Prince of Wales - Title, Succession and Wales

[Jo of Palatine]

I've been thinking for quite some time about how Charles might feel about his title of "Prince of Wales". It's a rather unfortunate title when you think about the history of its creation and Charles is a historian. When he was invested as Prince of Wales in the sixties, he was actually studying history, so I'm sure he is much more aware of the historic background than most other people, probably including his own mother.

Charles surely is realizing that the monarchy nowadays has to have an integrating feeling to it if it is to survive the next fifty years. So how does a controversial title like "Prince of Wales" fit into the next decades? For Welsh traditionalists the title is not that of their souverain, but a title once newly created for the heir of the man who had their last souverain prince tortured and slain in public. Charles as "The Prince of Wales" is a constant reminder of the way Wales once lost its souverainity - a contraproductive symbol in times of national movements in all parts of the UK.

I believe there were polls that claimed that a majority of Scots would still ask Charles to become their king if the kingdom of Scotland separated from its union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland - he is generally accepted as the Duke of Rothesay and Prince of Scotland as even apart from the Act of Succession which barred catholic Stuart descendent from claiming the throne he is nowadays the next in line from both catholic and protestant Stuart lines when you look at the laws valid before the Act of Succession became law.

But would the Welsh ask Charles to still be their prince? I doubt it. Okay, through his Tudor ancestry (Owen Tudor to Margaret Tudor, queen of Scots), Charles inherited a bit of the blood of the last souverain princes of Wales.

Does this interests Charles at all? My guess is that he realizes this. That he may not be too happy with the fact that his English sons are called prince William and prince Harry "of Wales" as if "Wales" was the same as "York" or "Wessex" from the way people feel there about their history.

So my idea is that Charles might want to keep the title of "Prince of Wales" after ascending to the throne with his wife Camilla as "Princess Consort of Wales" in addition to his being the king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. And if this is not possible for political reasons, that he will at least refrain from creating his son William "Prince of Wales" but let him be HRH The Prince William, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, prince of the UK, prince of Scotland, prince of Wales. (plus all the other titles). The fact that the title "Duke of Rothesay" still exists and is used in Scotland shows IMHO that the idea of a kingdom of Scotland is still alive for the Royal Family of the UK. Why treat Wales differently, then? Why not acknowledge that the princes/ses of the UK and of Scotland are princes/ses of Wales as well? All of them?

(Dear Mods, if there is a thread you believe this post to be more suitably placed, please merge the threads then. Thank you. )

[CasiraghiTrio]

Charles will have to play it like everything else, by ear, I imagine. Wales may not be satisfied forever with their puppet assembly in Cardiff, may want to be independent entirely of London and have their own fully fledged Parliament and their own head of state. They won't want some Lions-loving English Prince William paying a weak show of "support" for their Welsh rugby to be invested as Prince of their country.

My question is this: If the Prince of Wales title goes away, would it take with it the earldom of Chester? That would leave, what? The Dukedoms of Cornwall and Rothesay, Lordship of the Isles, Barony Renfrew, and the Great Stewardship and Principality of Scotland.

One more question: Charles, if I remember, has only a bachelor's degree in history. He does not have a master's degree, does he? With only a bachelor's degree, he cannot really be a historian, can he? In the US, historians actually have the full doctorate, which I am working towards.... but obviously Charles has studied extensively in many subjects, so I'm not trying to say he isn't educated. Far from it. He would give many, including me, a run for the money, certainly.... He's brilliant. I just mean, I think he is not a formal historian, unless the term in Britain is used more loosely.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

With only a bachelor's degree, he cannot really be a historian, can he? In the US, historians actually have the full doctorate, which I am working towards.... but obviously Charles has studied extensively in many subjects, so I'm not trying to say he isn't educated. Far from it. He would give many, including me, a run for the money, certainly.... He's brilliant. I just mean, I think he is not a formal historian, unless the term in Britain is used more loosely.

Hm... I think we can conclude that Charles is able to work intellectually towards information if he wants it. He has had some formal training on coping with historical sources (at least this should have been included in his studies at university). He has undoubtedly the best access to all kind of sources about British history if he chose to have it( including the most secret state archives). Plus he could call the best experts to aide him.

Thus I think we can call him a full-fledged historian, even if he doesn't fit the formal accademic definition of it (which is something I don't know about at the moment).

[Elspeth]

A lot of traditions don't make sense in the context of the modern world, but Charles is such a traditionalist that that might not matter to him. He may feel it more important that the Prince of Wales title carry on (especially in the hope that the Princess of Wales title gets to be associated with someone other than Diana) than for 21st-century reality to be taken into account. He hasn't shifted himself very far to pay attention to the Welsh - he could have bought his country house in Wales when he was young but he bought it in Gloucestershire, and he seems to be far more interested in his position as Duke of Cornwall. But I somewhat doubt that that will make much difference when it comes time to decide whether to create his heir Prince of Wales.

One thing that does interest me is whether, when Harry gets his dukedom when he marries, it'll include an Irish title. Prince Andrew's did, but Prince Edward's didn't (or a Scottish one, for that matter). Given the way feelings have run so high for so long about the Irish question, I wonder if they'll be phasing out Irish titles as subsidiaries to royal dukedoms.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

Charles will have to play it like everything else, by ear, I imagine. Wales may not be satisfied forever with their puppet assembly in Cardiff, may want to be independent entirely of London and have their own fully fledged Parliament and their own head of state. They won't want some Lions-loving English Prince William paying a weak show of "support" for their Welsh rugby to be invested as Prince of their country.

My question is this: If the Prince of Wales title goes away, would it take with it the earldom of Chester? That would leave, what? The Dukedoms of Cornwall and Rothesay, Lordship of the Isles, Barony Renfrew, and the Great Stewardship and Principality of Scotland.

One more question: Charles, if I remember, has only a bachelor's degree in history. He does not have a master's degree, does he? With only a bachelor's degree, he cannot really be a historian, can he? In the US, historians actually have the full doctorate, which I am working towards.... but obviously Charles has studied extensively in many subjects, so I'm not trying to say he isn't educated. Far from it. He would give many, including me, a run for the money, certainly.... He's brilliant. I just mean, I think he is not a formal historian, unless the term in Britain is used more loosely.

The US system is different to other countries.

I regard myself as an historian when I only had a Bachelor's degree and my Masters degree made no difference.

As our kids at high school are doing the sort of research papers that were only required from Honours and Masters degree students when I was at uni after Charles but not long after, it is clear that standards are different. When I went to uni and did both my Bachelors and Masters degrees use of secondardy sources was the norm and accepted but now our school kids must use primary sources even from the start of High School and in Year 12 do original research on a topic of their choosing. That is something that I have never really done (but am doing this year with the kids in the class just for fun).

Many people can be historians with no formal qualifications at all and many are - particularly those researching and writing their family histories. A degree doesn't an historian make but the ability to research and analyse, synthsise etc the information gained.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

One thing that does interest me is whether, when Harry gets his dukedom when he marries, it'll include an Irish title. Prince Andrew's did, but Prince Edward's didn't (or a Scottish one, for that matter). Given the way feelings have run so high for so long about the Irish question, I wonder if they'll be phasing out Irish titles as subsidiaries to royal dukedoms.

Do you think the Dukedom of Gloucester, when it loses the royal status, is to drop the earldom of Ulster then?

The thing is, Prince Charles may not have a choice about the future of the Wales title. He likes tradition, but he will be constitutionally bound to take the advice of his prime minister, won't he? I believe the whole reason for the 1969 Investiture pomp and ceremony was political. The Queen, I think, was quite happy to just declare in the 1950s that her son was Prince of Wales, but it was the ministers who wanted a big ceremony to please the Welsh and make them feel all cozy about the UK....

Thanks for explaining about the non-US definitions of historian. Yes, here in te US a historian means a professional that has the title of Doctor of History. Just initials to write after the name.....

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

Do you think the Dukedom of Gloucester, when it loses the royal status, is to drop the earldom of Ulster then?

It can't be dropped by any means but an Act of Parliament.

[BeatrixFan]

I assume we will see a change to this as devolution takes hold more strongly. The Scots seem well and truly on a road to independance and it's only natural that the Welsh will want to follow.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

One thing that does interest me is whether, when Harry gets his dukedom when he marries, it'll include an Irish title. Prince Andrew's did, but Prince Edward's didn't (or a Scottish one, for that matter). Given the way feelings have run so high for so long about the Irish question, I wonder if they'll be phasing out Irish titles as subsidiaries to royal dukedoms.

Quite a few people I know are far from happy that Andrew was created Earl of Inverness. His visits there are few and far between.

[BeatrixFan]

Be fair, there's no golf courses in Inverness.

[BellaFay]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

He hasn't shifted himself very far to pay attention to the Welsh - he could have bought his country house in Wales when he was young but he bought it in Gloucestershire, and he seems to be far more interested in his position as Duke of Cornwall. But I somewhat doubt that that will make much difference when it comes time to decide whether to create his heir Prince of Wales.

In 1969 after the Prince had spent a crucial term away from Cambridge at the University of Wales learning Welsh, the Earl of Powys did offer the Queen Powys Castle as Prince Charles's Welsh residence for the future. But the Queen turned it down without consulting the Prince. He only found out about the offer when Jonathan Dimbleby dug the offer up from the Royal Archives at Windsor. He did bother to learn Welsh + he employs several Welsh-speaking people on his staff + he visits Wales several times a year (including tomorrow). What more is he expected to do condifering he has plenty of other places around the UK that his many titles oblige him to visit at least once a year.

[CasiraghiTrio]

I believe Prince Charles extends himself into Wales as much as he is able to do. I think he, as King, would be inclined to make his heir apparent The Prince of Wales because that is traditional and he likes tradition, as Elspeth said. The problem, I suspect, might arise from a political aspect that is beyond his control.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by BellaFay

In 1969 after the Prince had spent a crucial term away from Cambridge at the University of Wales learning Welsh, the Earl of Powys did offer the Queen Powys Castle as Prince Charles's Welsh residence for the future. But the Queen turned it down without consulting the Prince. He only found out about the offer when Jonathan Dimbleby dug the offer up from the Royal Archives at Windsor. He did bother to learn Welsh + he employs several Welsh-speaking people on his staff + he visits Wales several times a year (including tomorrow). What more is he expected to do condifering he has plenty of other places around the UK that his many titles oblige him to visit at least once a year.

One thing he could do was to have had a home there. He didn't have to wait for someone to offer him a home; he didn't wait to be offered Highgrove, he went out and bought it. The fact that the Queen turned down one home for him without his knowledge doesn't stop him finding one for himself.

He spent one term at Aberystwyth, which isn't long enough to really learn Welsh for an English-speaking adult. He learned enough to get by in a speech or two. Sure he visits Wales; so do all the working royals at some time or other, but he doesn't seem to give it any particular priority. He makes no particular secret of how much he loves Scotland; he's pretty silent on the subject of loving Wales. And considering the history of how the Prince of Wales title was conferred by the king who destroyed Wales as an independent nation, there isn't a great deal of positive association with it in Wales.

[Madame Royale]

So, if at any time Wales became an indapendant state from the British Crown, what would the alternative style for the heir to the throne be? What could it be?

[Royal Fan]

Earl of London!

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

So, if at any time Wales became an indapendant state from the British Crown, what would the alternative style for the heir to the throne be? What could it be?

The inherited title of the heir to the throne is Duke of Cornwall and unless Cornwall became independent that title will be inherited by the eldest son of the monarch.

Presumably, if the legislation is passed to allow for equal inheritance rights for males and females, then the legislation would also include the right of the eldest child to hold the Cornwall title.

After all it is the Cornwall title that provides the Prince of Wales with his income not the Wales title.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

I believe Prince Charles extends himself into Wales as much as he is able to do. I think he, as King, would be inclined to make his heir apparent The Prince of Wales because that is traditional and he likes tradition, as Elspeth said. The problem, I suspect, might arise from a political aspect that is beyond his control.

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? After all, from the moment Charles ascends the throne till the declaration of William as next prince of Wales, there is no Prince of Wales anymore which makes no sense to me in case the title of "Wales" is more than just another title like all the others. 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. But there was a principality of Wales like there was a kingdom of England and one of Scotland. So IMHO, if Wales was treated like England and Scotland, there should be the rule: the king/queen/prince(ss) is dead, long live the king/queen/prince(ss). By rights, not Charles should be Prince of Wales but the queen should be The Princess of Wales among her other titles. In this case it would make sense that her heir would take her second highest title (which is that of Wales) as his courtesy title. But then he would automatically become prince of Wales but not "The Prince of Wales", as this is the king's title.

IMHO this would give Wales the feeling that their principality still exists in a way or is at least acknowledged as having been an independant principality after the Norman Conquest of England. Neither Scotland nor England have been conquered after the Norman conquest - the Scottish king inherited the Crown of England in 1601.

Apart from the Crown of the UK, of which he is legally the next heir due to the current law governing the succession, Charles Mountbatten-Windsor's claim to both ancient crowns goes back to his ancestress Elizabeth Stuart, who was born a princess of Scotland and became a princess of England as daughter of the Scottish king who inherited England.

Today all more senior lines from James VI./I. Stuart are not longer existing or without legal claim if the laws are applied that were valid at the time these lines emerged. When Henriette Marie Stuart of England and Scotland, granddaughter of James VI./I. and daughter of Charles I. married the brother of the French king, noone in England and Scotland was interested in any French child of hers ever to become king or queen of England and Scotland. Thus the princess had to give up her rights to both crowns which means that even though there is still progeny of hers around, this line is not able to claim the crowns of the kingdoms of Scotland and England (and of course not the Crown of the UK, whose line of succession is ruled by the Act of Succession). Their claim does not exist and that's how they (the current Head of the House of Wittelsbach Duke Franz and his eldest daughter, Sophia, wife of Liechtenstein's heir) see it, too, even though some "Jacobites" see it differently.

Thus, even the most ardent fighters for "independant" kingdoms of England and Scotland have no other choice than to accept that the queen of the UK is rightfully queen of England and queen of Scotland. 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.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

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 question that keeps plaguing my mind is this: How long will Wales be happy with their Assembly but ultimately answerable to London? It would be understandable if they wanted to have their own Parliament like Scotland.

That said, even if Wales gains a measure of independence, they could theoretically still have a 'Prince of Wales' as in the past. In this way, they could keep their nominal link to the UK royal family and the traditional "role" for the Heir to the Throne would survive.

[BellaFay]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

One thing he could do was to have had a home there. He didn't have to wait for someone to offer him a home; he didn't wait to be offered Highgrove, he went out and bought it. The fact that the Queen turned down one home for him without his knowledge doesn't stop him finding one for himself.

He spent one term at Aberystwyth, which isn't long enough to really learn Welsh for an English-speaking adult. He learned enough to get by in a speech or two. Sure he visits Wales; so do all the working royals at some time or other, but he doesn't seem to give it any particular priority. He makes no particular secret of how much he loves Scotland; he's pretty silent on the subject of loving Wales. And considering the history of how the Prince of Wales title was conferred by the king who destroyed Wales as an independent nation, there isn't a great deal of positive association with it in Wales.

In 1969 he wouldn't have had the money to purchase a property in Wales as he was financially tied to the Queen. He wasn't allowed access to the funds from the Duchy of Cornwall until 1973 & even then he had to have financial help from the Queen to buy Highgrove in 1980. His divorce settlement to Diana also wiped him out financially. According to what his financial advisor told the Financial Times about 5 years ago he had had to sell every share he had, including ones bequeathed to him by Queen Mary, to finance it. So it is only recently that he has been able to buy a property. + The Duchy of Cornwall Management Act prevents him from using Duchy money to finance expenditure that doesn't benefit the Duchy in some way.
Granted 1 term to learn Welsh is not very much, but it was all that Cambridge University would allow him from his History Degree. As it was his tutors & the Master at Trinity College were very annoyed about it as they thought that the whole Investiture had been created to benefit the Labour Party's standing in Wales and that the Prince was being used for party political purposes.

[Maike]

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?