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.

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.

To a certain extent, yes they are symbolic and we own them as living history. But Harry didn’t see anything or get out. He’s 5th in line for the Throne. Only if his brother William and all his children die would Harry have a chance. And that’s not going to happen. So Harry is literally is surplus to requirements and not needed to be an active royal. He’s been pushed out.

I had a look on Wikipedia where you took the George V information from and noticed you blatantly ignored these sections that came just before it as well as after:

"Hence, in modern practice, the issue has never arisen, and royal assent has not been withheld."

And:

"Thus, as the concept of ministerial responsibility has evolved, the power to withhold royal assent has fallen into disuse, both in the United Kingdom and in the other Commonwealth realms."

The fact it is not withheld is due to the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Parliament can and has removed Monarchs. Parliament can and has restored Monarchs.

Monarchs are subject to Parliament and not the other way round. Ever seen the State Opening Of Parliament where the door is slammed shut to Black Rod?

The Monarch isn't allowed to step into the Commons itself as a demonstration Parliament is Supreme and Sovereign.

Constitutional crisis can occur with written constitutions as well. We have a Supreme Court - how do you think they would rule if a Monarch encroaches upon Parliament's power? They'll rule in favour of Parliament for the reasons I've already stated.

Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty
Representative Democracy
Government By Consent

A Monarch would face removal if they persisted in pushing against it. A condition of the restoration.

Oh get a grip.

Again, does it change my point the House Of Windsor is not merely Anglo-German which was the point I was making in response to someone?

Well, no, it doesn't.

Rather it supports my point ancestry is complex, not simple. As does yours. 🤦‍♂️

Wouldn't that be interesting...

If a Monarch did refuse to give assent, then they would be removed.

I do wonder if one would resign on principle. If they really didn't agree with it

Sorry, but I can’t help but call ridiculous statements for what they are…

Well, technically “the past” also includes Athens and their pure democracy, and Rome and their republic thousands of years ago. Having a hereditary figurehead of state is no more “in the past” than having a republic. Is it progress to regress all the way back to something that we had two thousand years ago as part of the Roman Republican Empire?

The Windsors are just another bunch of people who just happened to get 'lucky' with being the first born, in some cases, with a line back to previous Monarchs.

No Royal Blood.

Most written codified constitutions are very slow to change. For example, it took a really long time for the Republic of Ireland to cease all territorial claims over Northern Ireland. 62 years if we go by the 1937 version. It's very slow and requires more political processes. The US Constitution has barely changed since it was written by the Framers!

In contrast, an uncodified constitution can adapt rapidly without requiring amendments or referendums. The UK's constitution has seen more change and at a faster rate than the USA or ROI.

Both approaches have pros and cons.

A head of state who only remains there because Parliament decreed he should. As they did as part of the Glorious Revolution, with the Act of Settlement, and most recently with the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. The monarch would not be the monarch if parliament didn't want him to be.

In the 70 years in which Queen Elizabeth II reigned, the following monarchies (in their own right, I'm not including former colonies who became independent) became republics: Afghanistan, Burundi, Egypt, Ethiopia, Greece, Iraq, Iran, Laos, Libya, Nepal, Rwanda, Tunisia, Vietnam, Yemen.

Other than Greece, how well do you think those countries have done since?

Is saying that the first born child of the Monarch should be the Head of State of a country of 80 million people really the best we can come up with in the 21st Century?

William and young George have their future mapped out.

I see you're just blatantly ignoring your obvious bias in ignoring facts you must've read to pluck that out about George V. No problem as you lost credibility doing that.

A Monarch resigning? It's called Abdication which a certain Edward did to marry an American in 1936.

Parliament is Supreme and Sovereign.

Other than Greece, how well do you think those countries have done since

You seem to have missed out many countries in Europe that don't have a Monarch and are doing quite well.

Do you think we would not do well because we didn't have a Monarch? Where's your pride in Britain, the UK and its people?

80 million?

Not the UK. 66 million.

Constitutional Monarchies work.

So what would happen if a Monarch refused to sign a bill?

Would it become law or would they have to wait until a Monarch was appointed who would sign it?

What if no Monarch signed it?

For some people.

Not for all.

You keep ignoring that some of the most successful and democratic countries in Europe are monarchies.

Where's my pride in Britain? I'm not the one who keeps saying that it needs to change.

You keep ignoring that some of the most successful and democratic countries in Europe are monarchies

And some aren't. And are also successful and democratic.

And we would carry on fine without a Monarch.

Best for us imho. Look at the government we’ve had the past decade and the harm they have done to the country, if anything that proves that elections (popularity contests) where politicians can lie with no consequence is not the best way to run a country. Having an elected head of state would just be more of that shit.

The Monarch doesnt sign bills! They don’t even personally give assent! That’s been delegated to the Lords Comissioners since 1541! 😆😆😆

Tell you what, go fully independent and be shot of the UK completely. And we'll the billions that funds your country's deficit. Ta.

Where’s your pride? You’re the one that wants to tear down the monarchy which has last for over a thousand years. It’s a keystone of our heritage and culture, and you just want to bin it like it’s nothing. And even if you’re right that a monarchy has neither helped nor hindered us, then there’s no good reason to get rid of it except for the fact you’d rather change Britain to be like some foreign country…that’s not pride in your country. That’s the opposite of pride.

So in that case, what was the King George V case about if they don't personally give assent?

I am just going from Parliamentary procedure
guidetoprocedure.parliament.uk/collections/rdnwhrzS/royal-assent

Although apparently there was a BBC drama a while ago where a future King Charles refused to give assent to a bill which provoked a constitutional crisis

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04z0n7s

Prince Charles has waited his entire life to ascend to the British throne. But after the Queen's death, he immediately finds himself wrestling his conscience over a bill to sign into law. His hesitation detonates a constitutional and political crisis, and his family start to worry, with William and Kate becoming aware his actions may threaten their future. Meanwhile, an unhappy and frustrated Prince Harry starts a relationship with a 'commoner', just at the moment that the press is looking for a way to attack. With the future of the monarchy under threat, protests on the streets and his family in disarray, Charles must grapple with his own identity and purpose to decide whether, in the 21st century, the British crown still has any real power.

Wanting a better democracy is the opposite of pride?

Really?

It's not democratic that our Head of State is there by birth right. I would not acknowledge him as King nor curtsey to him. I am a citizen, not a subject.

You may have a problem with that. But that is my opinion. The whole thing is like the Truman show with people just obsessed with the clothes Kate wears, the pictures of their children and the antics of William and Harry. Sycophancy at its worst. Or opium for the masses.

You may have a problem with that. But that is my opinion.

I understand that. But remember that opinions are like arseholes: everyone has one. So whether it's worth anything depends on how good it is.

My opinion is that well-intentioned iconoclasm isn't a good thing. The UK / Canada / NZ / Australia etc constitutional systems aren't broken and shouldn't be broken. The events of the last few years round the world show clearly why this matters. That's my opinion and that's why it's a better one than yours.

Replacing the King with an elected president would do nothing to improve the democratic governance of the country. You disagree? Do tell me just how replacing the monarchy with a republic will improve the amount of representation you have where it really matters - in the day-to-day running of the country.

Ten of the twenty most democratic countries in the world are constitutional monarchies, which considering that republics account for three quarters of all countries is pretty good going.