The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 01-04-2009, 11:00 AM
magnik's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 3,681
The title of PoW is granted to the hair apparent to the reigning monarch of the UK. So PoW means CP. Something like with the Spanish Prince of Asturias.
The Royal Family > Royal titles > Style and titles of The Prince of Wales

Prince of Wales - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crown prince - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-05-2009, 03:33 PM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maike View Post
Hello, I am from Germany and quite new here. I have got a question. Charles bears the title Prince of Wales along many more. But why isn't he called Crownprince of the UK?
The title Prince of Wales has traditionally been granted to the heir of the British throne since 1301, when Edward I completed the conquest of Wales and gave the title to his son, the future Edward II.

It is a title that must be created for the eldest son of a monarch or eldest male descendant, and is granted at the pleasure of the sovereign. It is not automatically granted at birth. The same is true for investing the Prince of Wales with the ancient Earldom of Chester.

Because of this, not all English kings held the title of Prince of Wales. A more recent example is that of George VI. He was Duke of York until his brother's abdication, and was never invested as Prince of Wales.

The eldest son of the British monarch is automatically invested with the Duchy of Cornwall, the Duchy of Rothesay and the Earldom of Carrick in Scotland, and the title of Lord High Steward and Prince of Scotland.

The Prince of Wales title may only be invested in the heir apparent, who must be the eldest male in line to succession. It may not be created for a female, and has never been held by a female in her own right.

Another recent example of this is Queen Elizabeth II, who also never held the title of Princess of Wales. Females in Great Britain are considered "heirs presumptive", because they may be displaced by any future sons born to the sovereign. They are never considered "heirs apparent".

I suppose before investiture as Prince of Wales, the heir of the monarch could be termed the "Crown Prince", but I don't believe that term has ever had popular use in Britain.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-05-2009, 05:21 PM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
That was part of my idea: if it is politically opportunate, could the Welsh Assembly ask the new king to keep his title of Prince of Wales or could parliament in London declare that Charles still holds the title of Prince of Wales in addition to being king of the UK?
The title of Prince of Wales must be created for each male heir to the throne, because if the heir subsequently inherits and becomes Sovereign, the title then merges with the Crown. From that point forward, the title invested in the man who is now monarch ceases to exist. There is no further Prince of Wales until it is invested in the next male heir.

This title is in the gift of the Sovereign and may only be granted by the Sovereign. It is held separate from any inheritable titles of the heir, precisely because the title is destined to merge with the Crown, and the investiture reserves the special status of Wales within Great Britain. Even if a Prince of Wales dies without becoming King, the title goes back to the Crown, and may only be re-invested as the gift of the reigning Sovereign.

If, for instance, Prince Charles pre-deceases the Queen, then the title "Prince of Wales" would have to be re-created for Prince William, even though he is currently known as Prince William of Wales. There is a distinction between being a "prince of Wales" and "The Prince of Wales". Officially, Charles is HRH The Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales. If and when William is invested, he will be HRH The Prince William, The Prince of Wales.

It is also important to remember that females, even if they are the next in line to the throne, may not be invested in the Prince of Wales title.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
It really is not important if there is a duke of "York" or "Edinburgh" or "Gloucester" as there is no duchy and never was historically.
That depends on your meaning that these titles were never duchies historically. A peerage was originally considered to be a landed title, from which the holder can derive or collect income, and has authority over the people living in his landed estates.

The Duchy of York was first created in 1385, and was a landed dukedom until it merged with the Crown in 1461, when the holder became Edward IV. There have also been several Earls of York in medieval times. Since 1461, it has traditionally been the title for the second son of the Sovereign.

The Duchy of Gloucester was also first created in 1385, and was a landed dukedom. The first three dukes all died without issue, and afterwards it was considered unlucky, and was not granted again for 150 years.

The Duchy of Edinburgh has existed since 1726, and to all intents and purposes, is not a dukedom in the sense of the two others, however, it was supposedly a source of income for the initial holders of the title.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
But there was a principality of Wales like there was a kingdom of England and one of Scotland.
This is quite true, there was a Principality of Wales, but there were very few men that were actually "Prince of Wales" and recognized by the English Crown. The principality was divided into several separate kingdoms, and each had their own prince - the Prince of Gwynedd, for example.

Prior to the Norman Conquest, the most powerful Welsh ruler of any given time was known as "King of the Britons". In the 12th and 13th centuries, the title evolved to that of Prince of Wales.

The last native Prince of Wales was Owain Glydwr, who was proclaimed Prince in 1400. His short reign ended in 1409.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
But what about Wales? At the moment Wales is treated as a conquered country who was included into England. While I don't believe that Wales and the UK will go their separate ways in the near future, it would be a nice gesture by Charles to declare himself the heir of the Welsh princes by keeping his title, and not behave as the heir of their conquerors.
Unfortunately, Wales is a conquered country, just like Ireland, and Ireland never even had a special designation. The Sovereign, of course was known as the Lord of Ireland until the time of Henry VIII. Prior to that, the country was under the guardianship of the Pope. When Henry broke away from the Catholic Church, he declared himself King of Ireland, as did subsequent monarchs. But for the Irish, there has never been a "Prince of Ireland" as there has been a Prince of Wales.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain consists of England, Scotland and Wales. Even if there were a Welsh Parliament, I doubt they would request that the Prince of Wales keep his title after becoming King. And I doubt the British Parliament would overturn centuries of tradition, even if such a request were made.

The special status of Wales is that they "hold the heir of the Crown", and they do so exclusively. The Prince of Wales is not the Crown Prince of Scotland, nor is does he hold a title in Northern Ireland. Hereditarily speaking, he doesn't hold an Irish title at all.

At least with Wales, they have their own Crown Jewels, which are separate from the Crown, and known as the Honours of the Principality of Wales. Wales has historically retained its special status within the kingdom of Great Britain, and likely will continue to do so.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-09-2009, 01:29 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,352
The discussion of the Duke of Edinburgh title has been moved to the Royal Dukes and Ducal Titles thread.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-13-2009, 11:06 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,732
Wales does not exclusively hold the heir of the Crown. The British heir and eldest son is also Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Prince & Great Lord Steward in Scotland, reflecting the title and historical styles of the heir to the Scottish throne. In England, he is Duke of Cornwall as the duchy's revenues and lands are exclusively reserved for the heir to the throne.

The title "Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester" reflects the bestowing of the lands to the King's son after being conquered in 1301. While it is accompanied by historical tension and sensitivities of sovereignty, it is inextrictably tied with a United Kingdom of England, Wales and Scotland.

The tradition of bestowing the title to the heir will continue unless Parliament agrees to grant Wales special status separate from the State as represented by the Crown. Not likely to happen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-24-2009, 03:48 AM
RoyalistRiley's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 502
I think Jo of Palatine has the right idea - the Prince of Wales should reflect their position in the country, not be just another title. The creation of a separate Prince of Walesor Prince of Scotland would be similar to how the Queen reigns separately as Queen of the UK to Queen of Australia, Queen of Canada, Queen of New Zealand etc, while it would also serve as a reminder of Wales's former status as a principality.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-03-2010, 01:53 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,500
# 23
Just a small correction about the UK:

There is the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" - that's official :-)

"Great Britain" consists of England, Scotland and Wales.

"Northern Ireland" is a province within the UK.

The progress of DEVOLUTION:

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have devolved governments, each dealing with "devolved" and "reserved" matters, e.g. Armed Forces is a reserved matter, whereas Education is a devolved matter.

Each of the three want to make further progress, e.g. by obtaining fiscal autonomy, or additional devolved matters.

Of the three, Scotland has made the most progress so far, and, at the time of writing, the UK government has offered to transfer a range of devolved matters to the Scottish Government. Watch this space....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-07-2010, 06:27 PM
CrownPrincess5's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Beverly Hills, California, United States
Posts: 2,545
Does anyone know why Charles' title is "Prince Charles" instead of "Crown Prince Charles" like the rest of the heirs of the European thrones. Is it different because that's how its always been?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-07-2010, 08:15 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,148
His title Prince of Wales indicates that he's the heir to the throne. There's no need, therefore, of his also being called Crown Prince Charles or The Crown Prince. That title seems to be a European convention, not a British one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincess5 View Post
Does anyone know why Charles' title is "Prince Charles" instead of "Crown Prince Charles" like the rest of the heirs of the European thrones. Is it different because that's how its always been?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-07-2010, 09:57 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincess5 View Post
Does anyone know why Charles' title is "Prince Charles" instead of "Crown Prince Charles" like the rest of the heirs of the European thrones. Is it different because that's how its always been?

In Spain the heir has the title Prince of Asturias and in Britain when the heir is the eldest son of the monarch and thus the heir apparent he holds the title of Duke of Cornwall etc and the title Prince of Wales is also added to indicate that he is the heir. These two titles can only be given to the heir.

The Cornwall title can also only be held by the eldest son of the monarch. If Charles were to die during the present reign then William could be created Prince of Wales but could never be Duke of Cornwall as he wouldn't be the Queen's eldest son and heir at the same time. The eldest surviving son of the Queen would be Andrew but as he isn't the heir he couldn't be Duke of Cornwall either but if the dreadful happened and both William and Harry died along with their father in the present reign then Andrew would automatically become Duke of Cornwall as he would then be the eldest living son of the monarch and the heir.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-06-2011, 09:48 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Plymouth, United Kingdom
Posts: 1
As good a "Prince of Wales" that he is.

At the end of the day. The title should rightly belong to the Welsh poeple.

There were no sons, therefore, to inherit the title of Prince of Wales, but as the daughter of Prince Llywelyn, Gwenllian was the heiress of the Princes of Gwynedd and the royal family of Aberffraw. She was the Princess of Wales and as a result represented considerable danger to the king of England. Were it not for their close family ties it is likely that the king would have arranged for her too to be killed.

Instead:

Edward I ordered the Princess of Wales called "Gwenllian" to spend the remainder of her life in a Gilbertine priory at Sempringham in Lincolnshire. Edward kept the title of 'Prince of Wales' for the crown, bestowing it upon his son Edward who was crowned in Caernarfon in 1301 aged 17 years.

Gwenllian spent her life in the flat fenlands of eastern England rather than amongst the mountains of the land of her birth and, in all likelihood, she never knew the sounds of her native tongue. Throughout her time at the priory the English never succeeded in correctly pronouncing her name; she is listed as 'Wencilian' in the priory's records and it seems that she herself used the signature 'Wentliane'

According to the priory's records, Gwenllian, daughter of the Prince of Wales, died in 1337 having spent fifty-four years in the order. It seems therefore that Edward succeeded in his aim of ensuring that the heiress of Llywelyn the Last would play no part in the history of Wales. She merits no more than a brief mention in history books and until recently remained forgotten in Sempringham. However, following a campaign by the late Captain Richard Turner of Caernarfon and Angharad Thomas, in 1993 a memorial plaque of Welsh slate was laid bearing the following inscription:

In memory of
Gwenllian
Daughter of the last Prince of Wales
Born at Abergwyngregyn 12.6.1282
Died at Sempringham 7.6.1337
Having been held prisoner for 54 years So you see, as good as prince that he is. To us Welsh, he is not the "Real" prince of wales. After what his family before him did to our Princess of Wales. I think its a disgrace! There should be a public apology from the Queen to the Welsh poeple!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-06-2011, 10:12 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Quote:
After what his family before him did to our Princess of Wales.
I of course would not speak on behalf of a Welsh citizen and I certainly wouldn't tell them what to feel or think but I do think if the above statement is a sentiment shared throughout Wales, then in this instance I think perhaps some people should really try and move on.

I don't see why the Queen should make an official apology for it either. What would that achieve exactly? National healing? I certainly think that to be taking it a bit far.

Pro or anti monarchy support isn't going to be built upon an apology for the mistreatment of a Welsh princess a long long time ago. The opinions of the Welsh state, one should hope, would be reflective upon current day events and ideologies. Matters that are of real importance to a 21st Century Wales.

Is it really felt that an apology would make much of a difference to many? And besides those that have an interest in the monarchy, would many even really care?

Maybe there will need to be a revisal of the title at some point, and perhaps even making it extinct, if there was a substantial push from Wales on the matter.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-06-2011, 10:17 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,105
I doubt anything Bethlouise said can be proven to be solid fact. The welsh people seem happy for the time being with Her Majesty, there is a thread discussing welsh independence.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-02-2011, 06:56 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chesterfield, United Kingdom
Posts: 3
I know that several formal apologies have been made for things which happened in the distant past but I am not really sure how much good they do or how much difference they make, for either the person apologising (who has not personally been involved in the action they are apologising for) or the people they are apologising to (who were also not directly affected by the actions of people who lived so long ago). It the Queen were to apologise to the Welsh for her English ancestors role in conquering Wales, should she in turn apologise to the English people for her Norman ancestors role in conquering England? Or would we be better asking the French President for an apology as current head of state for Normandy ...

Anyway, to get back on topic, whilst I understand Jo of Paletiine's idea that the Welsh Princes of Wales were the sovereign, whilst currently the title is held by the heir of the Principality's ultimate sucessor state, I think that to attempt to restore this would be a serious mistake and would open a huge can of worms.

Prior to the Acts of Union in 1707, England was ruled by the King of England and Scotland by the King of Scots. Therefore unless these titles were also renewed and the monarch of the UK was styled Elizabeth II, Queen of England, Queen of Scots, Princess of Wales and XXXXX (whatever the equivelent Northern Irish title would be), why should the monarch be sovereign of England, Scotland (and Northen Ireland) as Queen of the United Kingdom, simply because the heir to the thone still holds the same titles as the heirs to the thrones of these as separate kingdoms, but sovereign of Wales seperately? Not to mention that even these titles were successors to titles such as King of Mercia, King of the Picts and King of Powys.

I suppose the ultimately fair thing to do would be when the Duke of Cambridge becomes heir to the throne, he should simply be given the title HRH The Crown Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; that way the heirs titles would reflect the monarchs title in being created especially for the sucessor state - unfortunately that would mean losing hundreds of years worth of history and tradition, so I don't see it happening!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-02-2011, 03:28 AM
RoyalistRiley's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 502
[QUOTE=Lord Pemberley;1247457]

Prior to the Acts of Union in 1707, England was ruled by the King of England and Scotland by the King of Scots. Therefore unless these titles were also renewed and the monarch of the UK was styled Elizabeth II, Queen of England, Queen of Scots, Princess of Wales and XXXXX (whatever the equivelent Northern Irish title would be), why should the monarch be sovereign of England, Scotland (and Northen Ireland) as Queen of the United Kingdom, simply because the heir to the thone still holds the same titles as the heirs to the thrones of these as separate kingdoms, but sovereign of Wales seperately? Not to mention that even these titles were successors to titles such as King of Mercia, King of the Picts and King of Powys.
QUOTE]

I think the idea of the Queen being the Queen of England, Scotland, Wales etc. may be arising in the near future, especially with the plans for the Scottish Independence referendum
__________________
God Save the Queen! Advance Australia Fair!
"Life is a game in which the player must appear ridiculous" - The Dowager Countess of Grantham, Downton Abbey
http://twitter.com/FutureSirRiley
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-24-2011, 01:20 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Richmond, United States
Posts: 6
"Another recent example of this is Queen Elizabeth II, who also never held the title of Princess of Wales. Females in Great Britain are considered "heirs presumptive", because they may be displaced by any future sons born to the sovereign. They are never considered "heirs apparent"."

I am just curious...this is a question that is so far out in left field but as I said, I am just curious.

To begin with, did Queen Elizabeth II actually become Queen upon her fathers death or was she an "Acting Queen" (not sure whatelse to call her) until the actual coronation??

Now for my "what if" question. IF Queen Elizabeth II was actually the Queen and by some shear miracle, the Queen Mother found herself pregnant after the death of King George VI, and gave birth to a son 6 or 7 months later, would Queen Elizabeth II have to turn over the crown to her baby brother? If she was only acting Queen, would the crown be given to the infant? Who would act as King until the baby became of age?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-24-2011, 02:43 PM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 2,815
She was Queen the moment her father died. I can't comment on your other questions.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-24-2011, 03:14 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Richmond, United States
Posts: 6
Thanks KittyAtlanta. I wasn't exactly sure how that worked :)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-24-2011, 05:24 PM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 4,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by swtnsassy View Post
Now for my "what if" question. IF Queen Elizabeth II was actually the Queen and by some shear miracle, the Queen Mother found herself pregnant after the death of King George VI, and gave birth to a son 6 or 7 months later, would Queen Elizabeth II have to turn over the crown to her baby brother? If she was only acting Queen, would the crown be given to the infant? Who would act as King until the baby became of age?
A similar scenario was discussed some time ago in this thread; basically, a similar situation has never happened, but the 1830 Regency Act stated that if King William IV died childless he would have been succeeded by his niece Victoria, but also that if at his death his wife Queen Adelaide was pregnant and then she gave birth to a child, then this child would succeed Victoria (who would have became Queen in the meantime).
So, back to your question, it's likely that Elizabeth would have immediately succeeded her father as Queen; then if her mother gave birth to a son, this son would have succeeded to Elizabeth as King; if a daughter, Elizabeth would have remained Queen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-13-2013, 12:06 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post

The royal titles do not belong to just one person. There were different Prince and Princess of Wales, Princess Royal, Dukes of York, Gloucester, Kent, etc. There is no reason for Charles to not name William as PoW.
I agree that there is no reason for Charles not to name William as Prince of Wales, in fact, I hope he does so as soon as possible after Charles ascends the throne. I wonder if William wants to be Prince of Wales. I have no reason to think he doesn't except that he may be concerned about subjecting Catherine to even more comparisons to Diana. William may decide he doesn't want to be compared to Charles. Charles has held the title for almost 40 years now and many people still associate that title to Diana. It will be interesting to see what William decides to do.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
prince charles, prince of wales, styles and titles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Prince Antonio, Princess Christine and Family BrazilianEmpire The Imperial Family of Brazil 116 Yesterday 04:55 PM
Talaith Aberffraw - the Royal House of Gwynedd and Wales James Frankcom Other Non-Reigning Houses and Historical Monarchies 48 04-29-2014 07:18 PM
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 926 04-15-2014 11:41 PM
Succession to the Crown Act 2013 Felica British Royals 329 08-12-2013 06:29 PM
Prince William and Catherine Middleton Possible Titles Jacknch Prince Harry and Prince William 1855 04-29-2011 03:01 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events diana dutch royal history engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman pom pregnancy prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:37 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]