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.

Guardian? Pfft.

"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."

Literally a formality.

Westminster is Supreme. Not the Monarch and no Monarch has refused Royal Assent since Mary, Queen of Scots.

You do realise that we ARE ALL related to each other if you go back far enough. Because people alive a long time ago have many many many ancestors alive today.

Westminster is Supreme. Not the Monarch and no Monarch has refused Royal Assent since Mary, Queen of Scots

Interesting.

"In 1914, George V took legal advice on withholding royal assent from the Government of Ireland Bill; then highly contentious legislation that the Liberal government intended to push through Parliament by means of the Parliament Act 1911. He decided to not withhold assent without "convincing evidence that it would avert a national disaster, or at least have a tranquillising effect on the distracting conditions of the time".[28]"

So it's not a given that Royal Assent is automatically given.

Ah, I see you're Shifting The Goalposts now which is a logical fallacy!

@MotherOfCatBoy you previously stated "at its heart we do not have a written constitution and so certain powers exist only by tradition."

Now, you're trying to claim "I know we have a lot of legal documents and Acts that together as read as something like a constitution."

Contradictory.

Ours don't read as something like a constitution. They ARE a constitution!

The British Monarch has the same powers as the Irish President. Ceremonial and subject to their Parliaments which retains Supreme Authority in their respective jurisdictions.

Our Constitutional Monarchy a good compromise between an Absolute Monarch and continuing to have a Monarchy. Our Monarchy is a massive part of our global soft power. It makes us second only to the United States.

Absurd comparing a town council with a Head Of State! 🙄 Non-sequitur Fallacy.

@MotherOfCatBoy Google is your friend re crown estate

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

I get a bit jealous of modern countries with a proper written single document, an elected Head of State and a modern voting system.

Our Constitutional Monarchy a good compromise between an Absolute Monarch and continuing to have a Monarchy. Our Monarchy is a massive part of our global soft power. It makes us second only to the United States

Being chosen by God and having that pass down the family is not a modern way to run a country.

And that level of supercilious arrogance is why the young people of wales are mostly in favour of independence. Scotland will go, Ireland will unite and then those young people will grow up and you can kiss goodbye to Wales as well. We have a £13billion deficit which won’t be £13 billion when we don’t have to pay for trident, hs2, the Elizabeth line, parliamentary refurb etc. We pay our share and they are of no benefit to us.

Does it contradict my point?

Absolutely not.

A Monarch who refuses Royal Assent risks provoking a Constitutional crisis. Essentially, George V found with his legal advice any withholding Royal Assent would change nothing.

Certainly wouldn't have averted a national disaster or calmed tensions. This was the era of the divisive Home Rule Bill. That sane year, partition was included in the amendment.

Your grasp of Welsh economics is tenuous

Two things:

1. Being chosen by God has not been a literal feature since the Abolition and Restoration of the Monarchy.

2. The Monarch does NOT run the country. The Westminster Parliament is Supreme and the devolved administrations have devolved responsibility whilst being subject to Westminster.

A Monarch who refuses Royal Assent risks provoking a Constitutional crisis. Essentially, George V found with his legal advice any withholding Royal Assent would change nothing

Is it written in the Constitution that the Monarch has to give assent?
What happens if they don't give assent?

Has it actually ever been tested?

Is this all written down somewhere with clear rules? If so, then there wouldn't be a Constitutional crisis, would there?

Like the US?

No thanks.

Being chosen by God has not been a literal feature since the Abolition and Restoration of the Monarchy

You did hear the proclamation today?

"o whom we do acknowledge all Faith and Obedience, with humble affection: beseeching God, by whom Kings and Queens do reign, to bless His Majesty with long and happy years to reign over Us."

Other systems are available.

Ireland for example

Trident is of no benefit to you?

I should think that the last few months are an excellent demonstration of the value of having an independent nuclear deterrent.

@MotherOfCatBoy

“the proponents of a “written constitution” would support its being brought together in one document.”
You mean a “codified constitution” as that’s what a written constitution that is consolidated into a single document is called. We have a written constitution, it’s just not codified. And no, I am not a proponent of a codified constitution. A codified constitution becomes sacrosanct and frozen in time. It is unwieldy and almost impossible to change. The US can’t impose proper gun controls because their constitution is codified and it’s this too difficult to delete “right to bear arms” bit even though it’s 300yrs out of date. The US also can’t give women their right to an abortion, because their Constitution is codified to say “right to life” but nothing about a woman’s right to terminate life…..which has led to Roe v Wade being overturned and abortion being banned in half the country, and counting. So, no, I actually prefer written but not codified because it’s easier to evolve as a society with the times.

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?
Meh, why not? We have positions in “the State” that are hired, appointed, or elected so why not a ceremonial figurehead position that is hereditary? I’m not convinced that a popularity contest (election) is the best way to fill every function of a State.

The Crown Estates belong to the monarch, but they are not any King or Queens private property nor do they “belong to the country” in the sense of public property. They are a third type of property. So any bill talking about landowners and so on has to have separate provisions stating what bits apply or do not apply and that requires specialist legal advisors.

Or Sweden, or Norway, or Denmark, or the Netherlands...

Oh hang on, the countries Mumsnet envies the most are all constitutional monarchies. Maybe they're on to something.

As I said, it is not literal and a Monarch only sits on the throne due Parliamentary Sovereignty.

It was Parliament who restored the Monarchy on the understanding of that basis.

You're taking a bit of traditional text as part of a ceremony and trying to present it as what it is not.

As I said, it is not literal and a Monarch only sits on the throne due Parliamentary Sovereignty.

It was Parliament who restored the Monarchy on the understanding of that basis.

You're taking a bit of traditional text as part of a ceremony and trying to present it as what it is not.

@Discovereads

And yet many countries seem to cope with having a written Constitution that adapts to changes.

Meanwhile, we are stuck in the past.

The Royal Family are basically the Truman Show. At least Harry saw this and got out. William and his family have their life planned out. They only get 1 life and this is what it is. Kept in a gilded cage for the masses.

Don’t be, because that exactly what the US has and it’s codified constitution is the reason why Roe v. Wade was overturned and abortion is banned in half the country. Codified constitutions don’t tend to keep up with the times, so recent things like womens rights are more fragile.

Many countries do not cope with a codified constitution. Meanwhile we have a written constitution (don’t know how many times we have to correct you). And no, we are not “stuck in the past” don’t be ridiculous. The fact that an Act of Parliament can amend our constitution means we have and do adapt and move forward MUCH faster than all the countries with codified constitutions.

Don’t be, because that exactly what the US has and it’s codified constitution is the reason why Roe v. Wade was overturned and abortion is banned in half the country. Codified constitutions don’t tend to keep up with the times, so recent things like womens rights are more fragile

All depends how it's written.

Other modern countries seem to do ok.

And no, we are not “stuck in the past” don’t be ridiculous

Calling people ridiculous does not help win people over.

We are stuck in the past. A Head of State who is there because of birthright.

That's the past.