Talk:Prince of Wales/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

old talk

The Old Pretender was never created Prince of Wales during his father's actual reign in England. Perhaps that should be changed john 02:25 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

He was "styled" Prince of Wales from birth, though. Deb 20:37 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

I thought that while the heir to the throne became Duke of Cornwall on birth, he actually had to be created prince of wales. I suppose we can say that while he wasn't created PofW, he was treated as such. ÉÍREman 21:31 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Well, if he was styled as such, I suppose that's alright. Perhaps we should dsitinguish between those who were actually Prince of Wales, and those only styled as such. Were either the future Henry VI or the future Edward III ever styled Prince of Wales? john 21:41 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

It's very difficult to say what was going on in those early days - the title was a novelty then, and didn't become automatic till the later Middle Ages. I don't know if there's a hard and fast rule now as to when the title kicks in, but there certainly wasn't one in the period we're talking about. I think the Hanoverians liked to make their sons Princes of Wales as early as possible because it usually got them an extra financial allowance from parliament. If I remember rightly, the present queen announced that Charles was going to be Prince of Wales about ten years before he was actually invested. Deb 21:44 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

But until then he was Duke of Cornwall. Similarly Prince George was Duke of York and remained so until created Prince of Wales by his father, Edward VII. ÉÍREman 21:49 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, but we're talking about two people who weren't born the sons of monarchs. And George V's creation was delayed because his mother, Alexandra, had enjoyed being Princess of Wales so much that she was reluctant to give up the title even after she became queen (!) Deb 21:52 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Here's my understanding. The eldest son of the monarch automatically becomes Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, and Prince and High Steward of Scotland. (whew!) Someone who is heir-apparent, but not son of the monarch (such as the future George III), does not get these titles.

The titles of Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, by contrast, are acquired by specific creation by the monarch. Thus, the present Prince of Wales was only "HRH the Duke of Cornwall" until he was created Prince of Wales in 1959 (or 1958?). It is created for any male heir-apparent, usually. This has been the case at least since the Hanoverians. I'm pretty sure the Dukedom of Cornwall and associated titles have always worked as they do now. It would seem that in Stuart times, at least, princes were styled "Prince of Wales" without actually being created as such. A distinction ought to be made, I think. john 22:01 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

I can't remember where I originally got the list of Princes of Wales from, but I believe it's the "official" version. I would go and check www.royal.gov.uk if I wasn't too tired. At any rate, the list doesn't include people like Edward III who were never called Prince of Wales even though nowadays they would have had the title. Deb 22:05 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

I'm a late entrant to this discussion. Charles may have been Duke of Cornwall, but he would never have been referred to as "HRH The Duke of Cornwall" edcept in some very specific context. He is a Royal Prince and the heir apparent, so his royal Highness stems from that, and any other titles he may have had prior to becoming Prince of Wales were subsumed into his Princedom.

There can be a lag-time between the time when a person is Heir Apparent and when that person is created Prince of Wales. If the Heir Apparent is eligible for the title of "Duke of Cornwall", they get it as soon as they become Heir Apparent (i.e. as soon as they are born or as soon as someone else dies). But they will NOT become Prince of Wales immediately. During this time when they are already Duke of Cornwall but are not yet Prince of Wales, they will be referred to as "the Duke of Cornwall".69.86.130.90 (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Re the reference to Diana losing her style HRH when she divorced Charles. I doubt that this had anything to do with him being Prince of Wales. Again, he was HRH from birth as a Royal Prince, and he remained HRH when he became Prince of Wales. Diana may have been the Princess of Wales by virtue of being married to the Prince of Wales, but her style HRH would have applied by virtue of his Royal Princedom, whether he was also Prince of Wales or not. I think this needs to be fixed. Cheers JackofOz 12:52, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We do not have 'Princedoms' in the United Kingdom. The title of 'Prince' does not cover any territorial designation, apart from the obvious association of 'Prince of the United Kingdom'. It is purely a courtesy title granted automatically to sons and grand-sons of the Sovereign. Wales is a 'Principality', not a 'Princedom', so that doesn't apply either. With regard to Prince Charles, he was HRH The Duke of Cornwall from birth (the eldest son of the Sovereign is automatically granted this title at birth by right of Act of Parliament).Ds1994 (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. What the "Re the reference to Diana" poster was trying to explain is that her style "Her Royal Higness" didn't come from being married to the Prince of Wales. It came from being married to a man whose sylte was "His Royal Highness". Charles didn't have to be Prince of Wales for Diana to get that style. He merely needed to be a Prince with the style-of-address of "Your Royal Highness". That is all that the contributor was trying to say, using the word "Princedom" as a shorthand. Of course the contributor didn't really believe there is such a thing as a "Princedom"! Merely that some males are HRH Princes, and that their wives are also HRHs in light of those men being HRHs. So Diana was an HRH because she was married to an HRH (i.e. married to ANYONE with a "Princedom"), NOT because she was married to The Prince of Wales.69.86.130.90 (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
There is a picture of Charles in the souvenir programme for the coronation of Elizabeth II which is titled: "HRH The Duke of Cornwall". Bbombbardier 14:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
This is because he WAS The Duke of Cornwall at the time of his mother's coronation, and he was NOT the Prince of Wales at that time. He was Duke of Cornwall at the instant that his grandfather the King died. He was not Prince of Wales until his mother the Queen created him Prince of Wales.69.86.130.90 (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

What about sons of the Prince of Wales? For example, William, Prince of Wales and his young brother Henry, Prince of Wales are currently styled "Prince of Wales" even though none of them are currently "the oldest son of the monarch". None of them are obviously the "Duke of Cornwall" or somesuch, nor styled as such. Is this styled used wholly incorrectly? —Gabbe 16:42, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

  • Prince Charles's sons ,William & Henry do not have the title Prince of Wales, only their father does. William is called Prince William of Wales & Henry, Prince Henry of Wales, Example: Prince(ss) (name) of Wales means the person is the Child of the Prince of Wales. Another similar Example: Prince Andrew ,Duke of York. His daughters Beatrice & Eugenie ,are called Princess Beatrice of York & Princess Eugenie of York (daugthers of the Duke of York), neither girl are Duchess of York.
They are called Prince and Princesses because they are the grandchildren of the monarch, not because they are the children of the Prince of Wales or Duke of York.Eregli bob (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh please. The bulleted explanation is NOT an incrrect explanation of "Prince(ss)" in the appelations of Charles's and Andrew's children because it is NOT an attempted explanation (either correct or incorrect) of "Prince(ss)" at all. It is a CORRECT explanation of why these children are called "of Wales" and "of York". And since the "of Wales" and the "of York" phrases DO apply because of who these children's fathers are, the bulleted point is the CORRECT explanation. It's only incorrect if we pretend that the contributor was tring to explain "Prince(ss)" rather than trying to explain "of Wales". 69.86.130.90 (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

"But unlike other elements of the Garter, the Princedom of Wales can be bestowed upon the eldest son of the sovereign and nobody else. If a Prince should predecease the Sovereign, the principality does not pass on to his heirs; instead, it revests in the Crown."

Is this a hard and fast rule? George III was Prince of Wales despite being George II's grandson and some books indicate that this was entirely due to political demands on a reluctant King. If Charles were to die before the Queen many would suggest conferring the title on William - what is there to stop this? Timrollpickering 22:50, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is a hard and fast rule that if the Prince of Wales dies the title reverts to the Crown. But the Crown will bestow the title "Prince of Wales" AGAIN on the NEW Heir Apparent (who need not be an eldest son of a Monarch -- that is a restriction that applies to Duke of Cornwall, not Prince of Wales). So, when Prince Frederick died his son (future George III) did in time become Prince of Wales. But the title did not "pass from" Frederick to Prince George, nor did Prince George "inherit" the title from his father. George II created Frederick Prince of Wales, Frederick died, and then George II created Prince George Prince of Wales.64.131.188.104 (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
If Charles dies then Elizabeth dies, doesn't Prince Andrew become King? If that's so then I should think Andrew would be a more likely Prince of Wales than William, in the event of Charles's death. JamesMLane 06:26, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No it's William as next in line. Again the precedent is George III - eldest son of deceased eldest son succeeding, not the monarch's eldest surviving son. (And also Andrew succeeding will cause a lot of uproar over the male bias in the succession.) Timrollpickering 08:00, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Actually an earlier precedent is Richard II, grandson of Edward III. His father (Edward, The Black Prince) was the kings' eldest son and predeceased him. The crown passed down to the grandson, not to any of the surviving sons. --StanZegel 23:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, I always assumed it worked the other way. Your reply prompted me to read order of succession, which gives the impression that, in every hereditary system referred to, William would come ahead of Andrew. (The systems appear to differ only in whether female descendants are completely excluded, completely equal, or included but with inferior rights.) Do you happen to know whether any common system, for hereditary monarchy or lesser titles of nobility, would give Andrew precedence over William? JamesMLane 10:04, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What about King Oscar II of Sweden. Younger brother of previous king prefered to previous King's daughter.
Why would the various forms of nations in the British Isles after 1066A.D. on the one hand, and Sweden on the other hand, be bound to follow the same rules of succession?69.86.130.90 (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
Not sure, but didn't the Manchu Emperors pass strictly from one generation to the next, often going to nephews/cousins once removed? Timrollpickering 19:54, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, they did (although Guangxu was an exception: he was of the same generation as his predecessor Emperor Tongzhi, because at the time of Tongzhi's death no-one had been born of the next generation yet). But they weren't supposed to: towards the end of the Qing Dynasty, the rules for succession were spectacularly hijacked by the Dowager Empress Cixi, who adopted this rule because it suited her own power-base to adopt weak monarchs (Guangxu and Puyi, the last two Qing Emperors, were both chosen by Cixi; both were selected ahead of their fathers, who were both brothers to a previous Emperor and both still alive during their sons' reigns; Guangxu's mother was Cixi's younger sister; both were forced to marry close members of Cixi's family). The Tang Dynasty and Ming Dynasty both clearly sanctioned succession by brothers. Besides, European successional tradition has absolutely nothing to do with Chinese successional tradition, and draws no precedents from it! BartBassist (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Queen Elizabeth II was never Princess of Wales, and this seems to be because of her gender. However, I had to study the article carefully before coming to this conclusion. Could some royalty expert please add a note to the article about female descendants, just to make the issue clear?

Only an heir apparent can be Prince of Wales. Elizabeth was only heiress presumptive - had her father had a son, she would have been displaced in the succession. john k 22:40, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Non-NPOV edits

A number of anonymous users and user:Cardiff have edited this article, and made it less 'Welsh.' This includes removing the Welsh princes from the section "The Princes of Wales, past and present".

The edits began on 18:20, 25 April 2006 86.112.253.144.

This is a violation of WP:NPOV, IMO, and seems to be part of a pattern, making such non-NPOV edits to a number of prominent articles about Wales.

I am planning to revert the entire batch of edits to the previous edit by Grouse. All comments are welcome.Econrad 19:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at the edits, I agree with you, and so I have reverted to the last version by Grouse, as you suggested. Proteus (Talk) 20:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No change in order

The paragraph reading "However, Elizabeth II has changed the order of succession by making it gender-neutral" is not accurate. The queen has not changed the order of succession to remove male primogeniture, and in fact she doesn't have the power to, as succession is determined by Parliament. Succession to the British throne tells us that the current rules come from the Act of Settlement in 1701.


Corrected. An attempt was made to change the line, through a Private Bill (which would have needed Royal Assent), in 2005. The attempt was unsuccessful.HarvardOxon 04:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Question

Is there an official "22nd Prince of Wales" right now? 89.139.89.202 20:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope – the Principality isn't like a peerage, it isn't numbered. Even if it were, Charles would be 1st Prince of Wales, because almost every Prince has been a new creation... DBD 18:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


heir assumptive

i feel bad for prince charles hes heir assumptive which means he won't get to be king his mum is living so long that by the time she dies his son will be old enough to be king and thats who theyre gonna make king is his son that must really suck —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlieh7337 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, you can learn English while you're waiting for that day. Rob Burbidge (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoting Nationalisation

Eh? I don't think it's the Prince of Wales' job to promote public ownership of companies. Do you mean nationhood? Nationalism? Nationality???? Rob Burbidge (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

King's son's son

The Heir presumptive / Heir apparent section appears to imply that the King's grandson (whose father is dead) can never be Prince of Wales - is that right? Morwen - Talk 20:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This can't be true; for instance, George III was Prince of Wales when his grandfather was king. Warofdreams talk 02:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree it can't be true. This restriction (title held only by an Heir Apparent who is a son of Monarch, not grandson or lower) applies to Duke of Cornwall, not Prince of Wales. George III was a Prince of Wales. He never got to be a Duke of Cornwall.64.131.188.104 (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

If this "heir apparent" status is really the guiding principle, it implies that a women could accede as Princess of Wales. For instance, if their father was the monarch's oldest child, they were an only child, and their father died, then they could not be displaced in the order of succession by any possible birth. Warofdreams talk 04:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If the daughter of the king were the king's only child, and the king died, then she would be queen, not princess of Wales.HarvardOxon 21:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, but that's not what he said. Proteus (Talk) 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. What was said is A is King, B is male Heir Apparent of A, C is female Heiress Presumptive of B. B dies while A and C are alive. C is not the the daughter but the granddaughter of the King. And no matter how many sons King A cranks out after Prince B dies, none of them can precede Princess C in the line of succession. It appears that in those circumstances Princess C WOULD be that rare example of a Female Heiress Apparent (not Presumptive).
I don't know if this has ever occurred but if it has the female Heiress Apparent was NOT made Princess of Wales (for there never was a Princess of Wales except by marriage), and so precedent is set. BUT, if a female Heiress Apparent has NEVER occurred and occurs in the future then, absent any precedent to the countrary, is she prevented from becoming a suo-jure Princess of Wales? Elizabeth II is not a counterexample because she was NOT Apparent, she was Presumptive.
My understanding is that an Heiress Presumptive is not barred from certain honors because females are snubbed but, rather, because of heraldry's principle that an honor conferred should never be taken back except by misconduct (or by relinquishing voluntarily -- such as the abdication of Edward VIII) of the recipient. An example is the Queen Mother. She had the honors of a Queen Consort. Then her husband predeceased her. That is no misconduct on her part, so she was not deprived of any honors that she held before her husband died. (Her place in processions moving from in front of Elizabeth/Philp to behind Elizabeth/Philip can be seen as promotion of the latter, rather than a demotion of the former.) (except those required to allow Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip to replace the former ruling couple) Her titles "Queen Dowager" and "Queen Mother" (two slightly different things that don't always coincide) refer to her as Queen, for instance, not demoted to "Princess". She was "Her Majesty" while her husband lived and so she was "Her Majesty" after he died, NOT demoted to "Her Royal Highness". Under male primogeniture an oldest daughter if given honors (and created Princess of Wales) would, if her parents created a younger brother, have to surrender those honors to that younger brother (so he could become Prince of Wales). The birth of a younger brother is no misconduct on her part, so it'd be wrong for her to have to surrender these honors. To prevent this scenario of her having to surrender these honors in the event of a baby brother, she is never given the honors in the first place. If that is the only logic excluding Heiresses Presumptive from becoming suo-jure Princesses of Wales, then there is no such impediment for an Heiress Apparent.64.131.188.104 (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Responsibilities

I am curious as to what the legislated responsibilities of the Prince are or are not as an aspect of the Monarchy and regard to his role representing the state. I think it is particularly interesting with respect to his actions that have called the impartiallity of the monarchy into question on the BBC and elsewhere. Can anyone provide more information on this? There's all this stuff about the history of who had it when, but what are the actual responsibiities of the holder of this title to the public, if any? Are there laws imbedded in the UK Constitution regarding this position, or does only the monarch have legislated responsibilities? Sandwich Eater 20:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I answered my own question with a web search that hit the Prince's web site. http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/about/rol_index.html

He has no formal responsibilities but he has self-imposed 3 responsibilities which he believes he can conduct without undertaking a political position. Sandwich Eater 21:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

He has some formal responsibilities e.g.

- As Duke of Cornwall he has some feudal rights that in the rest of England are retained by the Head of State e.g. right to recieve any unclaimed property when someone dies (which he gives to charity). - As a Counsellor of State he acts on behalf of the Queen when she is abroad to meet foreign dignitaries, give Royal Assent etc. - He has the right to be consulted on some Scottish matters, although technically this is not because he is Prince of Wales but rather as he is Duke of Rothsay. - He may attend the State Opening of Parliament and he may sit on the steps of the throne in the House of Lords during debates.

The most important duty of the Prince of Wales is to commit adultery whenever possible. Every single prince of wales who had managed to survive puberty, either cheated on his own wife or cuckolded someone's husband...or both. Ericl (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Label in the arms

I've removed the text which said that Princes of Wales who were grandsons of the sovereign use a label of five points, as this is nonsense. The heir-apparent, whether to the Sovereign or anyone else, uses a label of three points regardless of whether he is the eldest son or whether he has succeeded his father as heir-apparent. George III began using the three-point label on his father's death and before he was created Prince of Wales[1]. Opera hat (talk) 10:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Peerage

Is the Princedom of Wales, or has it ever been, a peerage? I ask because I've always placed the PW suc boxes under the "British royalty" heading, but today Charles I's was moved to the "Peerage of England" heading. DBD 09:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't ever thought the Principality of Wales was a peerage, either. The Complete Peerage has no entry for it, which suggests that GEC didn't think so, either. Opera hat (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Prince of Wales a peerage title?

Is the title "Prince of Wales" a peerage title or not??? Many pages about the princes consider it a title in the peerage of England. To my knowledge this is wrong, it is a royal title. Demophon (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree: The title is certainly a royal title, but it's also a title in the peerage. I reckon that's why it's recreated for each holder, rather than passed automatically. That being said, i notice that you, Demophon, have started changing the "pages about the princes", and i agree with that action: As both kinds of title, it belongs with the higher category. Naturally, i take exception to your edit summary, but that means nothing in the bigger scheme.... Cheers, LindsayHi 11:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The House of Lords Act 1999 Section 6 makes it clear that it is a title in the peerage - see [2] Zviki1 (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Edward III

The official website of the Princes of Wales specifically states that Edward II did not pass the title on to his son, and names the Black Prince as the next PoW. This used to be reflected in this list, and Ed III's page still does not mention that he ever held the title. Why has he been added to the list? Not to sound rude or anything, but if I don't receive a serious answer in the next few days I'll take a bold step and remove him from the list, leaving his information on this page just in case. Andrei Iosifovich (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Be bold. Edward II was deposed. Edward III was crowned at age 14 and had never been named Prince of Wales (it's not automatic). - PKM (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
It was me who added Edward III to the list, quite a while ago. I thought it was clear from the way in which I edited it that he was never created Prince of Wales, and I thought that he was a significant enough heir to warrant a mention, even if he wasn't a PoW (this is why I separated the columns "Became heir" and "Created PoW"). But if consensus is that he shouldn't have been on here, I won't reinstate him. BartBassist (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone hasn't thought this through

The page says this:

In countries that practice male primogeniture, a daughter or sibling of the sovereign who is currently next in line to the throne is not the "heir apparent" because they would be displaced in the succession by any future legitimate son of the sovereign: they are instead the "heir or heiress presumptive" and cannot therefore take the title of Prince (or Princess) of Wales in their own right.

Now, I would have thought that regardless of succession systems, very few royal children in other countries could be made Princes of Wales. Most other countries don't have Wales, for a start... ;-) Torak (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that is badly written. john k (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

English & British heirs apparent

The English/British section should be devided into two sections English, British. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this should have been done a long time ago. His position is neither Welsh nor English, despite the title, he is part of the British monarchy. --78.105.52.52 (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The man who later became Edward VI should be in the list

From the lists below I have tried to exclude sites whose language is a direct lift from some other page:

Sources stating (but without any explanation offered for what would be a bewilding fact if it were true) that Edward was never created Prince of Wales:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Edward_VI_of_England

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Edward_VI

Source stating that Edward was "proclaimed" Prince of Wales:

http://englishhistory.net/tudor/monarchs/edward6.html

(I include this as a possible source of error. Should it turn out that I am wrong and Edward was NOT ever created Prince of Wales, the fact that he was "proclaimed" Prince of Wales could be the source of an errant belief that he WAS Prince of Wales, should someone believe that "proclaiming" and "creating" are the same thing, or that they're not the same thing but that it would be inexplicable for Henry VIII to have the proclaming done without doing the creating.)

Source stating that Edward was "created" Prince of Wales:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Edward_VI_of_England

The succession-box for the wikipedia article on Edward VI says that he WAS Prince of Wales.

I note without pleasure that the list of previous Princes of Wales at the Royal Family's site,

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/theprinceofwales/abouttheprince/previousprincesofwales/

says (or, rather, implies, by omission from the list) that Edward VI was NOT ever a Prince of Wales.

Source that clears this up entirely:

http://www.gutenberg-e.org/mcintosh/appendix-c.html

So, Edward VI WAS, at one time, Prince of Wales, and all sources to the contrary are deriving their information from the same original error, which is Edward VI's own hand.

Early in his reign Edward wrote of a ceremony cancelled because Henry VIII died and Edward became King. Edward's writing referred to that ceremony as his "creation" as Prince of Wales. Some will wrongly insist that this word "creation" be taken at its MODERN face value, and will say that if the creation was planned, but cancelled because of Henry VIII's death, then Edward was never "created" (in our modern sense) Prince of Wales, which means (in modern English) that he never WAS Prince of Wales.

The mistake lies in taking that word "creation" at its face value when there's so much evidence to the contrary and a simple explanation for Edward's choice of the word "creation". The simple explanation is that the 9-year-old King just wrote the wrong word, or that in the English language of his day the usage of the words "creation" and "investiture" were not as distinct as they are today. That which we would call the "creation" of a Prince of Wales is no ceremony -- it's just the decree of the Monarch. But the thing being cancelled WAS a ceremony. Ergo, the thing being cancelled would be called, in TODAY's English, the "Investiture" of the Prince of Wales, NOT the "creation". Investitures occur for a Prince of Wales only after that person is CREATED Prince of Wales. We know that the Investiture for Edward was planned because he refers to its cancellation (although he uses the word "creation"). Since the Investiture for Edward was planned, and an Investiture is planned only for a person who is aleady created Prince of Wales, Edward must already have been Prince of Wales at that time. QED.

The "abundant evidence to the contrary" referred to above is the usual correspondence we would expect to find in which Edward prior to being King is referred to as "the Prince of Wales", for instance in a document written by Henry VIII while Edward was still an infant.

I have two additional comments: there are way too many people who insist that a person is NOT Prince of Wales until their Investiture ceremony. Hooey. A person becomes Prince of Wales before the Investiture, when they are CREATED Prince of Wales.

Second, the portrait of Edward, ca 1546 Flemish school,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Edward_VI_of_England_c._1546.jpg

shouldn't be used as evidence in favor of my assertion that Edward VI was once Prince of Wales. It's true that in this portrait his chain-borne jewel has the Feathers and the Coronet, but these are not insignia of the Prince of Wales. They are insignia of the Heir Apparent and so would have been worn by Edward whether he was Prince of Wales or not. So, this portrait does not help us one way or another.69.86.130.90 (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Henry, the short lived

This little fella was never PoW right? It's on vfd at the moment... Dunc|☺ 12:33, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • If you mean, Henry (1511), the shortlived eldest son of King Henry VIII & Queen Catherine (of Aragon), then I think he was PoW. Mightberight/wrong 0:38 ,14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Henry the shortlived was indeed prince of Wales as were two younger brothers.
    • Mary the First was PRINCESS of Wales in her own right from the death of Her younger brother (Henry 2), until she was bastardized.
Mary was never Princess of Wales in her own right. The "younger brother", if he was named "Henry", wasn't "Henry 2" or "Henry II", and he was illegimate, so he would already be out of the succession when he was born -- there would be no need to wait for him to die. After the death of her OTHER younger brother, Edward VI, Mary wasn't Princess of Wales because she was Queen. Furthermore, someone must be Heir(ess) Apparent in order to have the Wales title. Mary I was never Heiress Apparent. Before the birth of Edward VI she was Heiress Presumptive.69.86.130.90 (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
      • Edward VI was NEVER actually prince of Wales. There was some talk of it in the weeks before the death of His father Henry VIII, but he was king before it could happen.Ericl (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
As to Edward VI being a Prince of Wales, it's a muddle (although, coming back to edit my own remark, I think there is a source that clears up the muddle and makes it clear that Edward VI WAS Prince of Wales before he was King). See below.69.86.130.90 (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

"Heraldic Insignia" section refers to "crown". It should be "coronet".

Already in wikipedia today I have found that the article on "coronet" insists that the arched headgear of the Prince of Wales is a "crown". It's not. Who is making all these edits?

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/theprinceofwales/abouttheprince/coatofarms/

and many other sources are clear: it's a coronet, because it carries no symbolism of sovereignty. Just like dukes' and marquesses' coronets. The argument seems to be that because it has an arch it is a crown. I can't see why it should be the case that adding one or more arches to a coronet turns it into a crown. Whether it's a crown or not has nothing to do with arches but with the legal status (present or past) of the territory of which it is the headgear.69.86.130.90 (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Augmenting my own remarks now. Please see the blazon at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Charles,_Prince_of_Wales.svg
which makes it clear that although the animals ARE being "crowned" with some objects, those objects are, each, a CORONET, not a CROWN, of the Prince of Wales. Also the headgear topping the Wales-escutcheion of four lions on red/gold checkerboard is referred to as a "coronet".69.86.130.90 (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Edward VI?

Why is Edward VI missing from the list of Princes of Wales? Surtsicna (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion above. There is little ground for dispute on this issue, as Prince Edward was mentioned in treaties and regularly in international correspondence as Prince of Wales, although it may be that his 'creation' was not publicly celebrated, as a reference in his Chronicle menioned above may suggest. E.g., L&P, vol. 18 part 1 (1901), no. 865, Chapuys to Charles V, 11 July 1543 Unoquha (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Change in title of Prince of Wales' widow?

There are a few examples mentioned in the article of when the Prince of Wales dies, and the title passes to the new heir apparent, but what happens to his widow's title? Does she lose all titles, is she granted another honorary title, or does she become something like Princess Dowager of Wales? If a widowed Queen Consort becomes Queen Dowager/Mother, but still keeps the title "Queen" in front of her name (eg the Queen Mother was officially "HM Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother"), does the widowed Princess of Wales keep her title in any way? Did Catherine of Aragon retain a title when Prince Arthur died? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.125.15 (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Catherine of Aragon and Augusta of Saxe-Gotha were both styled "The Dowager Princess of Wales" as widows. I believe the Prince's widow would remain "HRH The Princess of Wales" until another married man was created Prince of Wales or for as long the new Prince of Wales remained unmarried - that's how other substantive titles work in the United Kingdom. The Duchess of Cornwall will surely become "HRH The Dowager Duchess of Cornwall" if her mother-in-law outlives her husband. Surtsicna (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Prince Harry of Wales and Prince William of Wales

Why are they not listed here as Princes of Wales, as their names suggest ? Teofilo talk 19:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Because they are not princes of Wales. They are princes of the United Kingdom and their "names" are William of Wales and Henry of Wales. Their cousins, Princess Beatrice of York and Princess Eugenie of York, are not princesses of York. Surtsicna (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Do they own those "prince Somebody of Wales" names as Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom ? Teofilo talk 23:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
No. Until Charles becomes king, dies, or otherwise is no longer first in line to the throne, the title of Prince of Wales is his and his alone by courtesy. This courtesy is traditionally (but not required) given only to the first in line to the throne. Note that no title named for a place (courtesy or inherited) is ever given to two people at the same time, unless there is a legal dispute over succession (something that traditionally involved a certain level of warfare). This is certainly not the case here. Rhialto (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The title of Prince of Wales is a substantive title, not a courtesy title. The Prince of Wales' legitimate children are Prince/Princess X of Wales. Princess Charlotte of Wales is a 19th-century example. Surtsicna (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
According to Subsidiary title, the Duke of Norfolk's heir apparent is known as "Earl of Arundel", although the son does not technically become Earl of Arundel until his father's death and is legally still a commoner. Does the same apply to princes William and Harry : can we conclude that they are legally still commoners ? Teofilo talk 14:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, they most certainly are. Only peers and the Sovereign are not commoners, meaning that the Princess Royal, the Prince of Wales' wife and sons, the Duke of York's daughters and the Earl of Wessex' wife and children are all commoners. Surtsicna (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Not to mention the Princess Royal's husbands and children. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
How does William's marriage change that?
His marriage itself doesn't, but his being created Duke of Cambridge does. Surtsicna (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Owain Glyndŵr

Why is Owain Glyndŵr not on the list of Princes of Wales? şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 02:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Princess of Wales?

If the new succession rule goes through, does it logically follow that the monarch's oldest child will be invested as Prince or Princess of Wales depending on gender? 162.27.9.20 (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Not logically, only when such a person is created such by the will of the sovereign. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Henry of Bolingbroke/Henry IV

Re paragraph 'Other Titles': Henry of Bolingbroke was never Prince of Wales--his inclusion here implies he was. Could someone please delete that reference? 199.108.124.252 (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Prince of Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Steam locomotive

I fail to see what the "Steam locomotive" has to do with the title "Prince of Wales", and if it weren't for the fact that it has been left untouched despite intervening edits by at least one experienced royalty editor I'd have boldly deleted it. IMO, at best it deserves a mention in the "See also" section, or more likely an indirect mention via a "List of things named after the Prince of Wales" page (though surprisingly I can't quickly find such a list). Rosbif73 (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I've moved it to LNER P2 Class 2007 Prince of Wales. DrKay (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Charles II and James III

They were officially styled Prince of Wales" Edward VI was going to be formally invested, but his father died first. the Future Charles III was styled Prince of Wales in 1958, but wasn't invested intil 1969. I put the two back in. Ericl (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. Styled or not, Charles II is not recognised officially as having been Prince of Wales because he was never invested. Also incorrect is to say that the present holder of the title was only "styled" as such in 1958. He was in fact invested in 1958. The 1969 coronation was merely a ceremony for the public. 92.18.166.102 (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The above "Incorrect" is incorrect. All three (Edward VI, Charles II, and Charles II's son who was James III in the Jacobite count) were CREATED Prince of Wales, and that gives them the titles and styles of address of a Prince of Wales (in each case as such titles and styles were constructed in their own time). The fact that none of these three went through an INVESTITURE ceremony does not mean anything for purposes of whether they "were" each a Prince of Wales, or were "styled" or "titled" each as a Prince of Wales. The assertion that the present Prince of Wales Charles was "Invested" in 1958 is not correct. He was CRREATED Prince of Wales in 1958. The Investiture occurred in 1969. The 1969 "ceremony for the public" you allude to IS the most recent Investiture ceremony. Stating that a prince who was not "Invested" as Price of Wales therefore never WAS prince of Wales is wrong. It was being CREATED Prince of Wales that made each into a Prince of Wales. The Investiture Ceremony occurs later, or not at all, and has no bearing on becoming Prince of Wales or not. There used to be an Investiture Ceremony for noble titles (Duke, Marquess, etc.) too, later eliminated for cost and inconvenience. But nobody has ever tried to say that one didn't become a Marquess or whatever UNTIL the Investiture. For instance if the House of Lords sat before your Investiture occurred (back in the days when nobles still HAD Investitures), you were entitled to attend, because you were already the Marquess or whatever, Invested or not. You become a Marquess at the instant the Monarch says so (in writing), or when your predecessor Marquess dies, Invested or not. The same applies to the Prince of Wales, the only title-holder for whom an Investiture is still performed.69.86.130.90 (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
Charles II had no legitimate son. He was succeeded by his brother James II who was the father of James III. Emperor001 (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't a 'coronation' - the correct term is 'investiture'. There is only one coronation in the United Kingdom, and that is of the Sovereign. Ds1994 (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

I think Prince Charles Investiture was in 1968, not 1958. I distinctly remember it being shown on TV, and since I was born in 1958, couldn't have been then! 93.172.59.65 (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)S.C.

This is an old question, but for future reference, Charles was created Prince of Wales in 1958, and invested as Prince of Wales in 1969. These are two separate events. Cheers. History Lunatic (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)History Lunatic

Oldest Prince of Wales?

Looking at section:

"The oldest Prince of Wales (as the English and British heir apparent) at the start of his tenure was George Frederick Ernest Albert, later George V, who was 36 years, 5 months and 6 days old when he assumed the title. The Duke of Cambridge will surpass this record if he is created Prince of Wales any time after 16 November 2018 (two days after his father's 70th birthday)."

Surely this refers only to when the Prince of Wales has been the monarch's son. Wasn't Richard of York made Prince of Wales shortly before his death at 49 years of age? Admittedly that's a bit of an aberration.81.152.141.235 (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree there is good argument for including him, especially as Richard of York's creation was enshrined in law in the Act of Accord. I'm not sure why he isn't included in the list here either. The title is listed among York's other titles in his article and is linked to this article. His case is discussed in this article, but with no explanation as to why he is not listed. He was only officially PoW for about 6 weeks, but shortness of tenure is no criteria to exclude him. This seems especially odd to me since Edward VI is listed even though we have no concrete evidence that he was created PoW before his father died. History Lunatic (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)History Lunatic

Small question

Before and after the recent protection of this page, I have been thinking to myself - who keeps on adding this Jimbo picture to the article and quoting "Heil Jimbo!" in a couple of random places... Iggy (Swan) 18:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Other.

Are there any other principalities in the UK? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Heir apparent versus heir presumptive

Page says this,

The title Prince of Wales is given only to the heir apparent—somebody who cannot be displaced in the succession to the throne by any future birth. The succession had followed male-preference primogeniture, which meant that the heir apparent was the eldest son of the reigning monarch or, if he was deceased, his eldest son and so on, or if the monarch's eldest son had died without issue, the monarch's second eldest son, etc. As such, a daughter of the sovereign who was next in line to the throne was never the heir apparent because she would be displaced in the succession by any future legitimate son of the sovereign.

even though above pharagraph is technically correct it is confusing. It misleads readers to thnink that female person cannot become heir aparent in male-preference primogeniture. Even though monarchs daughter can be displaced by a future son, if monarchs eldest son dies leaving a daughter and no sons, that daughter cannot be displaced.Chamika1990 (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

No, under male-preference primogeniture, that daughter can be displaced, by the birth of a new son. Esrever (klaT) 22:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Esrever: no, reigning monarchs eldest son is already died leaving a daughter(died eldest sons daughter). as died man cannot produce heirs, his daughter is heir aparent of reigning monarch. reigning monarchs younger sons are positioned behind his eldest sons bloodline. Chamika1990 (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Tables from the page Princes of Wales line of succession

I am copying these tables here because they are the only useful bits of this page which is up for deletion. Someone has put a lot of effort into creating them, perhaps they can be recycled in the future. Moonraker (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

These trees are already at List of rulers of Gwynedd. DrKay (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Iago ab Idwal ap Meurig
r. 1023-1039
Cynan ab Iago
d. 1060
Gruffydd ap Cynan
1055-1081-1137
Owain Gwynedd
1100-1137-1170
Hywel ab Owain Gwynedd
r. 1170		Iorwerth Drwyndwn
1145-1174		Dafydd ab Owain Gwynedd
Prince 1170-1195		Maelgwn ab Owain Gwynedd
Prince 1170-1173		Rhodri ab Owain Gwynedd
Prince 1170-1195
Llywelyn the Great
1173-1195-1240


Llywelyn the Great
1173-1195-1240
Gruffydd ap Llywelyn Fawr
1200-1244		Dafydd ap Llywelyn
1215-1240-1246
Owain Goch ap Gruffydd
d. 1282		Llywelyn the Last
1223-1246-1282		Dafydd ap Gruffydd
1238-1282-1283		Rhodri ap Gruffudd
1230-1315
Gwenllian of Wales
1282-1337		Llywelyn ap Dafydd
1267-1283-1287		Owain ap Dafydd
1265-1287-1325		Tomas ap Rhodri
1300-1325-1363
Owain Lawgoch
1330-1378

Have changed the use of the depricated familytree template to its tree chart replacement. Once all uses of familytree have been converted, it is due to be deleted. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Explanation of the title

I'm not sure if I'm understanding this correctly, but if so, it is not emphasized enough, leaving people confused. So basically, British royals are given titles corresponding to places they are not associated with at all? Charles doesn't have anything to do with Wales and doesn't really represent it? --2001:16B8:316F:2700:B1F7:8837:5D14:4CF (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Titles don't correspond to 'associations'. They correspond to old feudal concepts of estates. The Prince of Wales once 'owned' Wales. When Wales and England merged, the principality merged with the kingdom and was vested in the Sovereign. So then the Sovereign grants the principality to his son. After centuries, the title just becomes a title, though there have been attempts in recent decades to increase the Welsh connexion. On the other hand, his dukedom of Cornwall is still 'alive' insofar as HRH still holds the Duchy of Cornwall. Essentially titles in most cases are now nominal. The Duke of Norfolk doesn't own Norfolk. The Viscount Severn doesn't own the Severn. They're just... titles. Steepleman (t) 12:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Edward VI (again)

Noting Edward VI's inclusion in the list, two points: 1) The list cites https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/titles-and-heraldry as a source for his creation as Prince of Wales. However, https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/titles-and-heraldry does not include Edward VI in its list of "previous Princes of Wales". Standing up an assertion with an unsupportive source appears to be a breach of wikipedia's rules.

2) According to a reliable source ( https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Cheshire_and_the_Tudor_State_1480_1560/-L-skqOw7QoC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22edward+vi%22+%22prince+of+wales%22+18+October+1536&pg=PA81&printsec=frontcover ), "Although the future Edward VI was widely called prince of Wales and his creation was believed imminent in 1536-7, 1543 and 1546-7, none of Henry VIII's sons (or daughters) was ever created prince or earl [of Chester], perhaps because of uncertainty over the settlement of Wales until 1543."

I'd suggest the page is amended to reflect that, as Thornton notes, Edward VI was "widely called" prince of Wales but was not created such: either by adding a footnote to Edward VI's entry in the list, or by removing him from the list and noting the fact in the text body. 109.144.212.174 (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

See this source here: http://www.gutenberg-e.org/mcintosh/appendix-c.html On this page, historian J.L. McIntosh seems to argue that Edward VI was in fact the Prince of Wales (through confirmation in official documents), but never underwent the formal investiture (which wasn't necessary). Perhaps the citation could be removed from the Prince of Wales' official website for Edward VI, and the link to this source substituted instead. 214.16.210.26 (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to split this page into (1) Prince of Wales and (2) Native Prince of Wales

Theis page is quite well defined into two main sections as it is, and the titles have two clear and distinctly different roles. The use of the title is well defined into two main traditions. The first is the native Welsh leader with succession from Gruffydd ap Cynan to Llywelyn the Last and then Owain Glyndwr. The second tradition is of the English/British heir apparent, from Edward Longshanks to Prince Charles. Let me know your thoughts, Thanks.Titus Gold (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The title is mostly recognised as being the heir-apparent to the British throne. GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

"Native Prince of Wales" section

Following the above failed split proposal, I removed the list of native princes on the basis that:

  • the main subject of this article is the current title, with the "native" use of the title being covered at List of rulers of Wales, as shown by the "Main article" section hatnote
  • the list in this article merely duplicates content on List of rulers of Wales

However, my removal has been reverted; what do others think? Rosbif73 (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I see no point in duplicating the same material in two different places. It's contrary to WP:CONTENTFORK. DrKay (talk) 07:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
In agreement with DrKay. Remove the duplicate info, from this page. GoodDay (talk) 07:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Agreed - it's unnecessary duplication. Every article does not need to contain every piece of information - that is why we have separate articles, and wikilinks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
So the inclusion of the British heir apparent but no inclusion of native princes? Surely that's quite a significant bias and the article is now very unbalanced? I think there needs to be an alternative way of addressing this Titus Gold (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The native Welsh usage of the title lasted for less than two centuries, whereas the current usage as English then British heir apparent has lasted for over 800 years, so there's nothing biased about making the latter the primary topic of the article. If anything, the article currently gives too much weight to the native usage; I'd be in favour of condensing the native section further (whilst leaving the "Main article" hatnote of course). Rosbif73 (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
In that case how about making this page entirely about the English heir apparent?: (A) List of rulers of Wales on the native Welsh rulers as it already is, and keeping (B) Prince of Wales (British heir apparent), entirely focused on the heir apparent?
Well I would point out that the titles of the Celtic Britons have evolved with their identity over 2000 years from King of the Britons to King of Wales and finally Prince of Wales (which was actually used for around 300 years if you include Glyndwr etc.) in a relatively continuous manner. There are also significant overlaps with the use of these titles.
There is far more continuity between the native Kings and Princes of Wales than there is between the native Princes of Wales and the heir apparent because 1. The heir apparent never lived in Wales, 2. The heir apparent never ruled Wales as Wales was ruled by the English/British monarch, 3. The heir apparent was of a completely different institution, 4. The meaning and role of the title was completely different and was ceremonial more than anything.
In "A History of Wales" by John Davies for example, there is no real mention at all of the heir apparent (other than the 1969 investiture really), but the native Princes of Wales are discussed at length. This shows that the title had completely different meanings and significance in Welsh history. Titus Gold (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Don't you mean English, then British heir-apparent? GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, corrected the comment.Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Lists and infoboxes

The list of native rulers was removed from this page because it exists on the List of rulers of Wales page and so the list of English/British monarchy heir apparents is also not needed here because it is present on List of English or British monarchy Prince of Wales. The use of the title was also not a smooth continuation. The title of Prince of Wales was used in two completely different mannners, one by native Welsh rulers and one by the heir apparent of the English/British crown and so two seperate infoboxes is totally appropriate. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC) On the Prince of Wales website the current English/British line is described as a completely seperate line of Princes, and rightly so, "It was the first time the eldest son of the King of England was invested as Prince of Wales, making Edward II the first of the current line of Princes of Wales, of which His Royal Highness is the 21st." This again justifies a seperate infobox.Titus Gold (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

List of rulers of Wales is the same length as this article. The list of princes of Wales is one fifth the length of this article and can be easily kept here, which is where most readers will expect it to be. DrKay (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Ok, but there is unbalanced content on this article. The infobox focuses on the current line and there is only a list of the heir apparent here. Titus Gold (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
The List of English or British monarchy Prince of Wales page, should be deleted, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
PS - I can't speak for others, but I'm finding your bold changes over these last few weeks, to be somewhat problematic. This latest creation of an un-necessary page, is quite concerning. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
To ensure balance, I moved the list of heirs apparent to another page as was done with the list of the native Princes of Wales.This page has now been deleted anyway. This article is still unbalanced because there is no list of native princes included but a hatnote to another page instead. Titus Gold (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
After moving the heir apparent infobox to the appropriate heading, I think the balance is acceptable for now. Titus Gold (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Edits are being made to place the British monarchy Prince of Wales in the lead because it is the "primary topic".The primary topic is the title of "Prince of Wales" of which there were/are two traditions and as such the infoboxes should be under the appropriate heading. Titus Gold (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
There is no doubt that the vast majority of readers of this article will be looking primarily for the current usage of the title as British heir apparent rather than the historic "native" usage. If the two were in separate articles, the current usage would be the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Applying the same logic, the infobox for the current usage should appear first. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence to support that assumption? Titus Gold (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Look at the results of the What links here tool. I've checked two random pages of 50 article space results, and found only 9 out of 100 that refer to the "native" use of the title. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
That's mainly because the native leader related topics link to List of rulers of Wales and other related pages instead, likely because this page was previously so biased towards the English/British Princes tradition. Titus Gold (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Even if that is so, there are 5 times as many links to Prince of Wales than to List of rulers of Wales, which just confirms the primacy of the current usage. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
That's a fair point. I do still think it's fairer to keep the article neutral rather than prioritising one Prince tradition over the other. Titus Gold (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Citations needed in the Heir apparent section

There is a lack of cited content under the heir apparent section. I would appreciate any help in addressing this without losing valuable content. Thanks.Titus Gold (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I have now addressed this in full. Please feel free to add any additional cited text if you so wish. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Vacant

It is incorrect to say that this title is “vacant”. It has in fact merged into the Crown, meaning that is currently does not exist.

Charles III will probably in due course recreate the title and bestow it to Prince William, but for now there is no such thing as a “vacant” title of Prince of Wales. 2A02:8440:2140:B411:E910:E39B:8556:1BB1 (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Neither of these positions is correct. The title has merged with the crown because it's holder now also holds the crown; the title still *exists*, however, as a subsidiary title of the King's.

The Prince of Wales is the same person it was 12 hours ago: Charles. QueerAsFolkPunk (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"King Charles III"

I'd like to edit this, but I can't... but someone posted for Charles, King of the UK: "8 September 2022 acceded to throne as Charles III" ... last I checked and correct me if I'm wrong, but Charles' regal name has yet to be revealed. Could someone edit this? Thanks! — Fleacollarindustry (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It was revealed, possibly before your objection was made. Yitz711 (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

"Roles and responsibilities" -Update required

The section "Roles and responsibilities" makes reference to the "current" Prince when according to the rest of the article, the position is no longer active as it has been merged into the crown. Mckenzie Weir (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I have made an attempt at updating it, but it may need further tweaks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Current Wording

The citation does not support that the position was “merged with the crown”. The position is currently vacant and the article should be updated to reflect that. 2601:18D:77F:6FA0:ECAC:6F87:3EC6:AAC9 (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Prince William

He’s Prince of Wales now 142.113.63.149 (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

No, he isn't. The title does not pass automatically from one generation to the next - it needs to be confirmed, and that has not yet happened. https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/william-become-prince-wales-investiture-24966997 Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
It seems as though Charles III just announced William as the new Prince of Wales in his 1st speech. I'm not sure if there needs to be more of legal process though. Pottstuff (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles III created him Prince of Wales during his speech today - Sept 9, 2022

The legal process noted in the article is that the King will need to issue Letters Patent creating William as Prince of Wales. This could potentially happen at his Accession Council meeting. However as Charles is the King, nobody is likely to argue with him on legalities until he signs the paperwork and makes it official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.123.235 (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

William is Prince of Wales

Confirmed in speech by Charles III. 99.227.215.190 (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Source? Until this is announced by reliable sources, people need to stop adding William to the article. Tad Lincoln (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Quote from the BBC, on the page with Charles III's full speech video: "He also announced that his son William and daughter-in-law Catherine would become the Prince and Princess of Wales."[3] —C.Fred (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The source of the announcement is King Charles III, who would have to be considered a reliable source as he is the one who can legally make the appointment - he made the announcement in a recorded broadcast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.123.235 (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction should only include general informations about the origins of the title and its current holder. Other information, such as the English/British rules of inheritance, subsidiary titles and the movement to end the title should be kept in their own sections. Maria0215 (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to briefly mention the reception to the use of the titles, both good and bad, as long as it is balanced. Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. Titus Gold (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
The introduction should be a summary of the main text of the article - MOS:LEAD. If it isn't in the main text, it shouldn't be in the introduction. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree @Ghmyrtle. The reception to the title, both good and bad is included in the main text. Should we include this in the lead too then? Titus Gold (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps, but only very briefly, perhaps in a single sentence. Within the overall scope of this article, opinions regarding the title are simply not that important, and if they are addressed in other articles (in this case, Movement to end the Prince of Wales title, or whatever that article may be called), they do not need to be repeated here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Petition calling for the abolition of the title: blacklisted link

The petition Web site is at the moment blacklisted, I think in error. I've asked for the site, or the particular page, to be whitelisted; in the meantime: "petition was launched calling for the abolition of the title.[1]"

  1. ^ "Petition: End "Prince of Wales" title out of respect for Wales", Change.org {{citation}}: Missing or empty |url= (help) Number of signatures updated frequently. URL www.change.org/p/end-prince-of-wales-title-out-of-respect-for-wales is blacklisted, can't even link it in Talk.

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Even if the whitelist request is accepted, the petition page is a primary source; it would be preferable to cite a reliable secondary source that reports on the petition. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Secondary sources are cited. The petition site has the up-to-date number of signatures; secondary sources don't. Actually the petition is moot for now as the title has already been granted, though it might be relevant in preparation for the next transition. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Whitelisting has been declined because "blocked as a link shortener not due to the target". It isn't a link shortener but a proper site, which I've said in the blacklisting discussion. But blocked unless this changes. As of now, site says 17,000+ signatures, still increasing fast. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
The current actual number is not needed, only numbers mentioned by independent (= secondary) sources. You asked for delisting on the global blacklist, you could have tried locally. But also there, it will likely be declined as it is a primary source, and we disallow soapboxing. If anything is notable about the actual numbers then there will be independent reliable sources mentioning it. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Edward VI

Whyt is Edward VI listed as Prince of Wales. He was never installed as Prince of Wales and is not listed as such on the official Royal Family website https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/titles-and-heraldry QPLondon (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@QPLondon: I don't see Edward VI on the list in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

See this earlier discussion on the archives talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prince_of_Wales/Archive_1#The_man_who_later_became_Edward_VI_should_be_in_the_list.

Edward VI may never have been invested as Prince of Wales. The ceremony appears to have been planned to take place right before he became king, but he was Prince of Wales, per official royal documents and correspondence that refers to him as such. The investiture ceremony (which could have been also referred to as a "creation" in the 16th century) is not essential, and in the 16th century, a Prince of Wales could be created simply by a witnessed verbal declaration by the monarch. Wikiman86 (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

To cite from the earlier discussion:

So, Edward VI WAS, at one time, Prince of Wales, and all sources to the contrary are deriving their information from the same original error, which is Edward VI's own hand.

Early in his reign Edward wrote of a ceremony cancelled because Henry VIII died and Edward became King. Edward's writing referred to that ceremony as his "creation" as Prince of Wales. Some will wrongly insist that this word "creation" be taken at its MODERN face value, and will say that if the creation was planned, but cancelled because of Henry VIII's death, then Edward was never "created" (in our modern sense) Prince of Wales, which means (in modern English) that he never WAS Prince of Wales.

The mistake lies in taking that word "creation" at its face value when there's so much evidence to the contrary and a simple explanation for Edward's choice of the word "creation". The simple explanation is that the 9-year-old King just wrote the wrong word, or that in the English language of his day the usage of the words "creation" and "investiture" were not as distinct as they are today. That which we would call the "creation" of a Prince of Wales is no ceremony -- it's just the decree of the Monarch. But the thing being cancelled WAS a ceremony. Ergo, the thing being cancelled would be called, in TODAY's English, the "Investiture" of the Prince of Wales, NOT the "creation". Investitures occur for a Prince of Wales only after that person is CREATED Prince of Wales. We know that the Investiture for Edward was planned because he refers to its cancellation (although he uses the word "creation"). Since the Investiture for Edward was planned, and an Investiture is planned only for a person who is already created Prince of Wales, Edward must already have been Prince of Wales at that time. QED.

The "abundant evidence to the contrary" referred to above is the usual correspondence we would expect to find in which Edward prior to being King is referred to as "the Prince of Wales", for instance in a document written by Henry VIII while Edward was still an infant.

See also this source by Professor J. L. McIntosh., which discusses creating and investing a Prince of Wales: http://www.gutenberg-e.org/mcintosh/appendix-c.html Wikiman86 (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Is Prince William now also the Earl of Chester?

I understand that Prince William is now the Prince of Wales since 9 September 2022, after King Charles III announced his creation as such in his first speech as king. While Charles III didn't explicitly mention the title of Earl of Chester in his speech, can we safely assume that Prince William is also now Earl of Chester as well as Prince of Wales (since Wikipedia article on the title Earl of Chester mentions that since the late 14th century the earldom has been granted along with the title of Prince of Wales as a subsidiary title), or is the earldom of Chester now vacant? Just wondering what people's thoughts are. Thanks. Wikiman86 (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

What we "safely assume" and what we add to articles are not the same. You may well be correct the William holds both titles; once someone identifies a reliable source it should be added. ~TPW 14:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't making a definitive claim that he was Earl of Chester; I just raised the question. I have yet to see any announcement in the London, Edinburgh, or Belfast Gazettes that William has been created both Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester. In modern times, I know the creation of Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester is usually done via letters patent (as was done for King Charles III in 1958), but no announcement of any letters patent doing so has been made as far as I can see. Wikiman86 (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
It was raised at Talk:William,_Prince_of_Wales#Earl_of_Chester and concluded that no mention had been made of him becoming Earl of Chester yet. Sionk (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
This article thinks he is,[4] but the tone possibly suggests that they’re assuming that he must be in the same way as we are —Mgp28 (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Erm, yes, seems to be over-enthusiasm by Cheshire Live :) The titles aren't automatically inherited by the heir to the throne. Sionk (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Unneccessary sentence ?

"On 8 September 2022 upon the death of Elizabeth II, the title-holder, Prince Charles, became king.[1] The following day, King Charles III bestowed the title upon his elder son, Prince William, Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge.[2][3]" - Is this really neccessary in the opening paragraphs ? Surely this is like including this statement every time a Prince of Wales acquired that title. We know he's Prince of Wales from the later table.--HuwWilson652 (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

It's down to the endemic 'recentism' of Wikipedia. But with the mugshot of the latest Prince of Wales in the infobox to the right, I guess it's only reasonable that a brief explanation of the current situation is included in the lede intro. Sionk (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

duplication

There are duplicate sections about Owain Glyndwr and not enough explanation about the Princes of Gwynedd and subsequent Prince of Wales title. This has been ignored and could be corrected and improved. Cltjames (talk) 07:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Also in terms of amending the article, I believe the paragraph for 'End of native princes of Wales' to be disconnected from the topic of Prince of Wales, especially by going into detail about the details of the deaths of Llywelyn II and Dafydd III. Perhaps something softer to represent the article's reference to Princes. Cltjames (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I believe the specific details of the deaths are unnecessary to the article and should be reworded or removed. I believe it gives undue weight to that section and not really relevant. Some parts were also copy and pasted from somewhere else, so some parts may need rewording and trimming whether it is relevant. DankJae 19:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Also I would like to add criticism involving the introduction, and about the formation of Princes in particular. The body of the text doesn't have any references reinforcing the intro. I know of the references which prove introduction, and I would like to add to the opening paragprahs of the article with citations explaining the formation of the Prince of Wales, especially involving the council of Aberdyfi, 1216. Also i have references to explain the prequel of the Principality of Wales, explaining the decision to make Princes from Kings in Wales. To finish my point, the article is lacking consistency and needs expanding. That is, prominently in the few opening paragraphs after the introduction. Also the use of BBC as references isn't enough for this article and will need more work done, as in the wrong information has been presented for this article in reference to the topic of Prince of Wales.
Would someone please debate or allow me to make an amendment ? Cltjames (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
References aren't normally used in the lede intro, because it should be a summary of what is verified in the body of the article. Though if a quote, or a controversial/grand claim is included then it requires a citation regardless of whether it is in the lede - see MOS:LEDECITE Sionk (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Emblem clarification

Think it should be clarified in infobox that emblem is used by British holder of title and previously English holder. The native Welsh princes didn't use it. Titus Gold (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The page already explains that the symbol arises with the Black Prince. It doesn't actually have the story about where he got it from (adopted after the battle of Crécy, 1346, after John of Luxembourg, King of Bohemia, whose crest it was, died there. That could be added (with appropriate source that demonstrates my history teacher was not just making this up!) but as it was only adopted from 1346 onwards there is no need to specify that any previous prince did not use it. No need for that in the infobox either, which merely summarises page content. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I think it's important to note what the symbol applies to. Some may glance at the infobox and not necessarily read the whole content and so I would suggest a simple bracket "(English, British use)" or exclude the image. Titus Gold (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
The infobox is only meant to give a brief overview, people who want to know more will read more. DuncanHill (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Of course, but the infobox suggests that the symbol was used since the days of Owain Gwynedd which is obviously very misleading. Titus Gold (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
The infobox suggests nothing of the sort. It's much like the infobox for, eg British Gas, which shews the current logo but doesn't tell people it hasn't been used for the whole history of the company. I don't think anyone would look at the infobox here and say to themselves "Oh that's the badge Owain Gwynedd used" - and I am sure you didn't. DuncanHill (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I disagree, I think it's still misleading. British gas wasn't originally Welsh gas lol! Perhaps adding "current emblem" could work? Titus Gold (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
So you think it is misleading, and two people think it isn't. So that's no consensus for change. You've produced no evidence that anybody has had a problem with it. DuncanHill (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
It's not misleading. We don't caveat that the flag on United Kingdom was only the flag since 1801. We don't say the BT Group logo was only the logo since whenever they dropped the little trumpet man. The current British Gas logo is certainly only a very recent version of an oft changing logo [5]. The page is about the Prince of Wales and the Prince of Wales feathers are a very well known part of the "branding" of that office. I agree with DuncanHill that no one is likely to look at the infobox and suppose that is necessarily something that Owain Gwynedd used, nor indeed are they likley to care. And if they do care, we present an article, and the article has the information. There is no need to clutter up the infobox with caveats, and per MOS:INFOBOX, there should not be novel information in the infobox anyway. The information is a summary of the article and does not supplant it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
It's fine as it is. Infoboxes should be simple. If readers want to know the detail of the emblem, the article on it is linked in the caption. Celia Homeford (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Date of William's creation

We have William created Prince of Wales the day after his grandmother's death, when Charles announced his intention, but it appears the process was only formalized in February of 2023: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4290979 . What is the actual date of creation? --Jfruh (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I think this is standard practice. The same thing happened with the Duke of Windsor: his title was announced the day after his brother's accession but the letters patent weren't actually drawn up until six months later. This is one reason why the 'Titles and styles' sections of so many articles are wrong because editors are using dates of letters patent as dates from which titles are used, but they are often in use already for weeks or even months before the letters patent or introduction to the House of Lords. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, I guess this gets into the somewhat philosophical question of what act actually creates a peerage title. Since those titles are part of British law, I would assume that they would be formally created by the associated legal instruments, even if the holders were using the title earlier upon announcement. I could be convinced otherwise, I'm just curious if there's some actual formal law around this, like the royal "announcement" is the equivalent to the sovereign investing a peer in olden days and the legal instruments are just a formality. --05:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Contemporary debate

The first three examples under this section heading are not specific to the title. While they are valid objections, should they be in a different article? Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the first three may not exclusively be about the title, so separated these under another heading. Titus Gold (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
This has been reverted by another user for some reason. Titus Gold (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
But simply shuffling them around in the article is not the answer. Tony Holkham's suggestion is that these perhaps belong in completely different articles. The Manic Street Preachers song seems undue here, but I suppose might deserve a mention in Welsh republicanism. Naming of cups and bridges probably not even there, but would be due in the articles on the Logo of the Welsh Rugby Union and the Second Severn Crossing - both of which have this information already. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I've moved the song sentence to Welsh republicanism. I think the other two are due here with only a very brief mention of the logo with a link to Logo of the Welsh Rugby Union. Titus Gold (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

"Native" princes of Wales section

...is irrelevant to fictitious. It needs to talk how Llywelyn the Great first assumed the title and how it was deployed by the Aberffraw princes between the 1220s and the Edwardian conquest. It doesn't have that - instead it's about, well I don't really know what. There's a particularly odd statement (cited to Maund but without page numbers) that "The native use of the title 'Prince of Wales' appeared more frequently by the eleventh century". DeCausa (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The first use of title according to some sources was by Owain Gwynedd, although some sources suggest Gruffydd ap Cynan.
I agree that it should be outlined how Llywelyn ap Iorwerth (Llywelyn the Great) came to use the title also. Titus Gold (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Anything before Llywelyn the Great that gets more than a passing mention is WP:UNDUE. That section needs to be very focussed on the 13th century. DeCausa (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Why? Titus Gold (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Because it gives a distorted view of the historiography. Sporadic use (mainly random references in the odd chronicle) doesn't compare to the (fairly) systematic usage of the late Aberffraws or the (even more) systematic post-Conquest usage. It misrepresents to put either at the same level. DeCausa (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@Titus Gold: I've reverted your huge and WP:UNDUE addition on the "native" princes. It makes the article completely unbalanced and puts far too much emphasis on it compared to the later period. Please discuss here before adding further. @Rosbif73: my revert has taken your POV tag with it - I assume that the reverted material was what prompted you adding it so it's no longer needed. However, please re-add if I'm mistaken. DeCausa (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for that reversion, which indeed eliminates the main reason for my undue weight tag. I still think there's a little too much emphasis on the "native" usage, especially in the lead. but no longer enough to justify the tag. What the article really needs now, IMO, is a bit more post-1301 history to balance the "native" section. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Ok I've made a far more condensed form and removed less relevant content to the title. Titus Gold (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
As of now the native prince section is only 840 words compared to the English/British princes section which is 1,383 words. Titus Gold (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The latter have a history of 7 centuries; the former a few decades (and sporadically at that). It's not just the words - there's the 5 images as well, although for one of those you (is it you? I haven't checked.) managed to shoehorn in a pic of a 1969 anti-investiture protest. The article now has two of those. It's almost as though what you're doing to this article has a POV behind it. DeCausa (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The image replaced one of the memorial after the merge. Where would you prefer I moved the image, to the debate section? Titus Gold (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I've just added an image I found of Edward I & son also. Titus Gold (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I have made a number of edits on this section tonight. I have added in some missing information, but also pared back as much material as possible that is not about princes of Wales. The wikilinks provide navigation to the further information. This is hopefully better focussed now. I have only looked as far as the Edward I/Edward of Caernarfon. I have added a good number of sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
You have made some good additions, however some removals were unnecessary and rather require a better source, as do other parts of the article. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Links with English football

I've tried to home in on a balanced view of this item, but I feel the topic is a bit petty, and does not belong in this article at all, but unless other editors think it's pertinent to the title PoW, perhaps it should go in the article about William? Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

It does seem to be mentioned in the context of the title so perhaps a summary mention of it in the debate section? Titus Gold (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
But it only relates to the present PoW, not the title itself. Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. This is only tangentially about the title and is little more than trivia here; it might have its place in William's article, however. I see it is already mentioned in William's article, so have deleted it here. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree too. There is often a confusion between a title, post or role and the holder of that role. This is in the section about controversy over the continuance of the title, but the subject is controversy about the actions of the title holder. It is no more due than, say, controversy about the actions of a Prime Minister is relevant to the scrapping of the post of Prime Minister. This is a problem with a lot of articles where editors are prone to copying and pasting information from one article to another. This article should be focussed on its subject and not on periphery. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Arms POV issue

Disruptive duplication of an already existing thread that covers exactly this issue and answers the WP:BLUDGEONed question asked. DeCausa (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Why is there an insistence for the inclusion of the personal arms of the English/British princes but the arms of the native Princes is removed? There needs to be a consistency here.

Seems to be a blatant Wikipedia:Neutral point of view issue. Titus Gold (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources

Yesterday I added a series of "better source" templates [6] because (and this is a general problem with history sections written by Titus Gold), the sourcing is to newspaper articles and the BBC history website. Writing an encyclopaedic article based on history articles for newspaper readers is a particularly worrying practice. The BBC articles are better, but they are still a tertiary source. Someone has written a bespoke summary from secondary sources for the BBC website. The BBC has a duty of balance that the newspapers don't have, but per Wikipedia policy, we should be using secondary sources, so I added the templates.

Titus Gold's response was to mark up a whole bunch of other references in the titles and roles section [7] and then again elsewhere [8] but I find the reason given, The current source is insufficiently reliable (WP:NOTRS) opaque. These edits look WP:POINTy. Why are these not reliable sources? The second set of additions make sense, except this one which is not even a reference:

The Glyndŵr arms were also used as a banner, carried into battle against the English.[better source needed]This banner is a symbol of Welsh defiance

Those three in that second edit were against information Titus Gold had restored (see section above) and indeed there are newspaper article references in there that are still not marked, as I had deleted them and the deletion was reverted. However it is not clear why text about Charles performing ceremonial roles on behalf of the Queen, sourced from the prince of Wales website, is not a reliable source for that information. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Why remove this rather than replace source? @Sirfurboy actions here are a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view concern Titus Gold (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Wrong section. I have not removed those templates. Could you better explain what is wrong with those sources please? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree that sounds quite bizarre. If the Prince of Wales' own website is not reliable for information about the Prince of Wales, we have a real problem, haha. But then we've always considered newspapers and the BBC to be reliable sources, so I don't understand why these sources are "worrying". Sionk (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
It is a matter of the appropriateness of the source. Newspapers are usually primary sources, so they are often treated with caution for that reason. However a newspaper can also present secondary sourced information (research conducted by a journalist, for instance), and there it can be a secondary source, but still treated with caution in that the research is not peer reviewed. But when a newspaper decides to write about Welsh history,[9] there must be significant questions as to the qualifications of a journalist to be accurately evaluating and representing the historical consensus, and the newspaper has no real obligation to be balanced. A better source will be the same source a good journalist is using (i.e. the secondary source(s)). Because the journalist is just putting together material from sources for their article, their article is a tertiary source, and one not particularly known for reliability in presenting historical narrative. Wikipedia articles should be following secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
So would you be happy for me to re-include information on native arms (+/- use of native arms by Charles etc.) if I find better quality sources? Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Arms subsection

I removed what I think was an irrelevant subsection yesterday on "arms". Titus Gold reverted that (along with other content he keeps reverting) in this edit: [10]. There is information about the coat of arms of Llywelyn the Last and Owain Glyndŵr only. This information is on their respective pages, and are personal arms. I do not see why that is relevant or necessary, when we already link to their pages. Thoughts? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Given that the information exists on the respective pages, I think that including it here is over-emphasis at best (irrelevant at worst). The final sentence "This banner is a symbol of Welsh defiance, resilience and protest,and is associated with Welsh nationhood." seems to me to be about the banner itself, and not about the (historic OR contemporary) Prince of Wales.Llwyld (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, personal arms should be relegated to the articles of the persons concerned. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Rosbif73. We need to keep the PoW article on-topic. At the moment it is quite muddled and doesn't flow very well. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree too. DeCausa (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks all. I have now deleted it again. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
You can't have information about feathers but no information about the Llywelyn period arms and Glyndwr arms, both of which are associated with the Princes of Wales. That raises a POV concern. The Llywelyn arms were even used by Charles in flags etc.
I would also add that the feathers is technically the Duke of Cornwall badge and are still included. Titus Gold (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I've removed the feathers section since there's a whole article already on it. For balance if the native arms are excluded for this page, then so must the feathers. Titus Gold (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I've reverted you for WP:POINT. What you took out related generically to the Prince of Wales not to individual Princes. "Balance"? This is a clear marker that you see this article as a WP:BATTLEGROUND to advance a particular POV. There is no reason to "balance" (aka WP:FALSEBALANCE) the "native" v Post conquest princes. That's not what NPOV is and this article isn't, or shouldn't be a competition between the two. DeCausa (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
There's already an article on the feathers. They are technically the Duke of Cornwall feathers. Consistency and due weight must be given across an article. For balance, you can include both native heraldry and English/British heraldry or neither. The native arms have actually appeared in both native and English/British principalities/modern day state.
@DeCausa's actions here are a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view concern. Titus Gold (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Already an article on the feathers is a reason to reduce content not to remove all reference. What "balance" are you talking about? The comparison is individual arms v a badge that multiple Princes of Wales used. There is nothing to balance unless you see it, from your POV, as a "competition" between "two sides". DeCausa (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
The two Welsh arms were also used by multiple Princes of Wales, why is all mention of them being removed? Llywelyn the Great and Llywelyn the Last used the first arms. Owain Lawgoch and Owain Glyndwr used the second arms (and even Charles adapted it on his own flag as POW). The feathers are the Duke of Cornwall badge which is associated with POW. The Welsh arms are personal/familial heraldry which is associated with the POW and used by multiple Welsh POW.
There is a lack of consistency here which suggests a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view concern. I'm happy for both Welsh and English/British arms to be included but consistency must be applied. Titus Gold (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
It's not about English v Welsh insignia. The feathers badge has been used as the symbol of the Prince of Wales (multiple princes) since the late 15th century. The arms removed per the consensus in this thread are the personal arms of 3 individuals. It's apples and pears. DeCausa (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree that they have different histories but there is a clear association between the Welsh coat of arms and the Prince of Wales title both historically and in popular culture today. Why else would e.g Charles use the arms on his POW flag? It's also used on the Royal Badge of Wales. The arms used during the principality of Wales under Welsh rule was the four lions on red and gold.
Again, the feathers are the Duke of Cornwall feathers but are just associated with the title, so by applying your argument then this should be excluded as well.
Excluding the Welsh arms but including the feathers is giving a skewed view of the associated symbolism that surrounds the title. Titus Gold (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Also: Two Llywelyn's used the first arms. Two Owain's used the rampant version after the line of succession changed from Aberffraw. Titus Gold (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Firstly, they're not the badge of the Duke of Cornwall. Wales Online (!!) is not a good enough source to say that. Secondly, even that source says they've been exclusively the badge of the Prince of Wales since the 17th century. Actually, that's wrong - it's since the late 15th century. Thirdly, the arms that were removed were the arms of individuals not the badge of a title, which the feathers are. This is going in circles. DeCausa (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
There are plenty of citations stating the use of feathers for heir apparent (not POW). It has of course become associated with the title. No citations show official use by William today. Titus Gold (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
There are plenty of citations stating the use of feathers for heir apparent (not POW) - And yet we are still waiting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes here are a few citations.
"wrongly called the Prince of Wales feathers" (explains that they are the emblem of the heir apparent as Duke of Cornwall)https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Montgomeryshire_Collections/ddU4AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0
Another https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/King_Edward_VIII_Duke_of_Windsor/t4wgAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0&bsq=three%20feathers%20duchy%20of%20cornwallAnotherhttps://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/James_Joyce_and_Heraldry/nKfIFtE2d_gC?hl=en&gbpv=0
Anotherhttps://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Wordsworth_Dictionary_of_Phrase_and_Fabl/IgjAJazrBWwC?hl=en&gbpv=0
I'm not denying that they're associated with the English/British Prince of Wales of course Titus Gold (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
@DeCausa, @Sirfurboy, @Llwyld, @Rosbif73, @Tony Holkham, just raising attention that Prince of Wales's feathers was moved by TG to Three feathers, I do not see a consensus decision here and seems to be connected here, so just raising awareness if there is any opposition. IMO it sounds a bit too generic and descriptive to be the name, but don't mind if a majority of sources use the name over PoW's feathers. Just asking if there was enough discussion.
In regards to the other discussion, if arms were included because they were associated with a Prince of Wales rather than many or the Prince of Wales, i.e. a personal arms, then it would be best at the individual's articles, if I am reading the discussion above correctly. (Not into history)
Also if there is a dispute over them being the Duke of Cornwall's can logo of the Welsh Rugby Union also be updated, I just followed what I found online, if WalesOnline is dubious. Thanks! DankJae 08:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. I also note that immediately prior to boldly moving the article, Titus Gold edited it to make the same claims as here. Would others agree that the move should be reverted? Rosbif73 (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay you can colour me annoyed now. I just spent an hour looking at the sources pasted here and writing a reply in the little box here, and in reverting what is clearly a tendentious page move, I have now lost the lot. If I carry on editing right now, it will be to open an ANI thread, because this constant page moving behaviour is highly disruptive. So I am going to take a break now, and see if I calm down. But yes, that page move is now reverted per WP:POINT. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
It's certainly WP:TENDENTIOUS. The opening sentence now reads The badge is technically the badge of the heir apparent regardless of whether the Prince of Wales title is held or not. No explanation of what badge is being talked about or what is the connection with the Prince of Wales. Ridiculous. DeCausa (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I've just restored the version from before the tendentious edits; hopefully that will be a better base from which to move forward. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I recommend reading the sources. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Why is there an insistence for the inclusion of the personal arms of the English/British princes but the arms of the native Princes is removed?
Concerns me that the arms are a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view issue.
Would appreciate some balance and consistency in treating all the symbols. Titus Gold (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
WP:BLUDGEON. Already answered. DeCausa (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I have taken this to ANI. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Titus Gold - Civil POV Pushing and Disruptive Editing. Possible Sock Puppetry. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
You could have just come to my talk page directly.
The edits I have made are factually correct. It's the badge of the heir apparent, not strictly Prince of Wales although I of course have acknowledged the association. Titus Gold (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I have been to your talk page. Others have been there. You keep doing this! The issue is intractable. Enough is enough. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Your talk page is cleared almost all the time. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Images

I've added images of Edward II becoming Prince of Wales, the "honours" of the principality of Wales, Black Prince feathers as well as Llywelyn and Glyndwr images.

For some reason, images of Llywelyn/memorial and Glyndwr are being removed. Not sure why this is. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Because they are relevant only to individual princes, not to the title of Prince of Wales in general. See MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
A compromise might be: if the Welsh holders were tabulated as the English ones are, images could be included; however, there are no likenesses of the Welsh princes available, as far as I know. The memorial is not an image of the individual. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
There is a contemporary depiction of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, should the Welsh princes of Wales be tabulated. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Owain Gwynedd

Not sure why this explained addition has been reverted. Seems to be quite clearly outlined in the book "Owain Gwynedd Prince of the Welsh".

The first Welshman known to have used the title Prince of Wales was Owain Gwynedd in the 1160s. He initially used the title King of Wales in letters to the king of France and then made the change from king (or "rex") to prince (or "princeps") to reflect his position as the unquestioned leader of Wales. According to Roman law, "princeps" referred to the sovereign ruler of a country. Some historian suggest the title change was made to snub Henry II of England.[1][2][3] Titus Gold (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Owain Gwynedd is the first person known to have styled himself as prince of Wales, and don't object to that information. However, it was odd that you used (Davies 2016) as a source, a book that argues of Bleddyn, "his reign began the age of the princes, which means that – in fact if not in title – he can be regarded as the first prince of Wales." That appears to directly contradict the assertion that we imply that Owain Gwynedd was the first prince. I also found the phrasing about Owain Gwynedd adopting the usage "in the 1160s" to be rather loose. I think this edit is much better: [11] and would only change it by saying "first known to adopt..." I caveat my remarks that I have not read that source, but it looks suitable, and I believe the information is correct, so no reason to doubt it supports the statement. I also think we need to be careful, in the light of (Davies, 2016), not to make assertions about the term prince being designed to assert something that it was not (or probably not!) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
The book on Bleddyn ap Cynfyn is more speculative rather than citing known use of the title, but I take the point. Since finding the current source, the Bleddyn ap Cynfyn book is no longer essential.
I've just added an explanation about the title change from the Owain Gwynedd book. Seems to show the origins of the title of "Prince of Wales", so obviously very relevant to the article. I would welcome further exploration and discussion of the origins in the article. Titus Gold (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
So as a result, now I am no longer content with the additions. Changing the title to First Prince of Wales: Owain Gwynedd when I just quoted a section from a book that casts doubt on that seems... bold! The text: the change was made to reflect his position as the unquestioned leader of Wales, as according to Roman law, "princeps" referred to the sovereign ruler of a country. is speculation. It is speculation that has been made, but it is exactly what I was referring to when I said about being careful about making assertions - particularly where we know that Bleddyn ap Cynfyn was installed to be a compliant vassal, and that the princes in general were vassal rulers. We simply can't assert things about 'unquestioned leaders' whose leadership very much was questioned by the events of history. Once again this drifts into an ahistoric POV by very selective curation of the sources. Also, I am mindful of the other discussion here, and the maintenance tag now added to the page, and I think they have a point. Why are we spending so much time on the hostory of the 13th century, whithout spending any time on the other history of the princes? This is all covered in other pages that can just be linked from here. Keep it concise. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I've summarised more briefly and the clarified that sentence a bit further. There's already over 1,300 words on the English/British princes whilst only over 800 words currently for the Welsh princes. There's also a list of the English/British princes but no list of the Welsh ones. Titus Gold (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
See my above comment on that particular ratio. DeCausa (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Titus Gold, you have reverted in this information about the usage of princeps 3 times now. Your reverts are: [12], [13] and [14]. All 3 reverts within a 24 hour period (I hope you didn't revert in anything else). I do not see why any of this is due. The book you cite is not an academic text, and although the author is a historian, it is not widely cited. It is available in store at my library, but I don't see a reason to request it because Turvey writes specifically about why the term prince was adopted in Wales in
  • Turvey, R. (2002) The Welsh Princes: The Native Rulers of Wales 1063-1283 Routledge
The discussion is on pages 15-17 and he caveats his discussion by quotineg J. Beverley Smith: the evidence which survives hardly provides the means for any elaborate study of the Welsh princes’ titles. He then looks thoroughly at the evidence and posits two theories as to why the term prince was adopted. The first theory is that it was imposed by the Normans, and he specifically suggests Henry II. On this he cites T. Jones Pierce who suggested that the change may have been due to pressure exerted by Henry II on the leading rulers of Wales to drop the title of king thus enabling him to assert the principle of the English Crown’s superiority and its political overlordship. However he then presents a second theory that the title of prince was adopted by the Welsh themselves, a deliberate decision. For this he cites English usage that retained "rex" but also the styling of Welsh rulers as "regulus", a use of the Latin diminuative in mockery of the "little kings". His theory, then is that the Welsh chose to style their rulers as princes. He says:

This accords well with the view that Rhys and his fellow rulers, at the behest of Henry II, set aside all pretensions to regal status in return for confirmation of their landholdings. It seems that during the twelfth century the native chroniclers were tending increasingly to acclaim only their greatest rulers brenin or rex and then only as an epithet of greatness to be dispensed at death as a mark of respect and for past deeds should they warrant titular distinction. By the thirteenth century this practice had ceased completely

So Turvey says here something wholly different from your summary from his popular work on Owain Gwynedd, written to be published by Y Lolfa. Based on past experience of your handling of sources, I expect you have been rather selective in the quotations.
Your edits appear to be attempting to assert an ahistorical narrative, and certainly appear to misrepresent the views and words of the people your are citing. I made the point before and you just adapted an re-added the text. Please don't do that. I shall now remove this section again. Any discussion of why the term prince arose amongst the Welsh rulers needs more careful handling. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
You have made some are good additions here, thank you. I have reflected the content of the source "Owain Gwynedd: Prince of the Welsh", so no justified reason to remove this. I suggest you read the relevant pages. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm concerned that you've removed the section using "Owain Gwynedd: Prince of the Welsh" without actually having read the relevant pages in the book. Not sure this is fair editing. I'm happy to provide word for word quotes used from the authors mentioned if you don't have access to it, or change the text in the article to quotes? Not sure what else I can do to assist you on this one. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
And so you just reverted the challenged material in for a fourth time [15], without any discussion of what should be in that section, and without any recognition of Turvey's treatment of the exact question in what is unquestionably the better source of his. Your reverted in text relies on a primary sourced quote from Beckett and some other selective quotation that makes it sound like the "prince" in the prince of Wales title was chosen as a deliberate snub to Henry, an assertion of unquestioned sovereignty, which is the exact opposite of what Turvey says is happening here (and what any consensus of historians would say is happening here). Talk pages are the place for the discussion, but there is no discussion here. You are "concerned" and you revert. Again. Where is the consensus for this material? WP:ONUS applies, and it should not be in there until you have established a consensus for inclusion of the disputed content. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
You haven't even read the source.
You're welcome to add a different perspective of Turvey if he shows one. Titus Gold (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I have now obtained a library copy of (Turvey, 2013), and having read the chapter in question, it is clear that this is, as ever, a poor summary of what is in the book, although some of the quotes Titus Gold placed in the article are almost word for word from it. The problem is that it is quotes and not a summary of the argument.
The passage is asking the question, why did Owain Gwynedd adopt the term "Prince of the Welsh" in his third letter to Louis VII? Turvey does indeed suggest that Henry II took umbrage, but the thrust of that is that a few months earlier Owain had paid homage to Henry at the treaty of Worcester, and that what Owain was now doing was seeking to replace one overlord with another. As to why the term "Prince" was chosen for that letter, Turvey says "the reasons for it are a matter of debate." Turvey's own view, and that of J Beverley Smith, seems to favour that it was Owain's intention to assert "his unquestioned eminence as the leader of his nation." It is in that context that the Roman usage of princeps is quoted. So the issue is that this was about Gwynedd's expansion (as Turvey says on page 86). Henry was angry that his vassal king was seeking pre-eminence in Wales and a new overlord in the French, a clear threat to Henry's own designs on extending his own overlordship in Wales. This is actually in accordance with the extended discussion in (Turvey, 2002). The issue was he was calling himself "prince of the Welsh" and not just that he was calling himself a prince.
What to make of this? Well what we have is clearly misleading. It is also too much detail for this article. It gets no mention in Owain Gwynedd, which is where it belongs. I'll attempt to rectify that soon. For this article, it is too much information. I'll have a think about it and try a new summary at some point. Perhaps something along the lines of "Owain Gwynedd was the first to adopt the title, and it is likely that this was to assert his pre-eminence over the other Welsh princes," referenced to (Turvey, 2013:86). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I apologise for muddying the waters with tags - you may be right in that there is too much detail as to what Owain did and why. I'm in favour of leaving much of it to the linked biographical articles. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
No worries about the tags. Thanks, I agree. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm glad you have managed to get a copy of the book, and I agree that different reasoning was provided by different authors and historians. I also agree that reference to the book would be a valuable addition to Owain Gwynedd.
It's not clear why the text has been removed from this article but I would be pleased to see you re-add an amended version that includes e.g the additional context of the Treaty of Worcester.
Thanks for taking the time to get hold of the book. Titus Gold (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Davies, Sean (2016-10-20). The First Prince of Wales?: Bleddyn ap Cynfyn, 1063-75. University of Wales Press. p. 113. ISBN 978-1-78316-937-5.
  2. ^ Davies, John; Jenkins, Nigel; Baines, Menna; Lynch, Peredur I., eds. (2008). "Owain Gwynedd". The Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia of Wales. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. p. 636. ISBN 978-0-7083-1953-6.
  3. ^ Turvey, Roger (2013). Owain Gwynedd: Prince of the Welsh. Y Lolfa. pp. 84–86. ISBN 978-1-84771-694-1.

Feathers emblem use

I think I recall there being mention of the feathers emblem on the royals' website whilst Charles was Prince of Wales. There doesn't seem to be evidence of it being used by William on the website. I accepted your reasoning for this @Sirfurboy that we assume the use has continued. I wonder whether we can find evidence to show if the emblem is still in official use or if it has in fact been dropped in an official capacity? I can't seem to find any good evidence either way. Titus Gold (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

So I added one link in the edsum[16] that demonstrates that the emblem remains in use (as if there were any doubt). I think more interesting and pertinent would be whether there is any speculation anywhere that the feathers are not being used. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm don't think that use of a brooch by Catherine is reliable evidence for official use of the emblem by William. We can't just assume it's in use for William and as such the image should be removed from the infobox (but kept in the body) until a reliable citation is provided. See Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 02:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
What on earth is the reason for the dispute? Where is there any suggestion in any sources that William has decided to refrain from using the symbol? And of course his wife wearing the symbol is evidence of use of the symbol. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The title is not heritable, it is created. You have to show citation for something being used, not for something not being used. Wearing a brooch in an unofficial manner is not evidence. Titus Gold (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
You have a source for that? Accuracy disputes are not made on the whim of editors. As with all things on Wikipedia, you need to supply your sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
You've said yourself that it's the responsibility of the editor who wants content included to justify inclusion. It's already mentioned in the article:
"The title is neither automatic nor heritable; it merges with the Crown when its holder eventually accedes to the throne, or reverts to the Crown if its holder predeceases the current monarch, leaving the sovereign free to grant it to the new heir apparent (such as the late prince's son or brother).[1]"
Letters patent needed by monarch for the creation of the title e.g for Charles to become Prince of Wales;;https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/41460/page/4733
It's also been noted in various media; https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/society/958041/why-some-people-are-offended-by-the-prince-of-wales-title, https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a29729552/prince-charles-prince-of-wales-title-meaning/, https://www.tatler.com/article/we-now-have-a-new-prince-of-wales-but-where-does-the-heir-of-the-thrones-title-come-from,https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a29686879/prince-of-wales-royal-title-history/
Older citation example; https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Political_dictionary_articles_repr_from/qH4IAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=prince+of+wales+title+created+not+heritable&pg=PA887&printsec=frontcover
The letter patent themselves for Charles;
https://www.rct.uk/collection/themes/exhibitions/hrh-the-prince-of-wales-an-exhibition-to-celebrate-his-sixtieth-birthday/windsor-castle-drawings-gallery/letters-patent-for-the-creation-of-charles-duke-of-cornwall-as-prince-of-wales-and-earl-of-chester
Other letters patent e.g by James I to create Henry Prince of Wales;
https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/14169030/The_Pacific_King_and_the_Militant_Prince.pdf
Victoria doing the same for Edward;
https://www.proquest.com/openview/5b7ee38a7830ad19/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=14004 Titus Gold (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
And where is the source that says the heraldic symbol does not come with the title? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Where is the source to say it still comes with the title? Titus Gold (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Bored now. I'll leave it to you to raise your accuracy dispute about something for which no one has ever cast any doubt as to the accuracy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Citation and consensus is required for it. See Wikipedia:Verifiability Titus Gold (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
This is nonsense and consensus is against you. This article is about the title not William. There's plenty of sources that say the feathers are the P of W's badge. Nothing else is needed. The article is fine as it is...except it isn't as someone (looks like your POV Titus?) has made it say that the feathers are the badge of the Duke of Cornwall and the "heir apparent" of the British throne! Looks like a fairly transparent attempt in a campaign to disassociate the badge from the title Prince of Wales. But that text contradicts the cited source which says the feathers are "exclusively associated" with the Prince Of Wales. So I've corrected the text to conform with the citation here. DeCausa (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The badge is the Duke of Cornwall badge but also associated with POW and it's important to be historically accurate and reflect sources. Don't make false accusations.
If the article is about the whole use of the title, then the native badge would be included. If the insignia of feathers is used then infobox is about the current usage, therefore it makes sense that a citation is provided. Wikipedia info is based on reliable citation. Titus Gold (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Correction
Evidence for badge of heir apparent is strong but evidence on Cornwall is limited.
It's not the badge of the POW, but is generally associated with it. Titus Gold (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The point is moot now, but this morning I did look at the 4 sources that Titus Gold pasted regarding his issues with the feather emblem use. As I mentioned, I lost my reply, but I had done the reading, so I am going to respond to them here, partly because there is an element of something that we might use, albeit clearly not the POVy edit that was being asserted. The lesson, of course, is that if you let people have time to do the research, before engaging in an edit war, you might find some common ground! In any case, Titus Gold posted four URLs. As is usual, it appears he merely googled these and probably did not even read them. I did, though. Despite the lack of page numbers given, I found the passages being referred to. We can dismiss two of them out of hand:

  • Bolitho, Hector (1954). King Edward VIII, Duke of Windsor. P. Owen.

Pages 30-31. This is the most strident piece, but the section is entirely unsourced. Written by Hector Bolitho, a journalist and novelist. It is not a history text nor an authority. It is a personal portrait of the Duke of Windsor. No good as a source.

  • Brewer, Ebenezer Cobham (2001). Wordsworth Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. Wordsworth Editions. ISBN 978-1-84022-310-1.

Page 1123. Again the information is unsourced. It is also tertiary.

The first source,

page xxxvii, has:

And, I must add, that the ostrich-feathers have not, as they never have had, any heraldic connection with the principality of Wales, notwithstanding their intimate association with the Prince of Wales in his capacity as Heir Apparent.

P.S.-I have much pleasure in adding, in the form of a postscript, the substance of a passage which occurs in the number of the new weekly serial, the "King of Arms," published on Saturday last, in an article on "The Royal Ostrich Feathers Badge borne by the Prince of Wales."

It has been shown that the Ostrich Feathers are not the Crest ' of Wales; nor are they the Crest,' but they are the Badge' of the Prince of Wales, by his Royal Highness borne as Heir Apparent, and without any association with his title of Prince of Wales' derived from his Principality of Wales. His Principality, consequently, has neither directly nor indirectly given to the Prince of Wales his Ostrich Feather Badge. This, however, does not by any means imply that the Prince may not concede to his Principality a right to associate his ostrich feathers with the armorial insignia of Wales. Should it be the pleasure of his Royal Highness, the armorial shield of the Principality of Wales might have its lion and dragon supporters, each holding erect a single ostrich feather, without either coronet or difference, but with the motto ICH DIEN upon an escroll. Thus, while reviving an early usage, Heraldry would draw more closely the tie that unites the Prince with the Principality of Wales."

Nov. 17, 1873.

C. B. [That is Charles Boutell ]

So the first thing to say is that this very old source is describing objects in the Montgomeryshire Collection, and this passage is about the Prince of Wales feather emblem in one of the pieces. Boutell, a noted victorian gentleman antiquarian writes this as a letter and includes this postscript, but note that this is not based on his research, but rather on something he read the week prior in "King of Arms". The author is unnamed, the provenance unclear. It is not a useful source for the claim. Yet it is also interesting that what he is really saying is that there is no link between the principality and the feathers. That is his point here. He does not doubt that this is the badge of the prince of Wales, the heir apparent, and so, he says, the prince of Wales can, as he so wishes, lend it to the principality.

But what of the remaining source? Page 108:

The most prominent device is the recurrence of the badge of the heir apparent, commonly called “the Prince of Wales’ crest” or “‘the Prince of Wales’ feathers.” Neither of these expressions is precisely correct, since the badge (which is not a crest) is borne by the heir apparent to the throne, who happens to be the Prince of Wales. Fox-Davies explains: “The badge of the eldest son of the Sovereign, as such, and not as the Prince of Wales, is the plume of three ostrich feathers, enfiled with the circlet from his coronet” (CG 458; see Illus. 5-G)

This is the best reference because it actually gives us provenance, and that provenance is Fox-Davies, which would count as an authority. It even gives the page number, and if we had started there, things would be so much clearer. So, let's look at Fox-Daves.

the Prince of Wales is the only one who rejoices in the possession of officially assigned badges. The badge of the eldest son of the Sovereign, as such, and not as Prince of Wales, is the plume of three ostrich feathers, enfiled with the circlet from his coronet. Recently an additional badge (on a mount vert, a  dragon passant gules, charged on the shoulder with a label of three points argent) has been assigned to His Royal Highness. This action was taken with the desire to in some way gratify the forcibly expressed wishes of Wales, and it is probable that, the precedent having been set, it will be assigned to all those who may bear the title of Prince of Wales in future.

This is our WP:RS. This will be so much better than that newspaper article. So what do we do with it? Well, Fox Davies does agree that the feathers are the badge of the eldest son of the sovereign. There is nothing about the Duke of Cornwall, and the badge is also the badge of the prince of Wales according to Fox-Davies. It is his by dint of being the heir apparent, but as the prince of Wales is the heir apparent, it is the badge of the prince of Wales. The prince of Wales is the only one who rejoices in the possession of officially assigned badges. Yet there is a second, recent badge described here, and that is as prince of Wales, if assigned. We might mention that. (although if everyone feels like me, we might also just leave the article to rest for a while ;) )Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you here @Sirfurboy and your selection of the best source is also reasonable. The feathers are the badge of the heir apparent and as such has been used by the English and British Prince of Wales. Titus Gold (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Titles and Heraldry Archived 19 April 2020 at the Wayback Machine - website of the Prince of Wales
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_of_Wales/Archive_1&oldid=1164599874"