To tell you why the title ‘Prince of Wales’ is an historical insult to the Welsh and shouldn’t exist anymore

[Upthebracket22]

I am Welsh. I was enraged yesterday when the new king decided to ‘bestow’ the title on Prince William, an English Prince without asking the Welsh if they wanted another English Prince of Wales.

here is some historical context from a petition going around at the moment:

The "Prince of Wales" title (Welsh: Tywysog Cymru) is a title historically used by native, Welsh princes since the 14th century. The last native Prince of Wales was Llywelyn the Last, killed by English soldiers in 1282 and his head was then paraded through the streets of London and placed on a Tower of London spike. Llywelyn's brother Dafydd was the first person of note to be hung, drawn and quartered and his head was placed next to Llywelyn's. Both their daughters were taken as infants and children and imprisoned.

But this happened centuries ago you might say. The truth is, that since the days of Llywelyn the Last and the "rebel" Prince of Wales, Owain Glyndwr, the title has been held exclusively by Englishmen as a symbol of dominance over Wales. To this day, the English "Princes of Wales" have no genuine connection to our country.

The title remains an insult to Wales and is a symbol of historical oppression. The title also implies that Wales is still a principality, undermining Wales' status as a nation and a country. In addition, the title has absolutely no constitutional role for Wales, which is now a devolved country with a national Parliament.

As Welsh actor, Michael Sheen put it;

"Make a break there. Put some things that have been the wrongs of the past right. There's an opportunity to do that at that point. Don't necessarily just because of habit and without thinking just carry on that tradition that was started as a humiliation to our country. Why not change that as we come to this moment where things will inevitably change."

I don’t think many people have any concept of Welsh history. I find it offensive and think now would have been a good moment to right a historical wrong.

They chose the timing.

And again that excludes their clear ancestral links to Scotland, Wales and the island of Ireland as a whole.

Additionally, their ancestry is European as they're related to all of Europe's Royal families.

George I, Elector Of Hanover, wasn't even fully German either as his mother Elizabeth of Bohemia, was the daughter of James VI - the King of Scotland who in 1603 became also James I of England - and his Danish wife, Anne.

James was the first styled British King of the United Kingdom. All Monarchs, thereafter, are all British Monarchs rather than Scottish or English.

Their Irish ancestry is quite extensive too.

Brian Boru is the ancestor of every English monarch from Henry IV (succ 1399) to the present day.

Elizabeth I descends from Thomas Butler, 7th Earl of Ormond and hence from John Fitzgerald, 1st Earl of Kildare.

Elizabeth II descends from, among others:

Brian Boru, High King of Ireland (died 1014).

Aoife Mac Murrough, Princess of Leinster, who married Strongbow in 1170.

James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormonde (died 1688).Descent: Through Bowes-Lyon and Lyon and Stanhope from Elizabeth Butler.Elizabeth II has other descents from earlier Earls of Ormond.

Donal Reagh MacMurrough-Kavanagh, King of Leinster (died 1476).Descent: Through James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormonde.Donal Reagh descends from Art Og MacMurrough-Kavanagh, King of Leinster (died 1417).

Gildas O'Reilly, Lord of East Breifne (1300s).Descent: Through James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormonde from Sir Richard Butler and his wife.

Dermod O'Brien, 5th Baron of Inchiquin (died 1624).Descent: Through through her mother and Wellesley and Hill and Boyle.Hence descends from, among others, Murrough O'Brien, the last King of Thomond (died 1551) and Connor O'Brien, King of Thomond (died 1540) and Conor "na Suidane" O'Brien, King of Thomond (died 1268) and Domnall Mor O'Brien, King of Thomond (died 1194).

Gerald Fitzgerald, 11th Earl of Kildare (died 1585).Descent: Through Inchiquin and Nugent.Hence descends from Garret Og Fitzgerald, 9th Earl of Kildare and Garret Mor Fitzgerald, 8th Earl of Kildare and Rowland FitzEustace, Baron Portlester.Elizabeth II has other descents from earlier Earls of Kildare.

James Fitzgerald, 10th Earl of Desmond (died 1529).Descent: Through 1st Duke of Ormonde from James Butler, 9th Earl of Ormond by his wife Joan Fitzgerald, daughter of 10th Earl of Desmond.Elizabeth II has other descents from earlier Earls of Desmond.

The rebel Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone (died 1616).Descent: Through Wellesley and Hill and Stafford and MacDonnell and Magennis.Hence descends from Brian O'Neill, last High King of Ireland (died 1260).

The rebel James FitzMaurice Fitzgerald (died 1579).Descent: Through Inchiquin and Fitzgerald.

As you can see, the Royal Family's ancestral heritage is much more complex than you give them credit for.

It is an indubitable fact that the Royal Family is predominantly of English & German descent. Rubbish. Look at the genealogy instead of reading hate

In what way are the modern day people if Wales victims for being part of the UK? I’m just baffled. They gets lots more funding than they raise in taxes - loads - because they are part of the UK, and yet it’s a terrible place to live and things would be better with independence apparently. Just think of the poverty ordinary Welsh people would face. Does independence put food in peoples mouths? Of course not! Do you care about those in poverty? Of course not! You just want to have your nasty little nationalistic whine.

and as for William being Prince of Wales, he’s part of the British royal family, and wales is part of Britain.

Queen Elizabeth II's Scottish line of descent:

Henry VIII's sister, Queen Margaret of Scotland, the grandmother of Mary Queen of Scots

Robert The Bruce

Robert II, King of Scots (her parents' common ancestor)

James VI of Scotland (I of England)

Elizabeth Of Bohemia, daughter of James VI and I

Sir John Lyon, Thane of Glamis

Line of descent from Rhys ap Gruffydd to Elizabeth II:

Rhys ap Gruffydd —> Gwenllian —> Goronwy —> Tudur Hen —> Goronwy ap Tudur —> Tudur Fychan —> Maredudd ap Tudur —> Owen Tudor —> Edmund Tudor —> Henry VII of England —> Margaret Tudor —> James V of Scotland —> Mary, Queen of Scots —> James VI and I of Scotland and England —> Elizabeth of Bohemia —> Sophia of Hanover —> George I —> George II —> Frederick, Prince of Wales —> George III —> Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn —> Queen Victoria —> Edward VII —> George V —> George VI —> Queen Elizabeth II

Line of descent from Llywelyn the Great to Elizabeth II:

Llywelyn the Great —> Elen —> Hawise —> John Wake —> Margaret Wake —> Joan of Kent —> Thomas, 2nd Earl of Kent —> Alianore Holland —> Anne de Mortimer —> Richard, 3rd Duke of York —> Edward IV —> Elizabeth of York —> Margaret Tudor —> James V of Scotland —> Mary, Queen of Scots —> James I and VI of England and Scotland —> Elizabeth of Bohemia —> Sophia of Hanover —> George I —> George II —> Frederick, Prince of Wales —> George III —> Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn —> Queen Victoria —> Edward VII —> George V —> George VI —> Queen Elizabeth II

So, the Royal Family are also descended from Welsh Royalty.

Additionally, there's been no hereditary Princess of Wales due to Male Preference Primogeniture. Hence why Queen Elizabeth II was never Princess of Wales.

However, she changed this to Absolute Primogeniture ensuring there WILL be a hereditary Princess of Wales in the future.

What a pathetic goady thread! I for one am thrilled he and Catherine are Prince and princess of Wales!

I know I get boring on this subject, but it is virtually impossible to be of predominately Brit ancestry and not directly descended from Edward III in 21-14 generations. Virtually all American Presidents are. Barack Obama isn't, but is a direct descendent of Edward I (yes, him) on another line. The truth is that the population of the British Isles (not huge already by todays standards) was decimated by the Black Death. There just weren't that many people, they married each other in a few generations from the fall from being Royal, so we are all a bit Plantagenet. All descended from Charlemagne too, like everyone in Western Europe.

I fear we are worrying the bones of old wars. Disgraceful and appalling things were done in Ireland, Scotland and Wales but apart from a few Royal relatives 20 odd generations back, I'm not sure that has much to do with my dirt poor, oppressed by their poverty family. The sins and glories of our ancestors are not ours to bear or own. If Wales and Scotland want independence, I would understand and wish them well. In the meantime, we are where we are.

Don't talk shit. Wales has a lower cost of living than a lot of places so salaries are ge really lower it does not make us poor.

Yes, we are all sisters and brothers and cousins and like any family, rich and poor, good, bad, thick, thin, bright and dim. Some rise, some are given, some thrive some shrivel.

i don’t care who they’re descended from. The point is, no one elected them. The whole damn lot have no democratic mandate whatsoever. I don’t care whether they’re descended from Owain Glydwr, Julius Ceasar or Big Bird. It doesn’t matter. What matters is democratic representation, whatever system that may be. None of them is perfect but as Churchill observed, it’s the worst system of government apart from all the others. I would like a non hereditary Head of State with a fixed term limit. Otherwise what’s the difference between us and Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi who both installed their sons, or Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States run by despots? Don’t say Parliamentary democracy because that’s hanging by a thread too and can be subverted by “good chaps” anytime they like.
Once again - this is not about whether you like any of the current lot or not. It’s about how they get there, what power (soft or hard) they have, their qualification for the role and the impact (economic and political) on the rest of the U.K.
If Llewellyn himself were resurrected, I’d tell him he’d rather missed his moment and perhaps he’d better get himself on a selection shortlist.

i don’t care who they’re descended from. The point is, no one elected them. The whole damn lot have no democratic mandate whatsoever.

who needs a democratic mandate when you have a divine right?

What a load of nonsense!

The difference between the UK and Saddam Hussein era Iraq or any country with a dictator is:

1. The Monarch has no political power over the UK. Ever heard of the Abolition and Restoration of the Monarchy?

The Westminster Parliament is Supreme in UK politics. Not the House Of Windsor. All Monarchs since the establishment of Parliamentary Sovereignty and Supremacy know they can and will be removed should they encroach upon Parliament's power.

They haven't and so they are reliant on Parliament to stay on the throne. We are a representative democracy and governed by consent.

There will be ZERO subverting of Parliament by any British Monarch. The days of the Absolute Monarch was over with the Williamite Wars which stopped James II and Louis XIV trying to reestablish their right to rule as Absolute Monarchs as they saw it.

2. Dictatorships such as Hitler, Gaddafi and Hussein are/were the sole power of their countries. They use military force, assassinations and murder to gain and sustain their power.

You became absurd by attempting suggest the UK is anything like the aforementioned Dictatorships!

The Democracy Index proves otherwise. 🙄

I wasn’t suggesting the monarch would attempt to overrule Parliament, but that our democracy in itself it not that robust, because at its heart we do not have a written constitution and so certain powers exist only by tradition.
In a truly mature society, all positions would be electable or mandated by a representative power (eg as certain positions are appointed by government).
As an aside, the monarchy do currently use influence to alter or exempt themselves from laws and regulations before they come to full parliamentary scrutiny. This is obviously not as extreme as dictatorships but why should it happen at all? On a continuum, we are not perfect as a template for how to run a state. I used extreme examples to illustrate the ridiculousness and illegitimacy of the hereditary principle of government.

? We have a written constitution, it’s just not codified into a single document.

“As an aside, the monarchy do currently use influence to alter or exempt themselves from laws and regulations before they come to full parliamentary scrutiny.” Nope, they are prohibited from doing so per the constitution.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/27/queen-secret-influence-laws-revealed-scottish-government-memo?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

consoc.org.uk/the-constitution-explained/the-uk-constitution/

this is a useful explainer on the advantages and disadvantages of an unwritten constitution and the dangers of convention.

Additionally, there's been no hereditary Princess of Wales due to Male Preference Primogeniture. Hence why Queen Elizabeth II was never Princess of Wales.

However, she changed this to Absolute Primogeniture ensuring there WILL be a hereditary Princess of Wales in the future.

The title of Prince of Wales - unlike that of Duke of Cornwall - is not heritable. As the appointment was never automatic, there's no reason that a past monarch couldn't have made a female heir presumptive Princess of Wales in her own right. Indeed, Welsh politicians suggested that the then Princess Elizabeth be made Princess of Wales for her 18th birthday, though George VI decided to stick with tradition. However Princess Mary, Eldest surviving daughter of Henry VIII and future Queen Mary I was given many of the roles and responsibilities of a Princess of Wales, and indeed was unofficially known by the title, so it wouldn't have been without precedent.

Pffft. A lot of nasty speculation that is. The royal assent function can’t be used to change bills, or reject them if the ministers (Parliament) have passed them.

As far as a “secret back channel” speculation…the official stated ““The royal household can be consulted on bills in order to ensure the technical accuracy and consistency of the application of the bill to the crown, a complex legal principle governed by statute and common law. This process does not change the nature of any such bill.”

Which means they don’t change the bills other than to ensure they are accurate in terms of what they apply to. Much of the land that is Crown land is neither public land nor private land and so it’s not cut and dry which laws regarding property apply to crown land or not. That’s why the lawyers have to look at the constitution and case law, when a Bill comes through. But again, this isn’t the Queen or any RF member personally asking for tweaks or influencing things.

Just wait for Boaty McBoatface to be elected UK President...

Uh.....yes you WERE suggesting exactly that in this crackers part of your post @MotherOfCatBoy:

"Otherwise what’s the difference between us and Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi who both installed their sons, or Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States run by despots? Don’t say Parliamentary democracy because that’s hanging by a thread too and can be subverted by “good chaps” anytime they like."

The Royals are clearly in your "subverted by "good chaps" anytime they like" line and the UK State is stupidly compared to Dictatorships by you as well.

Your extreme examples simply undermines your attempted argument since it bears zero reflection on a Constitutional Monarchy or the British State.

The Monarchy is NOT a hereditary principle of government. It is only a hereditary principle of....the Monarchy's line of succession. Again, Parliament is Supreme and the Sovereign power. Not the Monarch.

The Williamite war against James II and Louis XIV settled that one.

Only the Monarch is exempt from laws and only because of Parliamentary Sovereignty, Representative Democracy and Government By Consent principles. All other Royals are subject to it.

You're incorrect in asserting that the UK doesn't have a written constitution. We, in fact, DO have a written document which is simply not all in one place.

We have an uncodified one, but it's literally written down. Acts Of Parliament, Devolution Settlement and the Northern Ireland Belfast Agreement are just some examples of the UK's written constitution.

To reemphasise, the UK has a written uncodified constitution. And written constitutions can also be perverted, so aren't the safeguard against tyranny like you think.

Mature societies come in various shapes. A Constitutional Monarchy is just one example and we're far from the only one too.

It's clear you don't understand much about the political history of the UK State or how we came to have a Constitutional Monarchy. That's why you make ridiculous comparisons with Dictatorships. 🙄

Yes, and if you read past the “It is often noted that the UK does not have a ‘written’ or ‘codified’ constitution.”

It goes on to explain that while we don’t have a constitution codified into a single legal document, it’s sources ARE in other WRITTEN legal documents…

“It is true that most countries have a document with special legal status that contains some of the key features of their constitution. This text is usually upheld by the courts and cannot be changed except through an especially demanding process. The UK, however, does not possess a single constitutional document of this nature. Nevertheless, it does have a constitution. The UK’s constitution is spread across a number of places. This dispersal can make it more difficult to identify and understand. It is found in places including some specific Acts of Parliament; particular understandings of how the system should operate (known as constitutional conventions); and various decisions made by judges that help determine how the system works.”

• Acts of Parliament= WRITTEN
• Case Law= WRITTEN

You have failed to understand your own link as it makes it very clear the UK does have a written constitution. It's in various sources listed in the link.

Ours is just uncodified which does NOT mean unwritten.

You're incorrect in thinking the UK operates by convention. Sure, convention plays a part, but we operate more from legislation and so on. Things are clearly set down in written form and we follow those.

@DownNative
It's clear you don't understand much about the political history of the UK State or how we came to have a Constitutional Monarchy. That's why you make ridiculous comparisons with Dictatorships. 🙄

Yep. Spot on.

This is getting very literal and pedantic. I know we have a lot of legal documents and Acts that together as read as something like a constitution. But the point is that it’s harder to make clear exactly what is meant by successive iterations and the proponents of a “written constitution” would support its being brought together in one document.

As for what the monarchy can and can’t do (which isn’t crystal clear - please provide exact wording and sources) - if they’re so irrelevant, why do we need them at all? I still fail to see what any hereditary position has to do with any office of State. We wouldn’t use it for any other position. Would you want your local Councillors to be hereditary? If not, why would you want your Head of State to be?

(Lastly @Discovereads you’ve confused me about Crown land - when you say it’s neither public nor private, what is it? What does the Land Registry say? Who has rights to it and over it? Who collects revenue from it? Who benefits from it? It may be the State or it may be the private landowner in the form of a member of the Royal Family, but I want to know if it’s not public, nor private, what exactly is it? And why? As I understand it, Crown Estates actually belong to the country, but the Duchies and other private holdings are private.)