Prince of Wales - Title, Succession and Wales

[Bethlouise]

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:

[SIZE=+1]In memory of[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Gwenllian[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Daughter of the last Prince of Wales[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Born at Abergwyngregyn 12.6.1282[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Died at Sempringham 7.6.1337[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Having been held prisoner for 54 years[/SIZE] 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!

 

[Madame Royale]

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.

 

[Lumutqueen]

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.

 

[Lord Pemberley]

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!

 

[RoyalistRiley]

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

 

[swtnsassy]

"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?

 

[KittyAtlanta]

She was Queen the moment her father died. I can't comment on your other questions.

 

[swtnsassy]

Thanks KittyAtlanta. I wasn't exactly sure how that worked

 

[MAfan]

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.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

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.

 

[Dman]

I have no doubt that William is preparing himself for his future role as Prince of Wales and most likely will have no problem with his wife taking on the title and role.

 

[Osipi]

...many people still associate that title to Diana.

TBH, I can't think of any reason that Diana should factor into something that has been a part of the British monarchy for ages. I can think of reasons William would be created Prince of Wales and reasons perhaps not.

For: It gives continuity to the 40 some years of work Charles has put his blood, sweat and tears into. In my imagination, I half expect The Prince's Trust and Charles' patronages and causes to merge with The Royal Foundation under one big, strong umbrella.

Against: Charles may decide his reign most likely would not be long enough to create William Prince of Wales and decide to hold it in trust for Prince George in the near future.

Personally, at this time, I do think Charles will invest his oldest son as The Prince of Wales and be a very proud father doing so.

 

[Skippyboo]

We have seen this before after the long reign of Queen Victoria, Edward VII was a long serving Prince of Wales but he still named his son PoW. He had a short range of 10 yrs and was replace by George V who reign for 25 yrs.

The investiture of the Prince of Wales is a modern invention starting with Edward VIII and Charles's was a made for tv ceremony design by Lord Snowdon.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I, too, think that Charles would be very proud to invest William as Prince of Wales. The decision will be William's. I am in no way privy to William's thinking but, although I don't think Diana should factor into it, I can imagine that William would be a little reticent to have Catherine take a title so closely associated with Diana.

Regarding your point about the Prince's Trust and Charles' patronages merging with the Royal Foundation, to me that is a reason why William may choose not to take the title of Prince of Wales. William has his own interests and causes and may want to establish his own "brand" separate from his father's. I assume that William will continue many of his father's charities, but will he continue the Duchy of Cornwall Originals? I assume he will but he may want to put his energies into other causes.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

There is a discussion under the "Order of Precedence" thread that probably belongs here (I do try, moderators, honest) regarding whether William will be invested as Prince of Wales when Charles ascends the throne.

The "Princess of Wales" title existed for many generations before Diana, but I think the royal family--and Charles and William in particular--are very aware that the title is closely identified with Diana.

I can imagine William being concerned that Catherine would be mercilessly compared to Diana if (when) she takes that title. There are so many Diana comparisons and references now. Remember the reaction when Catherine choose to wear a blue dress on the day her engagement was announced, or the polka dot dress when she checked out of the hospital?

I believe that it is a very small number of people who make these comparisons. But they are not just on this forum, many of them are in the media and it is hard for the royal family to ignore them.

If William is reluctant to become Prince of Wales--and I don't know that he is--it may be a matter of timing. William may be less likely to become Prince of Wales immediately if Charles ascends the throne within 5 years, but he and Catherine may feel ready if it is more than 5 years from now.

Another possibility is that they may wait a few years after Charles ascends. That would give them an opportunity to continue to establish their own identities as working royals.

 

[Ish]

If William isn't created Prince of Wales I doubt it will have anything to do with whether or not he wants to be PoW or Diana's legacy.

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.

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).

What's more is given William's personal fondness for Wales I really can't see why he wouldn't want to be PoW.

 

[Lumutqueen]

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.

Very very very well said! If anything William appears to be a considerate person and he doesn't want to upset a quarter (or third) of his country.

I think starting from The Queen turning 90, Charles will start taking over Centanoph, Trooping The Colour, Opening The parliament, and finally Christmas Speech (in that order only..?) one each year..
Or maybe even earlier..

Why 90? If HM is capable of walking, talking and sitting down I see no reason why she can't do any of those things until she passes away.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Ish, you are correct that the popularity of the monarchy is Wales should be the major consideration. But to clarify, I don't think Diana's legacy should be a consideration, but I think it will be. There is a rabid group of Diana fans that can't be ignored. I tend to think there are more in the media than in the general populace. The disconnect is evident in the media hype of the film Diana versus the actual popular interest.

I'm just speculating. I am probably wrong.

 

[Lumutqueen]

There is a rabid group of Diana fans that can't be ignored. I tend to think there are more in the media than in the general populace. The disconnect is evident in the media hype of the film Diana versus the actual popular interest.

Major problem Camilla, Charles, William and Catherine has if they do the whole "we won't do this because it's associated with Diana", when does that excuse stop? It was appropriate for Camilla, but for Catherine it's illogical. If Catherine passes up on the title, does her daughter-in-law pass up on it too because Diana would be her grandmother in law?

The Daily Mail regularly had articles on the fashion aspect and the controversiality of the film, but you get that with every film. The new Emma Thompson or the new George Clooney has that. I'm not sure if it's different in the UK, but anyone who saw the premise of Diana would know it would be a flop.

Charles should consult Wales before offering POW to William, but I see no reason as to why them or William would refuse it.

 

[royalistbert]

Diana does not own the Princess of Wales title. One single woman does not own a title. It's bad enough that Camila has use lessers titles because it might offend a certain section of the public. To suggest that William should not be created Prince of Wales because there may be comparisons between his mother and his wife is quite pathetic. Isn't there already comparisons anyway?

 

[Ish]

Ish, you are correct that the popularity of the monarchy is Wales should be the major consideration. But to clarify, I don't think Diana's legacy should be a consideration, but I think it will be. There is a rabid group of Diana fans that can't be ignored. I tend to think there are more in the media than in the general populace. The disconnect is evident in the media hype of the film Diana versus the actual popular interest.

I'm just speculating. I am probably wrong.

I more meant in regards to the discussion on the other thread than your comment here.

You do bring up a really good point though. I don't think Diana's legacy will influence wether William wants to be PoW or whether Charles wants William to be PoW.

I can see Diana's legacy influencing the public commentary when William is in the position to become PoW though. It may all just depend on when the issue comes up though. If the Queen lives for another 20 years then the Diana speculation may have died down more. I would hope that 35 years past Diana's death things will have calmed down enough for people to move on a bit.

 

[tommy100]

I hope that Charles does invest William as Prince of Wales, if he, as Diana's son, doesn't take the title I think it will make it very hard for any future royals to use as it would always be implied that Diana's son didn't want it to be.
The biggest argument most people make it that William would feel it would invite comparisons between Diana and Kate (as Princess of Wales) but to be honest the media have already compared them in every which way so I don't think it could get any worse especially in aother 5 or 10 years.

 

[HighnessN]

Diana does not own the Princess of Wales title. One single woman does not own a title. It's bad enough that Camila has use lessers titles because it might offend a certain section of the public. To suggest that William should not be created Prince of Wales because there may be comparisons between his mother and his wife is quite pathetic. Isn't there already comparisons anyway?

I agree.
I also don't see any Diana fans having a problem with Catherine being PoW. They had a problem with Camilla whom they considered the "source of all of Diana's pain".
Diana's daughter-in-law they wouldn't have a problem with. But as Royalistbert has stated, the title belongs to the crown, not an individual person.

 

[Lumutqueen]

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.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

It will be interesting to see what William decides to do. As I said on the other thread, Charles has also stamped his own identity on the POW title. William may decide to establish his own identity before taking the POW title, or not. The title had been vacant for many years before Charles was given the title, so he really didn't have to compete with recent memories.

There is a question of what will happen with the existing POW charities. I am sure William acknowledges that they are all worthy, but I am sure he will want to establish his own priorities--and I think Charles would support him in that.

I'm only speculating but if I were William, I would want to wait a few years, see which charities stand on their own, and then take up the mantle (if the Welsh want him to). I would also be reluctant for my wife (if I had one) to take on the role of Princess of Wales. Diana didn't own the title, but she remains a beloved figure. I would shun the title until Catherine establishes her own identity as wife of the heir to the throne.

On the other hand, Catherine using the title will force some people to move on. Eventually, when they hear "Princess of Wales," they will start to think of Catherine rather than Diana. That has to be positive for the royal family.

 

[tommy100]

Also bear in mind that William served at RAF Valley and has learnt at least a few words of Welsh. All handy things for a Prince of Wales, certainly could suggest he and those aroud him think he may be Prince of Wales himself one day.

 

[Roslyn]

On the other hand, Catherine using the title will force some people to move on. Eventually, when they hear "Princess of Wales," they will start to think of Catherine rather than Diana. That has to be positive for the royal family.

Exactly. Diana is only so closely associated with the title "Princess of Wales" because she was the only Princess of Wales in living memory (well, apart from Camilla ); before Diana, there hadn't been a Princess of Wales since 1910. No-one still alive remembers when Queen Mary was Princess of Wales, and no-one who does not have a keen interest in modern British history will be aware that Queen Alexandra essentially "owned" the title since she was Princess of Wales for a whopping 38 years. In the wider, historical, context, Diana is just another place holder in a long line of place holders. Much like that ring, in the ordinary course of time Catherine will be the person associated with the title.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

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.

I think of Mary or Alexandra when I hear or see the word princess of Wales. I don't think of Diana.

 

[Ish]

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.

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 and one of the few to not go on to become Queen - when we think of Mary or Alexandra or Caroline it tends to be of them as Queen and not of them as Princess of Wales. Similar can be said of the many Princes of Wales - we don't typically remember George III or George V as Prince of Wales, we remember them as King.

In 50 years, once someone else has used the title it won't be Diana people think of as Princess of Wales - much like how in 50 years it won't be Charles people think of as Prince of Wales. Time moves on, perceptions change.

It will be interesting to see what William decides to do. As I said on the other thread, Charles has also stamped his own identity on the POW title. William may decide to establish his own identity before taking the POW title, or not. The title had been vacant for many years before Charles was given the title, so he really didn't have to compete with recent memories.

While I agree with the idea that it might be hard for William to establish who he is as PoW separate from his father's legacy, I have a hard time buying the idea that a 30+ year old man doesn't have an idea of his own identity. William is establishing that now, and I can't see how delaying the title will change things. Regardless of his status as PoW, once he is heir he'll be compared to his father as heir as well (that happens now already).

While Charles had the freedom to establish his own identity free of the legacy of a recent PoW - which, in a way his age when he became heir apparent and later PoW both would have helped and hindered that - if William is quickly made PoW he won't be the first one to be put in such a position. Most PoWs in the past were created such soon after becoming the heir apparent, and most of those whose creation as such was delayed were children when they became the heir.

Consider George V - his father was the PoW for 60 years, and he was created PoW within 11 months of becoming heir apparent. Edward VIII became PoW less than 2 months after his grandfather died.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Exactly. Diana is only so closely associated with the title "Princess of Wales" because she was the only Princess of Wales in living memory (well, apart from Camilla ); before Diana, there hadn't been a Princess of Wales since 1910. No-one still alive remembers when Queen Mary was Princess of Wales, and no-one who does not have a keen interest in modern British history will be aware that Queen Alexandra essentially "owned" the title since she was Princess of Wales for a whopping 38 years. In the wider, historical, context, Diana is just another place holder in a long line of place holders. Much like that ring, in the ordinary course of time Catherine will be the person associated with the title.

I agree, but the first few years will be full of comparisons. Many people still refer to the ring as Diana's but, I agree, sooner or later, it will be known as Catherine's ring.

William will be heir to the throne for a 15-20 years, if not longer. If I were William and Catherine, I would want to delay taking on the POW title for a few years. Becoming heir to the throne and his wife will be enough of an adjustment.

But I do see your point, the Diana comparisons will increase when Catherine becomes the wife of the heir, will settle down (I hope), but increase if she take the title of The Princess of Wales. Why not just get it over with.