Prince of Wales - Title, Succession and Wales


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
It seems to me that the Diana Years are already fading in people's minds. Her contemporaries (myself included) are now in or approaching their 50s. We and our children--those born before or about 1990--will be the last generations who'll remember her as a flesh-and-blood human being and not as someone from history. For those born afterward, Catherine will be the only woman called The Princess of Wales in living memory. The reporters and writers are aging as well. As a new generation takes over, I don't think there'll be these constant references to Diana with how Catherine looks/acts/espouses causes. As for the Welsh people's opinion of an Englishman bearing the title "Prince of Wales", has this ever been popular?
 
That is very true! Go up to any 13. 14. 15. 16. 17 or even 18 and 19 year old and ask them about Diana and most of them will have never heard of her or knew who she was and a lot of them probably wouldn't really care.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is there opposition from the people of Wales to the heir to the throne being titled The Prince of Wales? If the the majority of the Welsh object to the use of the title, he could use Duke of Cornwall.
 
That is very true! Go up to any 13. 14. 15. 16. 17 or even 18 and 19 year old and ask them about Diana and most of them will have never heard of her or knew who she was and a lot of them probably wouldn't really care.

I disagree, anyone younger than 13 this year perhaps might not recognise the name but anyone older probably would. I'm 20 and I know who she is, without being a monarchist. I remember telling my mum when I was 4 that the television wasn't working because there were no kids shows on as all everyone was showing was news about Diana. Social media, the newspapers and TV play a big part and Diana in some way or form is still around.

Is there opposition from the people of Wales to the heir to the throne being titled The Prince of Wales? If the the majority of the Welsh object to the use of the title, he could use Duke of Cornwall.

Nothing that is openly voiced, however I imagine it's the kind of thing that would only appear when the title is questioned.

I disagree. Diana isn't the most famous holder - she's just the one we think of now because she's the most recent holder
I disagree, I guess it comes down to your definition of famous. Diana is IMO the most famous woman to have held the title Princess of Wales. You say Caroline, Alexandra or Mary on the street to anyone and they would go who, even if you put a Queen in front of it? Say Diana, and you got a different story. Whilst times change and people forget, at the moment and, personally I can't see Catherine using the title to her advantage, Diana is going to remain that way.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure young people, especially in Britain, have heard of Diana and know who she is, but they haven't been subjected to daily news about Diana throughout their lives. When I lived in Europe, Sky News had a Diana story every day and the tabloids were full of her. It was less intense in the U.S., but People magazine readers certainly knew intimate details of her life. I don't know how frequent the stories in Europe are now, but it has to be less frequent.

I think it is safe to say that the younger generation probably doesn't have the same emotional investment in Diana as my generation did; and the emotion investment of the older generation has faded as time has gone by and will continue to decline. When the time comes, Charles and William will take the public mood into consideration and make their decision. You really can't ask for more than that.
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But Alexandra and Mary were PoW (and Queen) well over 100 years ago ... Caroline was PoW well over 200 years ago. From what I understand, Alexandra in particular, was very much the "Diana of her day", beautiful and popular. Diana will probably be remembered in 100-200 years as these three ladies are remembered, and probably as part of the triangle that was her marriage to Charles. We remember her as an individual now because she's still very much of a generation that's alive and will be so for several more decades.
 
Charles should consult Wales before offering POW to William, but I see no reason as to why them or William would refuse it.
How might you suggest that Charles "should consult Wales"? A referendum? An opinion poll? Advice of the Welsh Secretary? A vote in the Welsh Assembly?

To create him PoW without considering the feelings towards the monarchy within Wales would be disrespectful to the Welsh. If support for the monarchy or the title isn't high in Wales then the title shouldn't be used.
Are you talking about:

a) the general feeling of the Welsh people towards the monarchy?;
b) the specific view of the Welsh people as to whether the heir to the throne of the UK should be referred to as the Prince of Wales?; or
c) how the Welsh might feel about being part of the United Kingdom per se?

The Welsh nationalist movement is really not very active, so I really do not think this is an issue in the real world. The only place I come across it is on TRF.
That said, for Diana's legacy to be considered in all of this is absurd. There is no avoiding the comparison for Catherine - title or no title - and Diana didn't create the title. She was not the first Princess of Wales, she shouldn't be the last (at least, the last to hold and use the title).
I completely agree with you, this has nothing to do with Diana.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How might you suggest that Charles "should consult Wales"? A referendum? An opinion poll? Advice of the Welsh Secretary? A vote in the Welsh Assembly?

How about going with all four.
 
Charles should consult Wales before offering POW to William...
How might you suggest that Charles "should consult Wales"? A referendum? An opinion poll? Advice of the Welsh Secretary? A vote in the Welsh Assembly?

No Diana does not own the title, but she has been the most famous holder of said title. You hear the words and you think of Diana, you don't think of Mary or Alexandra or Caroline. You think of Diana. Doesn't matter where you go, who you ask, what year you ask, the answer will be the same.

Thats just the matter of time..that time.. When you ask anyone about PssOW 40 years from now they will definitely say Kate..Then it will be Mrs George and so on.. 20-30 years is extremely short period in the BRF timeline.
In the first 20-30 years of 20th century Edward VII and Alexandra were instantly identified with The Wales titles..Then for next 2-3 decades it was Edward VIII..even after his abdication he had been identified with that title for long..

The last 20-30 years the title is definitely Diana's..But you ask someone after a 100 years..Diana will be as ancient/irrelevant as Alexandra/mary/Caroline is for us now..

IT IS ALWAYS THE INSTITUTION...NEVER EVER THE INDIVIDUAL..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Times have changed since Charles was created Prince of Wales in 1958 and invested in 1969.

There is a vocal Welsh republican movement - might be small but it is there. They have their own assembly now that they didn't have in 1958 or 1969 - because of demands for a greater say in their own nation.

I do think Charles will consult the Assembly as the representatives of the Welsh people and make a determination after that consultation.
 
Okay, so say the Welsh decide that they would prefer the title of Prince/Princess of Wales not continue and the BRF accepts this. What will the heir's title be? Crown Prince/Princess? Duke/Duchess of Cornwall?
 
Okay, so say the Welsh decide that they would prefer the title of Prince/Princess of Wales not continue and the BRF accepts this. What will the heir's title be? Crown Prince/Princess? Duke/Duchess of Cornwall?

It's not like the heir is lacking in titles now. As heir, Charles is:

1. Prince of Wales
2. Duke of Cornwall
3. Duke of Rothesay
4. Earl of Chester
5. Earl of Carrick
6. Baron of Renfrew
7. Lord of the Isles
8. Great Stewart of Scotland

If he wasn't PoW then he would normally be Duke of Cornwall (hence why Camilla uses that title), but he would continue to use Duke of Rothesay in Scotland, as happens now.
 
Okay, so say the Welsh decide that they would prefer the title of Prince/Princess of Wales not continue and the BRF accepts this. What will the heir's title be? Crown Prince/Princess? Duke/Duchess of Cornwall?

Duke of Cornwall, I suppose, as the eldest son and heir of the British Sovereign automatically receive this titles. I don't like the idea of Crown Prince of the United Kingdom, I don't know why.

But I believe The Duke of Cambridge will be created Prince of Wales in due time.
 
Okay, so say the Welsh decide that they would prefer the title of Prince/Princess of Wales not continue and the BRF accepts this. What will the heir's title be? Crown Prince/Princess? Duke/Duchess of Cornwall?


It would be such a horrible slap in the face of not only the BRF, but for the very idea of United Kingdom... And I wonder The King or The PM will risk it..
Basically I dont think there is nothing to involve the Welsh people/representatives in this..
It is just a tradition and only a tradition in the BRF.. The said Prince will have absolutely no role in running Wales, unless he does something of his own out of charity..
So whats the relavance in consulting them..And why stop with Wales.. Will they also consult the Scottish when all the subsidiary titles like Earl of Chester/Merioneth/Inverness etc etc are given as part of making someone Duke..or making Edward the next Duke of Edinburgh..
The Prince of Wales is also the same..Simply a ceremonial thing..They wont even have to go to that castle and do all the show..
 
Charles should not bow to pressure because of a few hardcore Nationalists/Republicans.
 
Charles should not bow to pressure because of a few hardcore Nationalists/Republicans.
I agree if it's a few Nationalists/Republicans. However, if the Welsh are more strongly Republican at the time they should consider that.

Likewise, the feelings of the Scots should be considered in the event of making Scottish Royal titles as well. In ignoring the people that live in those countries and not considering their feelings when creating Scottish or Welsh (or Northern Irish) titles the BRF is simply acting the role of the conqueror and oppressor.

Isn't His Royal Highness also The Prince of Scotland? Prince of Scotland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Um... Yes.

If I'm reading the wiki page right, it's Prince and Great Steward of Scotland. I was reading Charles' title off of his page on thepeerage.com which I'd happened to have open at the moment and doesn't include the "Prince and" part of the title.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Charles should not bow to pressure because of a few hardcore Nationalists/Republicans.

I agree. Those people are disgusting.

From Wikipedia:

In recent opinion polls the majority of Welsh people have remained in favour of the monarchy with 70% plus support the usual figure; a poll in North Wales in 2003 by the Daily Post found 80% of respondents wanted Prince William to become the next Prince of Wales. Welsh speakers are no less likely to be monarchist, with a BBC Wales poll in 1999 finding that 73% of Welsh speakers want the position of Prince of Wales to continue. A BBC poll to mark the 40th anniversary of the investiture showed that 58% of the Welsh population were in favour of a similar public ceremony for Prince William when Charles becomes king.

Investiture of the Prince of Wales - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
The BRF should NEVER ever have to ask permission to create titles for parts of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They BRF should NEVER ever have to ask permission to create titles for parts of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

First of all, I didn't say they should ask permission. I said they should consider the feelings of the people living within those countries - Scotland, Wales, England, and Northern Ireland are all separate countries within the larger country (and realm) of the UK.

If there is a clearly strong republican movement in Scotland and the BRF continues to create royal titles in Scotland despite that it is acting the role of the conqueror. Likewise with Wales or Northern Ireland - I'm not saying that there is a strong republican movement in any of these places (or that there isn't), just that if there is one then the monarch should take that into consideration when creating titles. If the people of a country oppose the creation of titles within that country then it is inappropriate for the monarch to disregard it and continue doing so. The monarch, and the BRF, serve at the will of the people and needs to consider the desires of the people, as well as the various traditions in place, when creating titles.
 
If a MAJORITY in the constituent nations of the United Kingdom wish to vote for independence they have the vote.... and parties to vote for.

Therefore they have the capacity to end the tradition of the usage of non English names as titles for members of the reigning family. Currently more than 70% are content with the status quo. There is no need to waste money consulting them. If they are unhappy at the time a decision is made, they will be vocal enough to ensure they are consulted !
 
Last edited:
:previous:
You are never going to have universal support for anything. There is always going to be people who object to things. I think most people assume William will be made Prince of Wales when Charles is King. The heir to the throne has been created Prince of Wales for centuries. It has the weight of history behind it.
 
They BRF should NEVER ever have to ask permission to create titles for parts of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

If there is severe objection to something, then yes they should. The monarchy is not autocratic you know. Just because they've been chosen by God doesn't mean they can abuse their people. If Wales didn't want a Prince of Wales, then it shouldn't happen.
 
This entire should he/ should he pow title is ludicrous . It mirrors the 1910 situation of EVII/Alix & GV/MAY. Anyone who has read queen Mary's letters to HRH the grand duchess Augusta knows exactly how infuriated she was that the title was withheld for 11 months .

HM George v In turn only waited a month for his son Edward VIII, .
 
....

Likewise, the feelings of the Scots should be considered in the event of making Scottish Royal titles as well. In ignoring the people that live in those countries and not considering their feelings when creating Scottish or Welsh (or Northern Irish) titles the BRF is simply acting the role of the conqueror and oppressor.

The Scotts werent conquered by the English ... James of Scottland became also English King and in his Person and forthwith England & Scottland became united ... so you could say Scottland gained England. I can't understand from where comes the notion, that Scottland is 'lower' than England... only because Goverment is in London?

And I also don't understand the issue of the Welsh people - since Bruce (whatever his name) it's also a 1000 years that those to parts belong to gether.

Does Cornwall makes a fuss? Or Kent, Devon, Sussex, York etc? So why the Scotts and Wales?

With the Irish it's another matter, sadly they where treated badly by the english for to long a time..
 
How about going with all four.
What about the Scottish and Irish titles? Would you like referendums for those as well? By that same vein, should we elect the next King?

...There is a vocal Welsh republican movement - might be small but it is there...
IMO, the Welsh nationalist movement is hardly a mainstream issue in the UK, and continues to be very much a fringe issue. Surely the question even the Welsh nationalists will be asking is whether they wish to continue as part of the UK, or would like independence and have Wales as an independent country. That the heir to the UK throne is entitled The Prince of Wales is, IMO, a secondary question.

If we look at the Scottish nationalist campaign championed by the SNP, they would like Scotland to leave the UK and become an independent country, whilst at the same time they have clearly indicated they would retain the current monarch as the monarch of an independent Scotland.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is just my supposition but I think if asked of the Welsh people, they might feel that investing William as The Prince of Wales in a way would be like investing one of their own. Will and Kate lived there, worked there, interacted with the people there for what? Three years?.

Although it was primarily for military reasons, over their tenure there, we did get a glimpse of how the local people were protective of the couple. It was rare that any kind of tabloid stories came out and local residents very much respected their privacy.
 
Just saying...

The Crown, a metal weight that signifies a mental weight, is the single most coveted item in the history of man. All kinds of darkness covers the history of pretty much every Crown in existence...
Things done to gain, retain, and pass on the "rights". Wars, bogus stories, blackmail, you name it... If held to the full light of the Duty of Royalty, not a single person alive, including myself, would be able to place a crown on our heads.

IMO lol:lol::flowers:
 
The Crown, a metal weight that signifies a mental weight, is the single most coveted item in the history of man. All kinds of darkness covers the history of pretty much every Crown in existence...
Things done to gain, retain, and pass on the "rights". Wars, bogus stories, blackmail, you name it... If held to the full light of the Duty of Royalty, not a single person alive, including myself, would be able to place a crown on our heads.

IMO lol:lol::flowers:

Welcome AP :welcome: Too bad the lust for power often gets in the way of all that duty.
 
English Princes of Wales From 1301:
Edward (son of Edward I and Eleanor of Castile)
Created Prince of Wales on 1st February 1301, aged 16, in Lincoln. Acceded as Edward II on 8th June 1307

Edward (son of Edward III and Philippa of Hainault)
Created Prince of Wales on 12th May 1343, aged 12, at Westminster
Died on 8th June 1376

Richard (son of Edward, Prince of Wales and Joan of Kent)
Created Prince of Wales on 20th November 1376, aged nine, at Havering
Acceded as Richard II on 22nd June 1377

Henry (son of Henry IV and Mary de Bohun)
Created Prince of Wales on 15th October 1399, aged 12, at Westminster
Acceded as Henry V on 20th March 1413

Edward (son of Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou)
Created Prince of Wales on 15th March 1454, aged five months
Invested on 9th June 1454, at Windsor
Died on 4th May 1471

Edward (son of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville)
Created Prince of Wales on 26th June 1471, aged seven months, at Westminster
Acceded as Edward V on 9th April 1483

Edward (son of Richard III and Anne of Warwick)
Created Prince of Wales on 24th August 1483, aged 10
Invested on 8th September at York Minster
Died on 9th April 1484

Arthur (eldest son of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York)
Created Prince of Wales on 29th November 1489, aged three
Invested on 27th February 1490, at Westminster
Died on 2nd April 1502

Henry (second son of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York)
Created Prince of Wales on 18th February 1504, aged 12, at Westminster
Acceded as Henry VIII on 22nd April 1509

Henry (eldest son of James I and Anne of Denmark)
Created Prince of Wales on 4th June 1610, aged 16, at Westminster
Died on 6th November 1612

Charles (second son of James I and Anne of Denmark)
Created Prince of Wales on 4th November 1616, aged 15, at Whitehall
Acceded as Charles I on 27th March 1625

Charles (son of Charles I and Henrietta Maria of France)
Declared Prince of Wales c. 1638-41, in London, aged c.8-11
Acceded as Charles II on 30th January 1649

James (son of James II and Mary of Modena)
Created Prince of Wales c. 4th July 1688, aged three weeks, at St James's
Forfeited title when James II was declared to have abdicated, on 11th December 1688

George (son of George I and Sophie Dorothea of Brunswick-Luneburg and Celle)
Created Prince of Wales on 27th September 1714, aged 30, at Westminster
Acceded as George II on 11th June 1727

Frederick (son of George II and Caroline of Brandenburg-Anspach)
Created Prince of Wales on 8th January 1729, aged 21, in London
Died on 20th March 1751

George (son of Frederick, Prince of Wales and Augusta of Saxe-Gotha)
Created Prince of Wales on 20th April 1751, aged 12, in London
Acceded as George III on 25th October 1760

George (son of George III and Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz)
Created Prince of Wales on 19th August 1762, aged one week, in London
Acceded as George IV on 29th January 1820

Albert Edward (son of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert)
Created Prince of Wales on 8th December 1841, aged four weeks, in London
Acceded as King Edward VII on 22nd January 1901

George (son of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra)
Created Prince of Wales on 9th November 1901, aged 36, in London
Acceded as King George V on 6th May 1910

Edward (son of King George V and Queen Mary)
Created Prince of Wales on 23rd June 1910, aged 16. Invested on 13th July 1911, at Caernarfon Castle
Acceded as King Edward VIII on 20th January 1936

Charles (son of Queen Elizabeth II and The Duke of Edinburgh)
Created Prince of Wales on 26th July 1958, aged nine; invested on 1st July 1969, at Caernarfon Castle.
Acceded as King Charles III on 8 September 2022

William (son of King Charles III and Diana, Princess of Wales)
On 9 September 2022, the King Charles III announced the creation of William as Prince of Wales
 
Back
Top Bottom