Jump to content

Talk:Prince of Wales

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2601:18d:77f:6fa0:ecac:6f87:3ec6:aac9 (talk) at 16:53, 9 September 2022 (→‎Current Wording: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Removed:

Removed unsourced information below. The designation of Prince for the native Welsh rulers of Wales (Gwynedd, Deheubarth, Powys) was appropriate as these leaders were semi-independent and while part of the Angivine Empire were outside of the Kingdom of England's legal jurisdiction until the Edwardian conquest. It was the Welsh leaders themselves who first used the title Prince, as Gruffydd ap Cynan did as Princepts Wallensium, who also used the title Prince of Gwynedd.

The translation as "Prince" was used by Englishmen to undermine the power of the rulers of Wales, causing them to appear inferior to the Kings of England (as a Prince is lower than the King in the hierarchy).[citation needed]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The List of English or British monarchy Prince of Wales page, should be deleted, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Do you have any evidence to support that assumption? Titus Gold (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Prince William

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]