The Monarchy under Charles

[Dman]

William and Catherine are getting ready for the role of heir apparent and consort. That does not necessarily mean that they'll be Prince and Princess of Wales. For all we know the Welsh could ask that the title not be recreated for William - after all, the title is really a symbol of the English conquest of Wales and the decimation of the Welsh royalty.

Trust me, Charles will invest William as the next Prince of Wales. The Welsh people will be happy having a new Prince and Princess of Wales. Yes, William and Catherine are getting ready to be King and Queen, but part of getting ready for those roles will be their new roles as Prince and Princess of Wales.

 

[Ish]

Yes, that is the reason. It required a decision to be made by Elizabeth to displace the tradition, and Letters Patent to put her desire into effect because it was not the norm. I have no doubt that Philip was very cheesed off about this, leading to his famous "I am nothing but a bloody amoeba" tantrum.

It is poorly worded though, and ambiguous. The literal meaning of the Letters Patent is that only those of her descendants who do not have the Royal style and title shall be known as Mountbatten-Windsor and that her children are of the Windsor family. But both Anne and Andrew signed their marriage register with the name Mountbatten-Windsor, probably to avoid a tantrum from their father. Their mother might have been the Monarch of the country and all those other realms, but they bowed to the feelings of their father rather than respecting their Queen's wishes, but I blame their mother because she chose to act as a wife rather than a Queen when it came to her husband. The variation to the 9th April LP only applied to descendants who do not have the Royal style & title. HM only did it to appease Philip. I've always felt she was weak-willed over that issue. If she wasn't going to stick to her guns, she should never have made the original declaration.

I make two distinctions in the House of Windsor (based on the archaic system of an individual taking their House from their father).

There is the House as a cadet branch of the Saxe-Coburgs and Gothas, which consists of the male-line descendants of George V.

Today that would be limited to the Queen, her cousins, and the children and some of the grandchildren of the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent.

Then there is the House as a cadet branch of the Glücksburgs, which consists of the male-line descendants of the Queen and DoE. This is also called the House of Windsor because of the Queen's 1952 LPs. That said, it could very well be named something else during Charles' actual reign, as the Queen can't really dictate the name of the House when her son is King.

I'd note as well that the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, as descendants of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert continues today through the descendants of Prince Leopold. They're not part of the House of Windsor as they weren't covered by the parameters of George V's 1917 LPs. Likewise, the House of Hanover continues through the descendants of George V of Hanover, Queen Victoria's cousin.

 

[Queen Camilla]

Charles is a serious, decent and admirable man. But he should renounce the throne in advance

Read more: To save the British monarchy, skip the Prince of Wales » The Spectator

Some people want a young person because they are popular.

The Queen could live another decade or two and neither William nor Catherine will be young.

If people want young and popular, let them go for the young and popular.
George has slipped off the chart of popularity and Charlotte has dropped to 4th place, a few months ago she was in 1st place.

So who should be the next monarch, currently Charlotte is the most popular so Queen Charlotte. Skip Charles, skip William, skip George. However, Charlotte rapid decline in the polls suggest.... oh well.... I guess it is back to Charles and Camilla as King and Queen.

No Prince or Princess of Wales as 40 or 50 something William and Catherine will be 'too old".

 

[LadyRohan]

Some people want a young person because they are popular.

The Queen could live another decade or two and neither William nor Catherine will be young.

If people want young and popular, let them go for the young and popular.
George has slipped off the chart of popularity and Charlotte has dropped to 4th place, a few months ago she was in 1st place.

So who should be the next monarch, currently Charlotte is the most popular so Queen Charlotte. Skip Charles, skip William, skip George. However, Charlotte rapid decline in the polls suggest.... oh well.... I guess it is back to Charles and Camilla as King and Queen.

No Prince or Princess of Wales as 40 or 50 something William and Catherine will be 'too old".

The line of succession to the Commonwealth thrones is not decided by opinion polling or asking for a show of hands.
When the Queens reign comes to an end, the Prince of Wales will ascend the thrones that have retained the monarchy within the Commonwealth. The Principality of Wales has been conferred onto the monarchs eldest son (heir) since 1301, and so it is not a wild guess that the Duke of Cambridge will be created Prince of Wales.

As has been said many times, there is always inherent hesitation when a reign comes to an end, but the Prince of Wales will be greeted warmly when he ascends and he is more prepared for the role than any heir has ever been.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Charles had to wait over 6 years before being created Prince of Wales so it is possible that he will make William wait - for how long we don't know but we do know that the instant Charles is King, William will add the Duke of Cornwall title and be the Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge (Duke of Rothesay in Scotland - and that title would be used regardless of whether he is Prince of Wales elsewhere).

 

[LadyRohan]

Charles had to wait over 6 years before being created Prince of Wales so it is possible that he will make William wait - for how long we don't know but we do know that the instant Charles is King, William will add the Duke of Cornwall title and be the Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge (Duke of Rothesay in Scotland - and that title would be used regardless of whether he is Prince of Wales elsewhere).

The Prince of Wales was 4 years old when his mother became Queen. That she waited until he was 10 to create him the Prince of Wales, and until he was 20 to invest him formally, seems more a factor of his young age and not a principle that will be followed as a rule. When the Prince of Wales ascends the thrones, his son and heir will be in his 30's or 40's, and there is no need for an extended wait.
Most likely it will take place a short, but appropriate time after the coronation of himself as King.

 

[Stefan]

Charles had to wait over 6 years before being created Prince of Wales so it is possible that he will make William wait - for how long we don't know but we do know that the instant Charles is King, William will add the Duke of Cornwall title and be the Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge (Duke of Rothesay in Scotland - and that title would be used regardless of whether he is Prince of Wales elsewhere).

If the Queen lives for another 10 or 15 years there could then be the possibility that Charles passes away before he creates William Prince oif Wales if he waits several years. I think he will probably create William Prince of Wales in time for the coronation.
It will be interesting how soon he will create Edward Duke of Edinburgh after his accession (given the fact that the prest DoE has passed away before the Queen).

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Prince of Wales was 4 years old when his mother became Queen. That she waited until he was 10 to create him the Prince of Wales, and until he was 20 to invest him formally, seems more a factor of his young age and not a principle that will be followed as a rule. When the Prince of Wales ascends the thrones, his son and heir will be in his 30's or 40's, and there is no need for an extended wait.
Most likely it will take place a short, but appropriate time after the coronation of himself as King.

Charles' wait was actually the longest from becoming eligible to be created Prince of Wales until the actual creation in history e.g. both George IV and Edward VII were Prince of Wales by the time they were christened as they were born to the reigning monarchs.

The precedence had been within a few months of accession or birth - the Queen broke that precedence.

Wales may not even want a prince anymore as well and that has to be a factor - whatever anyone else may desire of course.

 

[Queen Claude]

Yes, that is the reason. It required a decision to be made by Elizabeth to displace the tradition, and Letters Patent to put her desire into effect because it was not the norm. I have no doubt that Philip was very cheesed off about this, leading to his famous "I am nothing but a bloody amoeba" tantrum.

It is poorly worded though, and ambiguous. The literal meaning of the Letters Patent is that only those of her descendants who do not have the Royal style and title shall be known as Mountbatten-Windsor and that her children are of the Windsor family. But both Anne and Andrew signed their marriage register with the name Mountbatten-Windsor, probably to avoid a tantrum from their father. Their mother might have been the Monarch of the country and all those other realms, but they bowed to the feelings of their father rather than respecting their Queen's wishes, but I blame their mother because she chose to act as a wife rather than a Queen when it came to her husband. The variation to the 9th April LP only applied to descendants who do not have the Royal style & title. HM only did it to appease Philip. I've always felt she was weak-willed over that issue. If she wasn't going to stick to her guns, she should never have made the original declaration.

I am totally fine with the name of the British royal house being Windsor, and the Philip quote that gets my eye roll is, "I am the only man in the country not allowed to give his name to his own children" because if he was so gung ho about children taking their father's name then he would have adopted the surname of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg and not Mountbatten which comes from his mother's side of the family.

Having said that the 1952 declaration itself represented a break in tradition. Elizabeth II was from the House of Windsor, the name change was to come when Charles came to the throne which was hardly imminent and yet she made a decree that it was her "Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that my descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor" which my understanding came about because of disdain and/or distrust of Louis Mountbatten by a couple of formidable people, namely Queen Mary and Winston Churchill. I suspect that her action in 1960 was probably more of a genuine reflection of her desires than her action in 1952.

 

[Dman]

Charles' wait was actually the longest from becoming eligible to be created Prince of Wales until the actual creation in history e.g. both George IV and Edward VII were Prince of Wales by the time they were christened as they were born to the reigning monarchs.

The precedence had been within a few months of accession or birth - the Queen broke that precedence.

Wales may not even want a prince anymore as well and that has to be a factor - whatever anyone else may desire of course.

Charles won't wait to invest William as Prince of Wales. It will likely happen within a year after his own Coronation. There's no need to wait when his son is of age to accept the role and responsibility.

I think the people of Wales will joyfully welcome their new, young and very popular Prince and Princess of Wales.

 

[Queen Claude]

If Charles follows tradition then his coronation will be at least a year after he becomes King and if he does as you predict and invest William as Prince of Wales within a year after his coronation, we're talking two years as I doubt if Charles would invest William too soon after his coronation as I suspect Charles will want to enjoy his coronation honeymoon which would actually be considered a long wait compared to previous Princes of Wales other than Charles himself.

 

[Von Schlesian]

Wales may not even want a prince anymore as well and that has to be a factor - whatever anyone else may desire of course.

This is a myth. The Principality of Wales is a peerage of England. Since 2011 Wales has been referred to as a country rather than principality, with no effect to the peerage enjoyed by the monarch's eldest sons since the 14th century. Whoever holds the peerage at any given time, has no constitutional role in the government of Wales, nor any responsibility to the country's parliament.

If for any reason the people of Wales decided to become an independent republic sharing a land border with England, but severing ties with the British monarch (which I sincerely hope never happens), the decision would in no way reflect the English peerage 'Prince of Wales'.

The most obvious comparison is those peerages of the United Kingdom, containing territorial designations of other countries. The Earldom Mountbatten of Burma and Earldom Alexander of Tunis both refer to places either no longer monarchies or with no connection to the British Crown.

Apologies for the long-winded message, but the designation of Wales as an independent nation state, or an integral part of the United Kingdom, will not effect the future of the peerage 'Prince of Wales'.

 

[Skippyboo]

The investiture of a Prince of Wales is a new thing. It has only been done for the last 2. It doesn't compare to scope or grandeur of a coronation which is the same service that has be done the same way since the Middle Ages. Charles's investiture was made for tv event from Lord Snowdon


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Osipi]

One thing going for William that would perhaps put a screeching halt to any objections to his being invested as "The Prince of Wales" would be that William actually did live in and work in Wales for several years. From what I've read during those times, the Welsh people in the area spoke fondly of him and were quite protective of his privacy. William actually has ties to Wales.

One thing we know for sure of is that Charles never regarded his position as The Prince of Wales as just another title he holds. He's worked diligently for decades to define the role and I would imagine that he would hope that his descendants feel the same way.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The investiture of a Prince of Wales is a new thing. It has only been done for the last 2. It doesn't compare to scope or grandeur of a coronation which is the same service that has be done the same way since the Middle Ages. Charles's investiture was made for tv event from Lord Snowdon


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Various parts of the service have changed over the centuries e.g. the original homage saw every single peer of the realm have to make their oath at the coronation in person - now one peer from each of the five levels makes the oath on behalf of all of those with the same title. With over 600 peers the ceremony would be very, very long if they were to return to all individual peers having to make their oath in person.

The language has changed of course as have some other bits and pieces.

Even the fact that now the standard practice is to wait over a year from accession to coronation is a relatively new one. In the middle ages the idea was ASAP as there was the belief that only when anointed was the monarch truly the monarch and so the coronations were done within days or few weeks and not the 16 months The Queen had - the longest period of time in history.

 

[Iluvbertie]

This is a myth. The Principality of Wales is a peerage of England. Since 2011 Wales has been referred to as a country rather than principality, with no effect to the peerage enjoyed by the monarch's eldest sons since the 14th century. Whoever holds the peerage at any given time, has no constitutional role in the government of Wales, nor any reposability to the country's parliament.

If for any reason the people of Wales decided to become an independent republic sharing a land border with England, but severing ties with the British monarch (which sincerely hope never happens), the decision would in no way reflect the English peerage 'Prince of Wales'.

The most obvious comparison is those peerages of the United Kingdom, containing territorial designations of other countries. The Earldom Mountbatten of Burma and Earldom Alexander of Tunis both refer to places either no longer monarchies or with no connection to the British Crown.

Apologies for the long-winded message, but the designation of Wales as an independent nation state, or an integral part of the United Kingdom, will not effect the future of the peerage 'Prince of Wales'.

Why insult the Welsh with a new title IF they feel that way?

I am aware that there is no political role for the Prince of Wales in Wales (never has been and many Princes of Wales never even went near the country).

It has always been a title of occupation and dominance by the English and later British monarchs over the Welsh people - that was its original intent and is seen that way by many Welsh today - maybe only a minority - maybe a majority - until there is a vote we won't really know that of course.

I suspect Charles may ask the Welsh Assembly their advice and if they agree even make the announcement and presentation of William in that Assembly.

I don't think there will be another investiture as such given that William won't have a seat in the House of Lords. The last one didn't go down all that well with the Welsh people and the national feelings have only grown since then.

Yes there are titles that relate to places outside the UK now but not new ones being so created when the old one is extinct.

 

[Von Schlesian]

Why insult the Welsh with a new title IF they feel that way?

I am aware that there is no political role for the Prince of Wales in Wales (never has been and many Princes of Wales never even went near the country).

It has always been a title of occupation and dominance by the English and later British monarchs over the Welsh people - that was its original intent and is seen that way by many Welsh today - maybe only a minority - maybe a majority - until there is a vote we won't really know that of course.

I suspect Charles may ask the Welsh Assembly their advice and if they agree even make the announcement and presentation of William in that Assembly.

I don't think there will be another investiture as such given that William won't have a seat in the House of Lords. The last one didn't go down all that well with the Welsh people and the national feelings have only grown since then.

Yes there are titles that relate to places outside the UK now but not new ones being so created when the old one is extinct.

I am typing this from Wales.
The spirit of Welsh nationalism extends primarily to the independence of the devolved parliamemt and the preservation and promotion of the Welsh language and culture. The abundance of Prince of Wales feathers throughout the country is a simple indication of passive approval and acceptance of the historic link between the Welsh people and the prince who bears their name.

There is no question of the Welsh being insulted by a future monarch conferring the title traditionally used by the heir apparent. There are no serious plans or campaigns to create a more independent Welsh state and certainly none with a republican form of government.

The Prince of Wales is very well received in this part of the United Kingdom and everyone with whom I have spoken, from members of local football clubs, to pub landlords, farmers and knights, has their own Prince of Wales story to tell.
This suggests more a title of acknowledgement of shared heritage, inclusivity and celebration of this Western land, than the dominance and oppression you suggest.

 

[PetticoatLane]

Plus, the title puts Wales on the map internationally in a way almost nothing else does, except maybe their rugby team. It must be one of the most famous and well-known titles in the world. I can't imagine the Welsh people would want it to die.

There really is no chance of an independent Wales in the next handful of decades unless something were to drastically change; its independence movement is almost non-existent. A vote for Plaid Cymru does not necessarily mean a vote for independence.

 

[SLV]

I am typing this from Wales.
The spirit of Welsh nationalism extends primarily to the independence of the devolved parliamemt and the preservation and promotion of the Welsh language and culture. The abundance of Prince of Wales feathers throughout the country is a simple indication of passive approval and acceptance of the historic link between the Welsh people and the prince who bears their name.

There is no question of the Welsh being insulted by a future monarch conferring the title traditionally used by the heir apparent. There are no serious plans or campaigns to create a more independent Welsh state and certainly none with a republican form of government.

The Prince of Wales is very well received in this part of the United Kingdom and everyone with whom I have spoken, from members of local football clubs, to pub landlords, farmers and knights, has their own Prince of Wales story to tell.
This suggests more a title of acknowledgement of shared heritage, inclusivity and celebration of this Western land, than the dominance and oppression you suggest.

This is interesting to know. And is what matters most.

 

[tommy100]

Also from Wales here, I think there would be more uproar if a future heir didn't get the title.
Whilst there are some, a sizeable minority who want independence, the vast majority of people recognize that unlike Scotland which has oil revenue to rely on, Wales wouldn't cope being fully independent.

As Von Schlesian says people probably realise they get more from an heir having the title than they would from him not having it.

 

[Queen Claude]

No one will ever match her... especially not her self-indulgent son. On the eve of her 90th birthday, MAX HASTINGS says, yes, the Queen has her flaws. But, by God, we've been blessed to have such a shrewd operator

By Max Hastings for the Daily Mail
Published: 19:03 EST, 18 April 2016 | Updated: 21:13 EST, 18 April 2016

Read more: The Queen has her flaws. But, by God, we've been blessed writes MAX HASTINGS | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
​

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

No one will ever match her... especially not her self-indulgent son. On the eve of her 90th birthday, MAX HASTINGS says, yes, the Queen has her flaws. But, by God, we've been blessed to have such a shrewd operator

By Max Hastings for the Daily Mail
Published: 19:03 EST, 18 April 2016 | Updated: 21:13 EST, 18 April 2016

Read more: The Queen has her flaws. But, by God, we've been blessed writes MAX HASTINGS | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
​

This article has so many factual errors that it shouldn't have been posted here.

 

[Von Schlesian]

This article has so many factual errors that it shouldn't have been posted here.

The same can be said for all Mail/Express/Sun 'articles'. Sir Max Hastings is a competent military historian. His Mail pieces however are worthless, sensationalist garbage.

 

[Queen Claude]

This article has so many factual errors that it shouldn't have been posted here.

It is mostly an opinion piece and I am not seeing where there are "many factual errors." I don't particularly agree with all that's being stated but I don't think that the opinions being expressed are baseless.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

American author Christopher Andersen tells NBC's Matt Lauer about "Game of Crowns," his new book analyzing the relationships and rivalries of the queen, her heir apparent Camilla, and Duchess Kate. He says that the long-reigning monarch has come to a place where she "tolerates" Camilla.

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard - its like reading the Globe. And can I ask, is Americans really that stupid?

Watch the video:
Queen Elizabeth tolerates Camilla, says Game of Crowns author - NBC News

 

[Mbruno]

The same can be said for all Mail/Express/Sun 'articles'. Sir Max Hastings is a competent military historian. His Mail pieces however are worthless, sensationalist garbage.

I read his World War I book and greatly enjoyed it.

 

[Nico]

Americans author Christopher Andersen tells NBC's Matt Lauer about "Game of Crowns," his new book analyzing the relationships and rivalries of the queen, her heir apparent Camilla, and Duchess Kate. He says that the long-reigning monarch has come to a place where she "tolerates" Camilla.

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard - its like reading the Globe. And can I ask, is Americans really that stupid?

Watch the video:
Queen Elizabeth tolerates Camilla, says Game of Crowns author - NBC News

Of course she "tolerates" her, she's been married to her son for 11 years ! Camilla is not a pariah anymore, and some people seem to be still disappointed by this simple fact.
And according to some other "sources", the Queen does like her daughter in law : shock and horror !

Queen Elizabeth impressed with Camilla

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Of course she "tolerates" her, she's been married to her son for 11 years ! Camilla is not a pariah anymore, and some people seem to be still disappointed by this simple fact.
And according to some other "sources", the Queen does like her daughter in law : shock and horror !

Queen Elizabeth impressed with Camilla

Did you watch the video? They said the Queen had a plan to get William on the throne instead of Charles and that there was rivalry between Camilla and Kate. As I said: It was like reading The Globe. Isn't NBC/MSNBC supposed to be a serious Channel/News Channel?

 

[Mbruno]

Did you watch the video? They said the Queen had a plan to get William on the throne instead of Charles and that there was rivalry between Camilla and Kate. As I said: It was like reading The Globe. Isn't NBC/MSNBC supposed to be a serious Channel/News Channel?

How do you know that is not actually true ? I am not saying it is, but I don't see why you should rule it out as completely implausible.

 

[Skippyboo]

The Queen doesn't even have the power to change the line of succession. Christopher Andersen is hack. His book on W&K is a joke. There are conservations in that people that are impossible for a 3rd party to know like the Middletons talking to each other watching Charles's wedding to Diana


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community