edward was still an infant.
I have two additional comments: there are way too many people who insist that a person is NOT Prince of Wales until their Investiture ceremony. Hooey. A person becomes Prince of Wales before the Investiture, when they are CREATED Prince of Wales.
Second, the portrait of Edward, ca 1546 Flemish school,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Edward_VI_of_England_c._1546.jpg
shouldn't be used as evidence in favor of my assertion that Edward VI was once Prince of Wales. It's true that in this portrait his chain-borne jewel has the Feathers and the Coronet, but these are not insignia of the Prince of Wales. They are insignia of the Heir Apparent and so would have been worn by Edward whether he was Prince of Wales or not. So, this portrait does not help us one way or another. 69.86.130.90 ( talk) 12:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
This little fella was never PoW right? It's on vfd at the moment... Dunc| ☺ 12:33, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Already in wikipedia today I have found that the article on "coronet" insists that the arched headgear of the Prince of Wales is a "crown". It's not. Who is making all these edits?
http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/theprinceofwales/abouttheprince/coatofarms/
and many other sources are clear: it's a coronet, because it carries no symbolism of sovereignty. Just like dukes' and marquesses' coronets. The argument seems to be that because it has an arch it is a crown. I can't see why it should be the case that adding one or more arches to a coronet turns it into a crown. Whether it's a crown or not has nothing to do with arches but with the legal status (present or past) of the territory of which it is the headgear. 69.86.130.90 ( talk) 13:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
Why is Edward VI missing from the list of Princes of Wales? Surtsicna ( talk) 18:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
There are a few examples mentioned in the article of when the Prince of Wales dies, and the title passes to the new heir apparent, but what happens to his widow's title? Does she lose all titles, is she granted another honorary title, or does she become something like Princess Dowager of Wales? If a widowed Queen Consort becomes Queen Dowager/Mother, but still keeps the title "Queen" in front of her name (eg the Queen Mother was officially "HM Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother"), does the widowed Princess of Wales keep her title in any way? Did Catherine of Aragon retain a title when Prince Arthur died? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.125.15 ( talk) 17:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Why are they not listed here as Princes of Wales, as their names suggest ? Teofilo talk 19:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Why is Owain Glyndŵr not on the list of Princes of Wales? şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 02:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
If the new succession rule goes through, does it logically follow that the monarch's oldest child will be invested as Prince or Princess of Wales depending on gender? 162.27.9.20 ( talk) 17:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Re paragraph 'Other Titles': Henry of Bolingbroke was never Prince of Wales--his inclusion here implies he was. Could someone please delete that reference? 199.108.124.252 ( talk) 18:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Prince of Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I fail to see what the "Steam locomotive" has to do with the title "Prince of Wales", and if it weren't for the fact that it has been left untouched despite intervening edits by at least one experienced royalty editor I'd have boldly deleted it. IMO, at best it deserves a mention in the "See also" section, or more likely an indirect mention via a "List of things named after the Prince of Wales" page (though surprisingly I can't quickly find such a list). Rosbif73 ( talk) 10:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
They were officially styled Prince of Wales" Edward VI was going to be formally invested, but his father died first. the Future Charles III was styled Prince of Wales in 1958, but wasn't invested intil 1969. I put the two back in. Ericl ( talk) 16:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't a 'coronation' - the correct term is 'investiture'. There is only one coronation in the United Kingdom, and that is of the Sovereign. Ds1994 ( talk) 21:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I think Prince Charles Investiture was in 1968, not 1958. I distinctly remember it being shown on TV, and since I was born in 1958, couldn't have been then! 93.172.59.65 ( talk) 18:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)S.C.
Looking at section:
"The oldest Prince of Wales (as the English and British heir apparent) at the start of his tenure was George Frederick Ernest Albert, later George V, who was 36 years, 5 months and 6 days old when he assumed the title. The Duke of Cambridge will surpass this record if he is created Prince of Wales any time after 16 November 2018 (two days after his father's 70th birthday)."
Surely this refers only to when the Prince of Wales has been the monarch's son. Wasn't Richard of York made Prince of Wales shortly before his death at 49 years of age? Admittedly that's a bit of an aberration. 81.152.141.235 ( talk) 19:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Before and after the recent protection of this page, I have been thinking to myself - who keeps on adding this Jimbo picture to the article and quoting "Heil Jimbo!" in a couple of random places... Iggy ( Swan) 18:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Are there any other principalities in the UK? -- Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii ( talk) 10:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Page says this,
The title Prince of Wales is given only to the heir apparent—somebody who cannot be displaced in the succession to the throne by any future birth. The succession had followed male-preference primogeniture, which meant that the heir apparent was the eldest son of the reigning monarch or, if he was deceased, his eldest son and so on, or if the monarch's eldest son had died without issue, the monarch's second eldest son, etc. As such, a daughter of the sovereign who was next in line to the throne was never the heir apparent because she would be displaced in the succession by any future legitimate son of the sovereign.
even though above pharagraph is technically correct it is confusing. It misleads readers to thnink that female person cannot become heir aparent in male-preference primogeniture. Even though monarchs daughter can be displaced by a future son, if monarchs eldest son dies leaving a daughter and no sons, that daughter cannot be displaced. Chamika1990 ( talk) 16:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Esrever: no, reigning monarchs eldest son is already died leaving a daughter(died eldest sons daughter). as died man cannot produce heirs, his daughter is heir aparent of reigning monarch. reigning monarchs younger sons are positioned behind his eldest sons bloodline. Chamika1990 ( talk) 05:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I am copying these tables here because they are the only useful bits of this page which is up for deletion. Someone has put a lot of effort into creating them, perhaps they can be recycled in the future. Moonraker ( talk) 08:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Iago ab Idwal ap Meurig r. 1023-1039 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cynan ab Iago d. 1060 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gruffydd ap Cynan 1055-1081-1137 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Owain Gwynedd 1100-1137-1170 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hywel ab Owain Gwynedd r. 1170 |
Iorwerth Drwyndwn 1145-1174 |
Dafydd ab Owain Gwynedd Prince 1170-1195 |
Maelgwn ab Owain Gwynedd Prince 1170-1173 |
Rhodri ab Owain Gwynedd Prince 1170-1195 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Llywelyn the Great 1173-1195-1240 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Llywelyn the Great 1173-1195-1240 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gruffydd ap Llywelyn Fawr 1200-1244 |
Dafydd ap Llywelyn 1215-1240-1246 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Owain Goch ap Gruffydd d. 1282 |
Llywelyn the Last 1223-1246-1282 |
Dafydd ap Gruffydd 1238-1282-1283 |
Rhodri ap Gruffudd 1230-1315 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gwenllian of Wales 1282-1337 |
Llywelyn ap Dafydd 1267-1283-1287 |
Owain ap Dafydd 1265-1287-1325 |
Tomas ap Rhodri 1300-1325-1363 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Owain Lawgoch 1330-1378 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Have changed the use of the depricated familytree template to its tree chart replacement. Once all uses of familytree have been converted, it is due to be deleted. Tango Mike Bravo ( talk) 10:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'm understanding this correctly, but if so, it is not emphasized enough, leaving people confused. So basically, British royals are given titles corresponding to places they are not associated with at all? Charles doesn't have anything to do with Wales and doesn't really represent it? -- 2001:16B8:316F:2700:B1F7:8837:5D14:4CF ( talk) 20:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Noting Edward VI's inclusion in the list, two points: 1) The list cites https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/titles-and-heraldry as a source for his creation as Prince of Wales. However, https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/titles-and-heraldry does not include Edward VI in its list of "previous Princes of Wales". Standing up an assertion with an unsupportive source appears to be a breach of wikipedia's rules.
2) According to a reliable source ( https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Cheshire_and_the_Tudor_State_1480_1560/-L-skqOw7QoC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22edward+vi%22+%22prince+of+wales%22+18+October+1536&pg=PA81&printsec=frontcover ), "Although the future Edward VI was widely called prince of Wales and his creation was believed imminent in 1536-7, 1543 and 1546-7, none of Henry VIII's sons (or daughters) was ever created prince or earl [of Chester], perhaps because of uncertainty over the settlement of Wales until 1543."
I'd suggest the page is amended to reflect that, as Thornton notes, Edward VI was "widely called" prince of Wales but was not created such: either by adding a footnote to Edward VI's entry in the list, or by removing him from the list and noting the fact in the text body. 109.144.212.174 ( talk) 20:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
See this source here: http://www.gutenberg-e.org/mcintosh/appendix-c.html On this page, historian J.L. McIntosh seems to argue that Edward VI was in fact the Prince of Wales (through confirmation in official documents), but never underwent the formal investiture (which wasn't necessary). Perhaps the citation could be removed from the Prince of Wales' official website for Edward VI, and the link to this source substituted instead. 214.16.210.26 ( talk) 18:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Theis page is quite well defined into two main sections as it is, and the titles have two clear and distinctly different roles. The use of the title is well defined into two main traditions. The first is the native Welsh leader with succession from Gruffydd ap Cynan to Llywelyn the Last and then Owain Glyndwr. The second tradition is of the English/British heir apparent, from Edward Longshanks to Prince Charles. Let me know your thoughts, Thanks. Titus Gold ( talk) 14:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Following the above failed split proposal, I removed the list of native princes on the basis that:
However, my removal has been reverted; what do others think? Rosbif73 ( talk) 06:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The list of native rulers was removed from this page because it exists on the List of rulers of Wales page and so the list of English/British monarchy heir apparents is also not needed here because it is present on List of English or British monarchy Prince of Wales. The use of the title was also not a smooth continuation. The title of Prince of Wales was used in two completely different mannners, one by native Welsh rulers and one by the heir apparent of the English/British crown and so two seperate infoboxes is totally appropriate. Thanks Titus Gold ( talk) 09:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC) On the Prince of Wales website the current English/British line is described as a completely seperate line of Princes, and rightly so, "It was the first time the eldest son of the King of England was invested as Prince of Wales, making Edward II the first of the current line of Princes of Wales, of which His Royal Highness is the 21st." This again justifies a seperate infobox. Titus Gold ( talk) 09:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a lack of cited content under the heir apparent section. I would appreciate any help in addressing this without losing valuable content. Thanks. Titus Gold ( talk) 18:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
It is incorrect to say that this title is “vacant”. It has in fact merged into the Crown, meaning that is currently does not exist.
Charles III will probably in due course recreate the title and bestow it to Prince William, but for now there is no such thing as a “vacant” title of Prince of Wales. 2A02:8440:2140:B411:E910:E39B:8556:1BB1 ( talk) 20:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Neither of these positions is correct. The title has merged with the crown because it's holder now also holds the crown; the title still *exists*, however, as a subsidiary title of the King's.
The Prince of Wales is the same person it was 12 hours ago: Charles. QueerAsFolkPunk ( talk) 21:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to edit this, but I can't... but someone posted for Charles, King of the UK: "8 September 2022 acceded to throne as Charles III" ... last I checked and correct me if I'm wrong, but Charles' regal name has yet to be revealed. Could someone edit this? Thanks! — Fleacollarindustry ( talk) 17:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
It was revealed, possibly before your objection was made. Yitz711 ( talk) 00:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The section "Roles and responsibilities" makes reference to the "current" Prince when according to the rest of the article, the position is no longer active as it has been merged into the crown. Mckenzie Weir ( talk) 05:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The citation does not support that the position was “merged with the crown”. The position is currently vacant and the article should be updated to reflect that. 2601:18D:77F:6FA0:ECAC:6F87:3EC6:AAC9 ( talk) 16:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
He’s Prince of Wales now 142.113.63.149 ( talk) 20:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Charles III created him Prince of Wales during his speech today - Sept 9, 2022
The legal process noted in the article is that the King will need to issue Letters Patent creating William as Prince of Wales. This could potentially happen at his Accession Council meeting. However as Charles is the King, nobody is likely to argue with him on legalities until he signs the paperwork and makes it official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.123.235 ( talk) 22:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Confirmed in speech by Charles III. 99.227.215.190 ( talk) 17:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The source of the announcement is King Charles III, who would have to be considered a reliable source as he is the one who can legally make the appointment - he made the announcement in a recorded broadcast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.123.235 ( talk) 22:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The introduction should only include general informations about the origins of the title and its current holder. Other information, such as the English/British rules of inheritance, subsidiary titles and the movement to end the title should be kept in their own sections. Maria0215 ( talk) 18:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
The petition Web site is at the moment blacklisted, I think in error. I've asked for the site, or the particular page, to be whitelisted; in the meantime: "petition was launched calling for the abolition of the title. [1]"
Best wishes, Pol098 ( talk) 17:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Whyt is Edward VI listed as Prince of Wales. He was never installed as Prince of Wales and is not listed as such on the official Royal Family website https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/titles-and-heraldry QPLondon ( talk) 19:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
See this earlier discussion on the archives talk page: /info/en/?search=Talk:Prince_of_Wales/Archive_1#The_man_who_later_became_Edward_VI_should_be_in_the_list.
Edward VI may never have been invested as Prince of Wales. The ceremony appears to have been planned to take place right before he became king, but he was Prince of Wales, per official royal documents and correspondence that refers to him as such. The investiture ceremony (which could have been also referred to as a "creation" in the 16th century) is not essential, and in the 16th century, a Prince of Wales could be created simply by a witnessed verbal declaration by the monarch. Wikiman86 ( talk) 01:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
To cite from the earlier discussion:
So, Edward VI WAS, at one time, Prince of Wales, and all sources to the contrary are deriving their information from the same original error, which is Edward VI's own hand.
Early in his reign Edward wrote of a ceremony cancelled because Henry VIII died and Edward became King. Edward's writing referred to that ceremony as his "creation" as Prince of Wales. Some will wrongly insist that this word "creation" be taken at its MODERN face value, and will say that if the creation was planned, but cancelled because of Henry VIII's death, then Edward was never "created" (in our modern sense) Prince of Wales, which means (in modern English) that he never WAS Prince of Wales.
The mistake lies in taking that word "creation" at its face value when there's so much evidence to the contrary and a simple explanation for Edward's choice of the word "creation". The simple explanation is that the 9-year-old King just wrote the wrong word, or that in the English language of his day the usage of the words "creation" and "investiture" were not as distinct as they are today. That which we would call the "creation" of a Prince of Wales is no ceremony -- it's just the decree of the Monarch. But the thing being cancelled WAS a ceremony. Ergo, the thing being cancelled would be called, in TODAY's English, the "Investiture" of the Prince of Wales, NOT the "creation". Investitures occur for a Prince of Wales only after that person is CREATED Prince of Wales. We know that the Investiture for Edward was planned because he refers to its cancellation (although he uses the word "creation"). Since the Investiture for Edward was planned, and an Investiture is planned only for a person who is already created Prince of Wales, Edward must already have been Prince of Wales at that time. QED.
The "abundant evidence to the contrary" referred to above is the usual correspondence we would expect to find in which Edward prior to being King is referred to as "the Prince of Wales", for instance in a document written by Henry VIII while Edward was still an infant.
See also this source by Professor J. L. McIntosh., which discusses creating and investing a Prince of Wales: http://www.gutenberg-e.org/mcintosh/appendix-c.html Wikiman86 ( talk) 01:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I understand that Prince William is now the Prince of Wales since 9 September 2022, after King Charles III announced his creation as such in his first speech as king. While Charles III didn't explicitly mention the title of Earl of Chester in his speech, can we safely assume that Prince William is also now Earl of Chester as well as Prince of Wales (since Wikipedia article on the title Earl of Chester mentions that since the late 14th century the earldom has been granted along with the title of Prince of Wales as a subsidiary title), or is the earldom of Chester now vacant? Just wondering what people's thoughts are. Thanks. Wikiman86 ( talk) 14:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
"On 8 September 2022 upon the death of Elizabeth II, the title-holder, Prince Charles, became king.[1] The following day, King Charles III bestowed the title upon his elder son, Prince William, Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge.[2][3]" - Is this really neccessary in the opening paragraphs ? Surely this is like including this statement every time a Prince of Wales acquired that title. We know he's Prince of Wales from the later table.-- HuwWilson652 ( talk) 22:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
There are duplicate sections about Owain Glyndwr and not enough explanation about the Princes of Gwynedd and subsequent Prince of Wales title. This has been ignored and could be corrected and improved. Cltjames ( talk) 07:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Think it should be clarified in infobox that emblem is used by British holder of title and previously English holder. The native Welsh princes didn't use it. Titus Gold ( talk) 14:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
We have William created Prince of Wales the day after his grandmother's death, when Charles announced his intention, but it appears the process was only formalized in February of 2023: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4290979 . What is the actual date of creation? -- Jfruh ( talk) 17:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
The first three examples under this section heading are not specific to the title. While they are valid objections, should they be in a different article? Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
...is irrelevant to fictitious. It needs to talk how Llywelyn the Great first assumed the title and how it was deployed by the Aberffraw princes between the 1220s and the Edwardian conquest. It doesn't have that - instead it's about, well I don't really know what. There's a particularly odd statement (cited to Maund but without page numbers) that "The native use of the title 'Prince of Wales' appeared more frequently by the eleventh century". DeCausa ( talk) 16:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I've tried to home in on a balanced view of this item, but I feel the topic is a bit petty, and does not belong in this article at all, but unless other editors think it's pertinent to the title PoW, perhaps it should go in the article about William? Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why is there an insistence for the inclusion of the personal arms of the English/British princes but the arms of the native Princes is removed? There needs to be a consistency here.
Seems to be a blatant Wikipedia:Neutral point of view issue. Titus Gold ( talk) 13:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Yesterday I added a series of "better source" templates [6] because (and this is a general problem with history sections written by Titus Gold), the sourcing is to newspaper articles and the BBC history website. Writing an encyclopaedic article based on history articles for newspaper readers is a particularly worrying practice. The BBC articles are better, but they are still a tertiary source. Someone has written a bespoke summary from secondary sources for the BBC website. The BBC has a duty of balance that the newspapers don't have, but per Wikipedia policy, we should be using secondary sources, so I added the templates.
Titus Gold's response was to mark up a whole bunch of other references in the titles and roles section
[7] and then again elsewhere
[8] but I find the reason given, The current source is insufficiently reliable (
WP:NOTRS)
opaque. These edits look
WP:POINTy. Why are these not reliable sources? The second set of additions make sense, except this one which is not even a reference:
The Glyndŵr arms were also used as a banner, carried into battle against the English. better source neededThis banner is a symbol of Welsh defiance
Those three in that second edit were against information Titus Gold had restored (see section above) and indeed there are newspaper article references in there that are still not marked, as I had deleted them and the deletion was reverted. However it is not clear why text about Charles performing ceremonial roles on behalf of the Queen, sourced from the prince of Wales website, is not a reliable source for that information. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 08:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I removed what I think was an irrelevant subsection yesterday on "arms". Titus Gold reverted that (along with other content he keeps reverting) in this edit: [10]. There is information about the coat of arms of Llywelyn the Last and Owain Glyndŵr only. This information is on their respective pages, and are personal arms. I do not see why that is relevant or necessary, when we already link to their pages. Thoughts? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
There are plenty of citations stating the use of feathers for heir apparent (not POW)- And yet we are still waiting. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 21:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
The badge is technically the badge of the heir apparent regardless of whether the Prince of Wales title is held or not.No explanation of what badge is being talked about or what is the connection with the Prince of Wales. Ridiculous. DeCausa ( talk) 10:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I've added images of Edward II becoming Prince of Wales, the "honours" of the principality of Wales, Black Prince feathers as well as Llywelyn and Glyndwr images.
For some reason, images of Llywelyn/memorial and Glyndwr are being removed. Not sure why this is. Thanks Titus Gold ( talk) 14:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Not sure why this explained addition has been reverted. Seems to be quite clearly outlined in the book "Owain Gwynedd Prince of the Welsh".
The first Welshman known to have used the title Prince of Wales was Owain Gwynedd in the 1160s. He initially used the title King of Wales in letters to the king of France and then made the change from king (or "rex") to prince (or "princeps") to reflect his position as the unquestioned leader of Wales. According to Roman law, "princeps" referred to the sovereign ruler of a country. Some historian suggest the title change was made to snub Henry II of England. [1] [2] [3] Titus Gold ( talk) 17:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
First Prince of Wales: Owain Gwyneddwhen I just quoted a section from a book that casts doubt on that seems... bold! The text:
the change was made to reflect his position as the unquestioned leader of Wales, as according to Roman law, "princeps" referred to the sovereign ruler of a country.is speculation. It is speculation that has been made, but it is exactly what I was referring to when I said about being careful about making assertions - particularly where we know that Bleddyn ap Cynfyn was installed to be a compliant vassal, and that the princes in general were vassal rulers. We simply can't assert things about 'unquestioned leaders' whose leadership very much was questioned by the events of history. Once again this drifts into an ahistoric POV by very selective curation of the sources. Also, I am mindful of the other discussion here, and the maintenance tag now added to the page, and I think they have a point. Why are we spending so much time on the hostory of the 13th century, whithout spending any time on the other history of the princes? This is all covered in other pages that can just be linked from here. Keep it concise. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
the evidence which survives hardly provides the means for any elaborate study of the Welsh princes’ titles. He then looks thoroughly at the evidence and posits two theories as to why the term prince was adopted. The first theory is that it was imposed by the Normans, and he specifically suggests Henry II. On this he cites T. Jones Pierce who
suggested that the change may have been due to pressure exerted by Henry II on the leading rulers of Wales to drop the title of king thus enabling him to assert the principle of the English Crown’s superiority and its political overlordship.However he then presents a second theory that the title of prince was adopted by the Welsh themselves, a deliberate decision. For this he cites English usage that retained "rex" but also the styling of Welsh rulers as "regulus", a use of the Latin diminuative in mockery of the "little kings". His theory, then is that the Welsh chose to style their rulers as princes. He says:
This accords well with the view that Rhys and his fellow rulers, at the behest of Henry II, set aside all pretensions to regal status in return for confirmation of their landholdings. It seems that during the twelfth century the native chroniclers were tending increasingly to acclaim only their greatest rulers brenin or rex and then only as an epithet of greatness to be dispensed at death as a mark of respect and for past deeds should they warrant titular distinction. By the thirteenth century this practice had ceased completely
References
I think I recall there being mention of the feathers emblem on the royals' website whilst Charles was Prince of Wales. There doesn't seem to be evidence of it being used by William on the website. I accepted your reasoning for this @ Sirfurboy that we assume the use has continued. I wonder whether we can find evidence to show if the emblem is still in official use or if it has in fact been dropped in an official capacity? I can't seem to find any good evidence either way. Titus Gold ( talk) 17:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
The point is moot now, but this morning I did look at the 4 sources that Titus Gold pasted regarding his issues with the feather emblem use. As I mentioned, I lost my reply, but I had done the reading, so I am going to respond to them here, partly because there is an element of something that we might use, albeit clearly not the POVy edit that was being asserted. The lesson, of course, is that if you let people have time to do the research, before engaging in an edit war, you might find some common ground! In any case, Titus Gold posted four URLs. As is usual, it appears he merely googled these and probably did not even read them. I did, though. Despite the lack of page numbers given, I found the passages being referred to. We can dismiss two of them out of hand:
Pages 30-31. This is the most strident piece, but the section is entirely unsourced. Written by Hector Bolitho, a journalist and novelist. It is not a history text nor an authority. It is a personal portrait of the Duke of Windsor. No good as a source.
Page 1123. Again the information is unsourced. It is also tertiary.
The first source,
page xxxvii, has:
And, I must add, that the ostrich-feathers have not, as they never have had, any heraldic connection with the principality of Wales, notwithstanding their intimate association with the Prince of Wales in his capacity as Heir Apparent.
P.S.-I have much pleasure in adding, in the form of a postscript, the substance of a passage which occurs in the number of the new weekly serial, the "King of Arms," published on Saturday last, in an article on "The Royal Ostrich Feathers Badge borne by the Prince of Wales."
It has been shown that the Ostrich Feathers are not the Crest ' of Wales; nor are they the Crest,' but they are the Badge' of the Prince of Wales, by his Royal Highness borne as Heir Apparent, and without any association with his title of Prince of Wales' derived from his Principality of Wales. His Principality, consequently, has neither directly nor indirectly given to the Prince of Wales his Ostrich Feather Badge. This, however, does not by any means imply that the Prince may not concede to his Principality a right to associate his ostrich feathers with the armorial insignia of Wales. Should it be the pleasure of his Royal Highness, the armorial shield of the Principality of Wales might have its lion and dragon supporters, each holding erect a single ostrich feather, without either coronet or difference, but with the motto ICH DIEN upon an escroll. Thus, while reviving an early usage, Heraldry would draw more closely the tie that unites the Prince with the Principality of Wales."
Nov. 17, 1873.
C. B. [That is Charles Boutell ]
So the first thing to say is that this very old source is describing objects in the Montgomeryshire Collection, and this passage is about the Prince of Wales feather emblem in one of the pieces. Boutell, a noted victorian gentleman antiquarian writes this as a letter and includes this postscript, but note that this is not based on his research, but rather on something he read the week prior in "King of Arms". The author is unnamed, the provenance unclear. It is not a useful source for the claim. Yet it is also interesting that what he is really saying is that there is no link between the principality and the feathers. That is his point here. He does not doubt that this is the badge of the prince of Wales, the heir apparent, and so, he says, the prince of Wales can, as he so wishes, lend it to the principality.
But what of the remaining source? Page 108:
The most prominent device is the recurrence of the badge of the heir apparent, commonly called “the Prince of Wales’ crest” or “‘the Prince of Wales’ feathers.” Neither of these expressions is precisely correct, since the badge (which is not a crest) is borne by the heir apparent to the throne, who happens to be the Prince of Wales. Fox-Davies explains: “The badge of the eldest son of the Sovereign, as such, and not as the Prince of Wales, is the plume of three ostrich feathers, enfiled with the circlet from his coronet” (CG 458; see Illus. 5-G)
This is the best reference because it actually gives us provenance, and that provenance is Fox-Davies, which would count as an authority. It even gives the page number, and if we had started there, things would be so much clearer. So, let's look at Fox-Daves.
the Prince of Wales is the only one who rejoices in the possession of officially assigned badges. The badge of the eldest son of the Sovereign, as such, and not as Prince of Wales, is the plume of three ostrich feathers, enfiled with the circlet from his coronet. Recently an additional badge (on a mount vert, a dragon passant gules, charged on the shoulder with a label of three points argent) has been assigned to His Royal Highness. This action was taken with the desire to in some way gratify the forcibly expressed wishes of Wales, and it is probable that, the precedent having been set, it will be assigned to all those who may bear the title of Prince of Wales in future.
This is our WP:RS. This will be so much better than that newspaper article. So what do we do with it? Well, Fox Davies does agree that the feathers are the badge of the eldest son of the sovereign. There is nothing about the Duke of Cornwall, and the badge is also the badge of the prince of Wales according to Fox-Davies. It is his by dint of being the heir apparent, but as the prince of Wales is the heir apparent, it is the badge of the prince of Wales. The prince of Wales is the only one who rejoices in the possession of officially assigned badges. Yet there is a second, recent badge described here, and that is as prince of Wales, if assigned. We might mention that. (although if everyone feels like me, we might also just leave the article to rest for a while ;) ) Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 23:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
References
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
We do not have 'Princedoms' in the United Kingdom. The title of 'Prince' does not cover any territorial designation, apart from the obvious association of 'Prince of the United Kingdom'. It is purely a courtesy title granted automatically to sons and grand-sons of the Sovereign. Wales is a 'Principality', not a 'Princedom', so that doesn't apply either. With regard to Prince Charles, he was HRH The Duke of Cornwall from birth (the eldest son of the Sovereign is automatically granted this title at birth by right of Act of Parliament). Ds1994 ( talk) 21:35, 5 September 2010 (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)
"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)
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?
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)
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)
Is there an official "22nd Prince of Wales" right now? 89.139.89.202 20:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
The most important duty of the Prince of Wales is to commit adultery whenever possible. Every single prince of wales who had managed to survive puberty, either cheated on his own wife or cuckolded someone's husband...or both. Ericl ( talk) 19:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the text which said that Princes of Wales who were grandsons of the sovereign use a label of five points, as this is nonsense. The heir-apparent, whether to the Sovereign or anyone else, uses a label of three points regardless of whether he is the eldest son or whether he has succeeded his father as heir-apparent. George III began using the three-point label on his father's death and before he was created Prince of Wales [1]. Opera hat ( talk) 10:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
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. D B D 09:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Is the title "Prince of Wales" a peerage title or not??? Many pages about the princes consider it a title in the peerage of England. To my knowledge this is wrong, it is a royal title. Demophon ( talk) 23:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The House of Lords Act 1999 Section 6 makes it clear that it is a title in the peerage - see [2] Zviki1 ( talk) 11:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The official website of the Princes of Wales specifically states that Edward II did not pass the title on to his son, and names the Black Prince as the next PoW. This used to be reflected in this list, and Ed III's page still does not mention that he ever held the title. Why has he been added to the list? Not to sound rude or anything, but if I don't receive a serious answer in the next few days I'll take a bold step and remove him from the list, leaving his information on this page just in case. Andrei Iosifovich ( talk) 04:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The page says this:
In countries that practice male primogeniture, a daughter or sibling of the sovereign who is currently next in line to the throne is not the "heir apparent" because they would be displaced in the succession by any future legitimate son of the sovereign: they are instead the "heir or heiress presumptive" and cannot therefore take the title of Prince (or Princess) of Wales in their own right.
Now, I would have thought that regardless of succession systems, very few royal children in other countries could be made Princes of Wales. Most other countries don't have Wales, for a start... ;-) Torak ( talk) 01:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The English/British section should be devided into two sections English, British. GoodDay ( talk) 23:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, this should have been done a long time ago. His position is neither Welsh nor English, despite the title, he is part of the British monarchy. -- 78.105.52.52 ( talk) 01:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
From the lists below I have tried to exclude sites whose language is a direct lift from some other page:
Sources stating (but without any explanation offered for what would be a bewilding fact if it were true) that Edward was never created Prince of Wales:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Edward_VI_of_England
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Edward_VI
Source stating that Edward was "proclaimed" Prince of Wales:
http://englishhistory.net/tudor/monarchs/edward6.html
(I include this as a possible source of error. Should it turn out that I am wrong and Edward was NOT ever created Prince of Wales, the fact that he was "proclaimed" Prince of Wales could be the source of an errant belief that he WAS Prince of Wales, should someone believe that "proclaiming" and "creating" are the same thing, or that they're not the same thing but that it would be inexplicable for Henry VIII to have the proclaming done without doing the creating.)
Source stating that Edward was "created" Prince of Wales:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Edward_VI_of_England
The succession-box for the wikipedia article on Edward VI says that he WAS Prince of Wales.
I note without pleasure that the list of previous Princes of Wales at the Royal Family's site,
says (or, rather, implies, by omission from the list) that Edward VI was NOT ever a Prince of Wales.
Source that clears this up entirely:
http://www.gutenberg-e.org/mcintosh/appendix-c.html
So, Edward VI WAS, at one time, Prince of Wales, and all sources to the contrary are deriving their information from the same original error, which is Edward VI's own hand.
Early in his reign Edward wrote of a ceremony cancelled because Henry VIII died and Edward became King. Edward's writing referred to that ceremony as his "creation" as Prince of Wales. Some will wrongly insist that this word "creation" be taken at its MODERN face value, and will say that if the creation was planned, but cancelled because of Henry VIII's death, then Edward was never "created" (in our modern sense) Prince of Wales, which means (in modern English) that he never WAS Prince of Wales.
The mistake lies in taking that word "creation" at its face value when there's so much evidence to the contrary and a simple explanation for Edward's choice of the word "creation". The simple explanation is that the 9-year-old King just wrote the wrong word, or that in the English language of his day the usage of the words "creation" and "investiture" were not as distinct as they are today. That which we would call the "creation" of a Prince of Wales is no ceremony -- it's just the decree of the Monarch. But the thing being cancelled WAS a ceremony. Ergo, the thing being cancelled would be called, in TODAY's English, the "Investiture" of the Prince of Wales, NOT the "creation". Investitures occur for a Prince of Wales only after that person is CREATED Prince of Wales. We know that the Investiture for Edward was planned because he refers to its cancellation (although he uses the word "creation"). Since the Investiture for Edward was planned, and an Investiture is planned only for a person who is aleady created Prince of Wales, Edward must already have been Prince of Wales at that time. QED.
The "abundant evidence to the contrary" referred to above is the usual correspondence we would expect to find in which Edward prior to being King is referred to as "the Prince of Wales", for instance in a document written by Henry VIII while Edward was still an infant.
I have two additional comments: there are way too many people who insist that a person is NOT Prince of Wales until their Investiture ceremony. Hooey. A person becomes Prince of Wales before the Investiture, when they are CREATED Prince of Wales.
Second, the portrait of Edward, ca 1546 Flemish school,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Edward_VI_of_England_c._1546.jpg
shouldn't be used as evidence in favor of my assertion that Edward VI was once Prince of Wales. It's true that in this portrait his chain-borne jewel has the Feathers and the Coronet, but these are not insignia of the Prince of Wales. They are insignia of the Heir Apparent and so would have been worn by Edward whether he was Prince of Wales or not. So, this portrait does not help us one way or another. 69.86.130.90 ( talk) 12:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
This little fella was never PoW right? It's on vfd at the moment... Dunc| ☺ 12:33, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Already in wikipedia today I have found that the article on "coronet" insists that the arched headgear of the Prince of Wales is a "crown". It's not. Who is making all these edits?
http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/theprinceofwales/abouttheprince/coatofarms/
and many other sources are clear: it's a coronet, because it carries no symbolism of sovereignty. Just like dukes' and marquesses' coronets. The argument seems to be that because it has an arch it is a crown. I can't see why it should be the case that adding one or more arches to a coronet turns it into a crown. Whether it's a crown or not has nothing to do with arches but with the legal status (present or past) of the territory of which it is the headgear. 69.86.130.90 ( talk) 13:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
Why is Edward VI missing from the list of Princes of Wales? Surtsicna ( talk) 18:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
There are a few examples mentioned in the article of when the Prince of Wales dies, and the title passes to the new heir apparent, but what happens to his widow's title? Does she lose all titles, is she granted another honorary title, or does she become something like Princess Dowager of Wales? If a widowed Queen Consort becomes Queen Dowager/Mother, but still keeps the title "Queen" in front of her name (eg the Queen Mother was officially "HM Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother"), does the widowed Princess of Wales keep her title in any way? Did Catherine of Aragon retain a title when Prince Arthur died? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.125.15 ( talk) 17:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Why are they not listed here as Princes of Wales, as their names suggest ? Teofilo talk 19:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Why is Owain Glyndŵr not on the list of Princes of Wales? şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 02:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
If the new succession rule goes through, does it logically follow that the monarch's oldest child will be invested as Prince or Princess of Wales depending on gender? 162.27.9.20 ( talk) 17:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Re paragraph 'Other Titles': Henry of Bolingbroke was never Prince of Wales--his inclusion here implies he was. Could someone please delete that reference? 199.108.124.252 ( talk) 18:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Prince of Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I fail to see what the "Steam locomotive" has to do with the title "Prince of Wales", and if it weren't for the fact that it has been left untouched despite intervening edits by at least one experienced royalty editor I'd have boldly deleted it. IMO, at best it deserves a mention in the "See also" section, or more likely an indirect mention via a "List of things named after the Prince of Wales" page (though surprisingly I can't quickly find such a list). Rosbif73 ( talk) 10:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
They were officially styled Prince of Wales" Edward VI was going to be formally invested, but his father died first. the Future Charles III was styled Prince of Wales in 1958, but wasn't invested intil 1969. I put the two back in. Ericl ( talk) 16:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't a 'coronation' - the correct term is 'investiture'. There is only one coronation in the United Kingdom, and that is of the Sovereign. Ds1994 ( talk) 21:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I think Prince Charles Investiture was in 1968, not 1958. I distinctly remember it being shown on TV, and since I was born in 1958, couldn't have been then! 93.172.59.65 ( talk) 18:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)S.C.
Looking at section:
"The oldest Prince of Wales (as the English and British heir apparent) at the start of his tenure was George Frederick Ernest Albert, later George V, who was 36 years, 5 months and 6 days old when he assumed the title. The Duke of Cambridge will surpass this record if he is created Prince of Wales any time after 16 November 2018 (two days after his father's 70th birthday)."
Surely this refers only to when the Prince of Wales has been the monarch's son. Wasn't Richard of York made Prince of Wales shortly before his death at 49 years of age? Admittedly that's a bit of an aberration. 81.152.141.235 ( talk) 19:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Before and after the recent protection of this page, I have been thinking to myself - who keeps on adding this Jimbo picture to the article and quoting "Heil Jimbo!" in a couple of random places... Iggy ( Swan) 18:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Are there any other principalities in the UK? -- Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii ( talk) 10:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Page says this,
The title Prince of Wales is given only to the heir apparent—somebody who cannot be displaced in the succession to the throne by any future birth. The succession had followed male-preference primogeniture, which meant that the heir apparent was the eldest son of the reigning monarch or, if he was deceased, his eldest son and so on, or if the monarch's eldest son had died without issue, the monarch's second eldest son, etc. As such, a daughter of the sovereign who was next in line to the throne was never the heir apparent because she would be displaced in the succession by any future legitimate son of the sovereign.
even though above pharagraph is technically correct it is confusing. It misleads readers to thnink that female person cannot become heir aparent in male-preference primogeniture. Even though monarchs daughter can be displaced by a future son, if monarchs eldest son dies leaving a daughter and no sons, that daughter cannot be displaced. Chamika1990 ( talk) 16:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Esrever: no, reigning monarchs eldest son is already died leaving a daughter(died eldest sons daughter). as died man cannot produce heirs, his daughter is heir aparent of reigning monarch. reigning monarchs younger sons are positioned behind his eldest sons bloodline. Chamika1990 ( talk) 05:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I am copying these tables here because they are the only useful bits of this page which is up for deletion. Someone has put a lot of effort into creating them, perhaps they can be recycled in the future. Moonraker ( talk) 08:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Iago ab Idwal ap Meurig r. 1023-1039 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cynan ab Iago d. 1060 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gruffydd ap Cynan 1055-1081-1137 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Owain Gwynedd 1100-1137-1170 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hywel ab Owain Gwynedd r. 1170 |
Iorwerth Drwyndwn 1145-1174 |
Dafydd ab Owain Gwynedd Prince 1170-1195 |
Maelgwn ab Owain Gwynedd Prince 1170-1173 |
Rhodri ab Owain Gwynedd Prince 1170-1195 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Llywelyn the Great 1173-1195-1240 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Llywelyn the Great 1173-1195-1240 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gruffydd ap Llywelyn Fawr 1200-1244 |
Dafydd ap Llywelyn 1215-1240-1246 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Owain Goch ap Gruffydd d. 1282 |
Llywelyn the Last 1223-1246-1282 |
Dafydd ap Gruffydd 1238-1282-1283 |
Rhodri ap Gruffudd 1230-1315 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gwenllian of Wales 1282-1337 |
Llywelyn ap Dafydd 1267-1283-1287 |
Owain ap Dafydd 1265-1287-1325 |
Tomas ap Rhodri 1300-1325-1363 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Owain Lawgoch 1330-1378 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Have changed the use of the depricated familytree template to its tree chart replacement. Once all uses of familytree have been converted, it is due to be deleted. Tango Mike Bravo ( talk) 10:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'm understanding this correctly, but if so, it is not emphasized enough, leaving people confused. So basically, British royals are given titles corresponding to places they are not associated with at all? Charles doesn't have anything to do with Wales and doesn't really represent it? -- 2001:16B8:316F:2700:B1F7:8837:5D14:4CF ( talk) 20:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Noting Edward VI's inclusion in the list, two points: 1) The list cites https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/titles-and-heraldry as a source for his creation as Prince of Wales. However, https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/titles-and-heraldry does not include Edward VI in its list of "previous Princes of Wales". Standing up an assertion with an unsupportive source appears to be a breach of wikipedia's rules.
2) According to a reliable source ( https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Cheshire_and_the_Tudor_State_1480_1560/-L-skqOw7QoC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22edward+vi%22+%22prince+of+wales%22+18+October+1536&pg=PA81&printsec=frontcover ), "Although the future Edward VI was widely called prince of Wales and his creation was believed imminent in 1536-7, 1543 and 1546-7, none of Henry VIII's sons (or daughters) was ever created prince or earl [of Chester], perhaps because of uncertainty over the settlement of Wales until 1543."
I'd suggest the page is amended to reflect that, as Thornton notes, Edward VI was "widely called" prince of Wales but was not created such: either by adding a footnote to Edward VI's entry in the list, or by removing him from the list and noting the fact in the text body. 109.144.212.174 ( talk) 20:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
See this source here: http://www.gutenberg-e.org/mcintosh/appendix-c.html On this page, historian J.L. McIntosh seems to argue that Edward VI was in fact the Prince of Wales (through confirmation in official documents), but never underwent the formal investiture (which wasn't necessary). Perhaps the citation could be removed from the Prince of Wales' official website for Edward VI, and the link to this source substituted instead. 214.16.210.26 ( talk) 18:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Theis page is quite well defined into two main sections as it is, and the titles have two clear and distinctly different roles. The use of the title is well defined into two main traditions. The first is the native Welsh leader with succession from Gruffydd ap Cynan to Llywelyn the Last and then Owain Glyndwr. The second tradition is of the English/British heir apparent, from Edward Longshanks to Prince Charles. Let me know your thoughts, Thanks. Titus Gold ( talk) 14:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Following the above failed split proposal, I removed the list of native princes on the basis that:
However, my removal has been reverted; what do others think? Rosbif73 ( talk) 06:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The list of native rulers was removed from this page because it exists on the List of rulers of Wales page and so the list of English/British monarchy heir apparents is also not needed here because it is present on List of English or British monarchy Prince of Wales. The use of the title was also not a smooth continuation. The title of Prince of Wales was used in two completely different mannners, one by native Welsh rulers and one by the heir apparent of the English/British crown and so two seperate infoboxes is totally appropriate. Thanks Titus Gold ( talk) 09:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC) On the Prince of Wales website the current English/British line is described as a completely seperate line of Princes, and rightly so, "It was the first time the eldest son of the King of England was invested as Prince of Wales, making Edward II the first of the current line of Princes of Wales, of which His Royal Highness is the 21st." This again justifies a seperate infobox. Titus Gold ( talk) 09:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a lack of cited content under the heir apparent section. I would appreciate any help in addressing this without losing valuable content. Thanks. Titus Gold ( talk) 18:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
It is incorrect to say that this title is “vacant”. It has in fact merged into the Crown, meaning that is currently does not exist.
Charles III will probably in due course recreate the title and bestow it to Prince William, but for now there is no such thing as a “vacant” title of Prince of Wales. 2A02:8440:2140:B411:E910:E39B:8556:1BB1 ( talk) 20:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Neither of these positions is correct. The title has merged with the crown because it's holder now also holds the crown; the title still *exists*, however, as a subsidiary title of the King's.
The Prince of Wales is the same person it was 12 hours ago: Charles. QueerAsFolkPunk ( talk) 21:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to edit this, but I can't... but someone posted for Charles, King of the UK: "8 September 2022 acceded to throne as Charles III" ... last I checked and correct me if I'm wrong, but Charles' regal name has yet to be revealed. Could someone edit this? Thanks! — Fleacollarindustry ( talk) 17:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
It was revealed, possibly before your objection was made. Yitz711 ( talk) 00:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The section "Roles and responsibilities" makes reference to the "current" Prince when according to the rest of the article, the position is no longer active as it has been merged into the crown. Mckenzie Weir ( talk) 05:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The citation does not support that the position was “merged with the crown”. The position is currently vacant and the article should be updated to reflect that. 2601:18D:77F:6FA0:ECAC:6F87:3EC6:AAC9 ( talk) 16:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
He’s Prince of Wales now 142.113.63.149 ( talk) 20:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Charles III created him Prince of Wales during his speech today - Sept 9, 2022
The legal process noted in the article is that the King will need to issue Letters Patent creating William as Prince of Wales. This could potentially happen at his Accession Council meeting. However as Charles is the King, nobody is likely to argue with him on legalities until he signs the paperwork and makes it official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.123.235 ( talk) 22:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Confirmed in speech by Charles III. 99.227.215.190 ( talk) 17:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The source of the announcement is King Charles III, who would have to be considered a reliable source as he is the one who can legally make the appointment - he made the announcement in a recorded broadcast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.123.235 ( talk) 22:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The introduction should only include general informations about the origins of the title and its current holder. Other information, such as the English/British rules of inheritance, subsidiary titles and the movement to end the title should be kept in their own sections. Maria0215 ( talk) 18:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
The petition Web site is at the moment blacklisted, I think in error. I've asked for the site, or the particular page, to be whitelisted; in the meantime: "petition was launched calling for the abolition of the title. [1]"
Best wishes, Pol098 ( talk) 17:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Whyt is Edward VI listed as Prince of Wales. He was never installed as Prince of Wales and is not listed as such on the official Royal Family website https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/titles-and-heraldry QPLondon ( talk) 19:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
See this earlier discussion on the archives talk page: /info/en/?search=Talk:Prince_of_Wales/Archive_1#The_man_who_later_became_Edward_VI_should_be_in_the_list.
Edward VI may never have been invested as Prince of Wales. The ceremony appears to have been planned to take place right before he became king, but he was Prince of Wales, per official royal documents and correspondence that refers to him as such. The investiture ceremony (which could have been also referred to as a "creation" in the 16th century) is not essential, and in the 16th century, a Prince of Wales could be created simply by a witnessed verbal declaration by the monarch. Wikiman86 ( talk) 01:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
To cite from the earlier discussion:
So, Edward VI WAS, at one time, Prince of Wales, and all sources to the contrary are deriving their information from the same original error, which is Edward VI's own hand.
Early in his reign Edward wrote of a ceremony cancelled because Henry VIII died and Edward became King. Edward's writing referred to that ceremony as his "creation" as Prince of Wales. Some will wrongly insist that this word "creation" be taken at its MODERN face value, and will say that if the creation was planned, but cancelled because of Henry VIII's death, then Edward was never "created" (in our modern sense) Prince of Wales, which means (in modern English) that he never WAS Prince of Wales.
The mistake lies in taking that word "creation" at its face value when there's so much evidence to the contrary and a simple explanation for Edward's choice of the word "creation". The simple explanation is that the 9-year-old King just wrote the wrong word, or that in the English language of his day the usage of the words "creation" and "investiture" were not as distinct as they are today. That which we would call the "creation" of a Prince of Wales is no ceremony -- it's just the decree of the Monarch. But the thing being cancelled WAS a ceremony. Ergo, the thing being cancelled would be called, in TODAY's English, the "Investiture" of the Prince of Wales, NOT the "creation". Investitures occur for a Prince of Wales only after that person is CREATED Prince of Wales. We know that the Investiture for Edward was planned because he refers to its cancellation (although he uses the word "creation"). Since the Investiture for Edward was planned, and an Investiture is planned only for a person who is already created Prince of Wales, Edward must already have been Prince of Wales at that time. QED.
The "abundant evidence to the contrary" referred to above is the usual correspondence we would expect to find in which Edward prior to being King is referred to as "the Prince of Wales", for instance in a document written by Henry VIII while Edward was still an infant.
See also this source by Professor J. L. McIntosh., which discusses creating and investing a Prince of Wales: http://www.gutenberg-e.org/mcintosh/appendix-c.html Wikiman86 ( talk) 01:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I understand that Prince William is now the Prince of Wales since 9 September 2022, after King Charles III announced his creation as such in his first speech as king. While Charles III didn't explicitly mention the title of Earl of Chester in his speech, can we safely assume that Prince William is also now Earl of Chester as well as Prince of Wales (since Wikipedia article on the title Earl of Chester mentions that since the late 14th century the earldom has been granted along with the title of Prince of Wales as a subsidiary title), or is the earldom of Chester now vacant? Just wondering what people's thoughts are. Thanks. Wikiman86 ( talk) 14:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
"On 8 September 2022 upon the death of Elizabeth II, the title-holder, Prince Charles, became king.[1] The following day, King Charles III bestowed the title upon his elder son, Prince William, Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge.[2][3]" - Is this really neccessary in the opening paragraphs ? Surely this is like including this statement every time a Prince of Wales acquired that title. We know he's Prince of Wales from the later table.-- HuwWilson652 ( talk) 22:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
There are duplicate sections about Owain Glyndwr and not enough explanation about the Princes of Gwynedd and subsequent Prince of Wales title. This has been ignored and could be corrected and improved. Cltjames ( talk) 07:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Think it should be clarified in infobox that emblem is used by British holder of title and previously English holder. The native Welsh princes didn't use it. Titus Gold ( talk) 14:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
We have William created Prince of Wales the day after his grandmother's death, when Charles announced his intention, but it appears the process was only formalized in February of 2023: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4290979 . What is the actual date of creation? -- Jfruh ( talk) 17:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
The first three examples under this section heading are not specific to the title. While they are valid objections, should they be in a different article? Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
...is irrelevant to fictitious. It needs to talk how Llywelyn the Great first assumed the title and how it was deployed by the Aberffraw princes between the 1220s and the Edwardian conquest. It doesn't have that - instead it's about, well I don't really know what. There's a particularly odd statement (cited to Maund but without page numbers) that "The native use of the title 'Prince of Wales' appeared more frequently by the eleventh century". DeCausa ( talk) 16:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I've tried to home in on a balanced view of this item, but I feel the topic is a bit petty, and does not belong in this article at all, but unless other editors think it's pertinent to the title PoW, perhaps it should go in the article about William? Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why is there an insistence for the inclusion of the personal arms of the English/British princes but the arms of the native Princes is removed? There needs to be a consistency here.
Seems to be a blatant Wikipedia:Neutral point of view issue. Titus Gold ( talk) 13:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Yesterday I added a series of "better source" templates [6] because (and this is a general problem with history sections written by Titus Gold), the sourcing is to newspaper articles and the BBC history website. Writing an encyclopaedic article based on history articles for newspaper readers is a particularly worrying practice. The BBC articles are better, but they are still a tertiary source. Someone has written a bespoke summary from secondary sources for the BBC website. The BBC has a duty of balance that the newspapers don't have, but per Wikipedia policy, we should be using secondary sources, so I added the templates.
Titus Gold's response was to mark up a whole bunch of other references in the titles and roles section
[7] and then again elsewhere
[8] but I find the reason given, The current source is insufficiently reliable (
WP:NOTRS)
opaque. These edits look
WP:POINTy. Why are these not reliable sources? The second set of additions make sense, except this one which is not even a reference:
The Glyndŵr arms were also used as a banner, carried into battle against the English. better source neededThis banner is a symbol of Welsh defiance
Those three in that second edit were against information Titus Gold had restored (see section above) and indeed there are newspaper article references in there that are still not marked, as I had deleted them and the deletion was reverted. However it is not clear why text about Charles performing ceremonial roles on behalf of the Queen, sourced from the prince of Wales website, is not a reliable source for that information. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 08:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I removed what I think was an irrelevant subsection yesterday on "arms". Titus Gold reverted that (along with other content he keeps reverting) in this edit: [10]. There is information about the coat of arms of Llywelyn the Last and Owain Glyndŵr only. This information is on their respective pages, and are personal arms. I do not see why that is relevant or necessary, when we already link to their pages. Thoughts? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
There are plenty of citations stating the use of feathers for heir apparent (not POW)- And yet we are still waiting. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 21:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
The badge is technically the badge of the heir apparent regardless of whether the Prince of Wales title is held or not.No explanation of what badge is being talked about or what is the connection with the Prince of Wales. Ridiculous. DeCausa ( talk) 10:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I've added images of Edward II becoming Prince of Wales, the "honours" of the principality of Wales, Black Prince feathers as well as Llywelyn and Glyndwr images.
For some reason, images of Llywelyn/memorial and Glyndwr are being removed. Not sure why this is. Thanks Titus Gold ( talk) 14:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Not sure why this explained addition has been reverted. Seems to be quite clearly outlined in the book "Owain Gwynedd Prince of the Welsh".
The first Welshman known to have used the title Prince of Wales was Owain Gwynedd in the 1160s. He initially used the title King of Wales in letters to the king of France and then made the change from king (or "rex") to prince (or "princeps") to reflect his position as the unquestioned leader of Wales. According to Roman law, "princeps" referred to the sovereign ruler of a country. Some historian suggest the title change was made to snub Henry II of England. [1] [2] [3] Titus Gold ( talk) 17:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
First Prince of Wales: Owain Gwyneddwhen I just quoted a section from a book that casts doubt on that seems... bold! The text:
the change was made to reflect his position as the unquestioned leader of Wales, as according to Roman law, "princeps" referred to the sovereign ruler of a country.is speculation. It is speculation that has been made, but it is exactly what I was referring to when I said about being careful about making assertions - particularly where we know that Bleddyn ap Cynfyn was installed to be a compliant vassal, and that the princes in general were vassal rulers. We simply can't assert things about 'unquestioned leaders' whose leadership very much was questioned by the events of history. Once again this drifts into an ahistoric POV by very selective curation of the sources. Also, I am mindful of the other discussion here, and the maintenance tag now added to the page, and I think they have a point. Why are we spending so much time on the hostory of the 13th century, whithout spending any time on the other history of the princes? This is all covered in other pages that can just be linked from here. Keep it concise. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
the evidence which survives hardly provides the means for any elaborate study of the Welsh princes’ titles. He then looks thoroughly at the evidence and posits two theories as to why the term prince was adopted. The first theory is that it was imposed by the Normans, and he specifically suggests Henry II. On this he cites T. Jones Pierce who
suggested that the change may have been due to pressure exerted by Henry II on the leading rulers of Wales to drop the title of king thus enabling him to assert the principle of the English Crown’s superiority and its political overlordship.However he then presents a second theory that the title of prince was adopted by the Welsh themselves, a deliberate decision. For this he cites English usage that retained "rex" but also the styling of Welsh rulers as "regulus", a use of the Latin diminuative in mockery of the "little kings". His theory, then is that the Welsh chose to style their rulers as princes. He says:
This accords well with the view that Rhys and his fellow rulers, at the behest of Henry II, set aside all pretensions to regal status in return for confirmation of their landholdings. It seems that during the twelfth century the native chroniclers were tending increasingly to acclaim only their greatest rulers brenin or rex and then only as an epithet of greatness to be dispensed at death as a mark of respect and for past deeds should they warrant titular distinction. By the thirteenth century this practice had ceased completely
References
I think I recall there being mention of the feathers emblem on the royals' website whilst Charles was Prince of Wales. There doesn't seem to be evidence of it being used by William on the website. I accepted your reasoning for this @ Sirfurboy that we assume the use has continued. I wonder whether we can find evidence to show if the emblem is still in official use or if it has in fact been dropped in an official capacity? I can't seem to find any good evidence either way. Titus Gold ( talk) 17:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
The point is moot now, but this morning I did look at the 4 sources that Titus Gold pasted regarding his issues with the feather emblem use. As I mentioned, I lost my reply, but I had done the reading, so I am going to respond to them here, partly because there is an element of something that we might use, albeit clearly not the POVy edit that was being asserted. The lesson, of course, is that if you let people have time to do the research, before engaging in an edit war, you might find some common ground! In any case, Titus Gold posted four URLs. As is usual, it appears he merely googled these and probably did not even read them. I did, though. Despite the lack of page numbers given, I found the passages being referred to. We can dismiss two of them out of hand:
Pages 30-31. This is the most strident piece, but the section is entirely unsourced. Written by Hector Bolitho, a journalist and novelist. It is not a history text nor an authority. It is a personal portrait of the Duke of Windsor. No good as a source.
Page 1123. Again the information is unsourced. It is also tertiary.
The first source,
page xxxvii, has:
And, I must add, that the ostrich-feathers have not, as they never have had, any heraldic connection with the principality of Wales, notwithstanding their intimate association with the Prince of Wales in his capacity as Heir Apparent.
P.S.-I have much pleasure in adding, in the form of a postscript, the substance of a passage which occurs in the number of the new weekly serial, the "King of Arms," published on Saturday last, in an article on "The Royal Ostrich Feathers Badge borne by the Prince of Wales."
It has been shown that the Ostrich Feathers are not the Crest ' of Wales; nor are they the Crest,' but they are the Badge' of the Prince of Wales, by his Royal Highness borne as Heir Apparent, and without any association with his title of Prince of Wales' derived from his Principality of Wales. His Principality, consequently, has neither directly nor indirectly given to the Prince of Wales his Ostrich Feather Badge. This, however, does not by any means imply that the Prince may not concede to his Principality a right to associate his ostrich feathers with the armorial insignia of Wales. Should it be the pleasure of his Royal Highness, the armorial shield of the Principality of Wales might have its lion and dragon supporters, each holding erect a single ostrich feather, without either coronet or difference, but with the motto ICH DIEN upon an escroll. Thus, while reviving an early usage, Heraldry would draw more closely the tie that unites the Prince with the Principality of Wales."
Nov. 17, 1873.
C. B. [That is Charles Boutell ]
So the first thing to say is that this very old source is describing objects in the Montgomeryshire Collection, and this passage is about the Prince of Wales feather emblem in one of the pieces. Boutell, a noted victorian gentleman antiquarian writes this as a letter and includes this postscript, but note that this is not based on his research, but rather on something he read the week prior in "King of Arms". The author is unnamed, the provenance unclear. It is not a useful source for the claim. Yet it is also interesting that what he is really saying is that there is no link between the principality and the feathers. That is his point here. He does not doubt that this is the badge of the prince of Wales, the heir apparent, and so, he says, the prince of Wales can, as he so wishes, lend it to the principality.
But what of the remaining source? Page 108:
The most prominent device is the recurrence of the badge of the heir apparent, commonly called “the Prince of Wales’ crest” or “‘the Prince of Wales’ feathers.” Neither of these expressions is precisely correct, since the badge (which is not a crest) is borne by the heir apparent to the throne, who happens to be the Prince of Wales. Fox-Davies explains: “The badge of the eldest son of the Sovereign, as such, and not as the Prince of Wales, is the plume of three ostrich feathers, enfiled with the circlet from his coronet” (CG 458; see Illus. 5-G)
This is the best reference because it actually gives us provenance, and that provenance is Fox-Davies, which would count as an authority. It even gives the page number, and if we had started there, things would be so much clearer. So, let's look at Fox-Daves.
the Prince of Wales is the only one who rejoices in the possession of officially assigned badges. The badge of the eldest son of the Sovereign, as such, and not as Prince of Wales, is the plume of three ostrich feathers, enfiled with the circlet from his coronet. Recently an additional badge (on a mount vert, a dragon passant gules, charged on the shoulder with a label of three points argent) has been assigned to His Royal Highness. This action was taken with the desire to in some way gratify the forcibly expressed wishes of Wales, and it is probable that, the precedent having been set, it will be assigned to all those who may bear the title of Prince of Wales in future.
This is our WP:RS. This will be so much better than that newspaper article. So what do we do with it? Well, Fox Davies does agree that the feathers are the badge of the eldest son of the sovereign. There is nothing about the Duke of Cornwall, and the badge is also the badge of the prince of Wales according to Fox-Davies. It is his by dint of being the heir apparent, but as the prince of Wales is the heir apparent, it is the badge of the prince of Wales. The prince of Wales is the only one who rejoices in the possession of officially assigned badges. Yet there is a second, recent badge described here, and that is as prince of Wales, if assigned. We might mention that. (although if everyone feels like me, we might also just leave the article to rest for a while ;) ) Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 23:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
References