Talk:Prince of Wales

Facts versus Fiction

The Prince of Wales page is factually incorrect. I will list the errors:

1. The first holder of the title was Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, as recognised in the Treaty of Montgomery.

2. Edwarde VII was not Prince of Wales. The title is not automatically given to the heir apparent at birth.

I don't know about James Stuart but Edward VII was definitely Prince of Wales. And next time add your new comments at the bottom of the page. Eregli bob (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

3. The same point applies to Charles II. He was never Prince of Wales

Charles II was created Prince of Wales in May 1638.69.86.130.90 (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

4. Nor was James Stuart

James Francis Edward Stuart (James III/VIII if you adhere to Jacobite counting) was created Prince of Wales July 4th, 1688.69.86.130.90 (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Further points:

The offiicially recognised holders of the title Prince of Wales begin with Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, end with Charles Windsor (the 20th Prince of Wales) and exclude the aforementioned princes mentioned in Points 2-4, as well as Owain Glyndŵr.

As it stands this page is factually incorrect and of little worth to the distribution of reliable information. Sanddef (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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).

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, Lindsay^Hi 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)

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

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)

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

"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)

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)

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?