Prince of Wales - Title, Succession and Wales

[Jo of Palatine]

I've been thinking for quite some time about how Charles might feel about his title of "Prince of Wales". It's a rather unfortunate title when you think about the history of its creation and Charles is a historian. When he was invested as Prince of Wales in the sixties, he was actually studying history, so I'm sure he is much more aware of the historic background than most other people, probably including his own mother.

Charles surely is realizing that the monarchy nowadays has to have an integrating feeling to it if it is to survive the next fifty years. So how does a controversial title like "Prince of Wales" fit into the next decades? For Welsh traditionalists the title is not that of their souverain, but a title once newly created for the heir of the man who had their last souverain prince tortured and slain in public. Charles as "The Prince of Wales" is a constant reminder of the way Wales once lost its souverainity - a contraproductive symbol in times of national movements in all parts of the UK.

I believe there were polls that claimed that a majority of Scots would still ask Charles to become their king if the kingdom of Scotland separated from its union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland - he is generally accepted as the Duke of Rothesay and Prince of Scotland as even apart from the Act of Succession which barred catholic Stuart descendent from claiming the throne he is nowadays the next in line from both catholic and protestant Stuart lines when you look at the laws valid before the Act of Succession became law.

But would the Welsh ask Charles to still be their prince? I doubt it. Okay, through his Tudor ancestry (Owen Tudor to Margaret Tudor, queen of Scots), Charles inherited a bit of the blood of the last souverain princes of Wales.

Does this interests Charles at all? My guess is that he realizes this. That he may not be too happy with the fact that his English sons are called prince William and prince Harry "of Wales" as if "Wales" was the same as "York" or "Wessex" from the way people feel there about their history.

So my idea is that Charles might want to keep the title of "Prince of Wales" after ascending to the throne with his wife Camilla as "Princess Consort of Wales" in addition to his being the king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. And if this is not possible for political reasons, that he will at least refrain from creating his son William "Prince of Wales" but let him be HRH The Prince William, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, prince of the UK, prince of Scotland, prince of Wales. (plus all the other titles). The fact that the title "Duke of Rothesay" still exists and is used in Scotland shows IMHO that the idea of a kingdom of Scotland is still alive for the Royal Family of the UK. Why treat Wales differently, then? Why not acknowledge that the princes/ses of the UK and of Scotland are princes/ses of Wales as well? All of them?

(Dear Mods, if there is a thread you believe this post to be more suitably placed, please merge the threads then. Thank you. )

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

Charles will have to play it like everything else, by ear, I imagine. Wales may not be satisfied forever with their puppet assembly in Cardiff, may want to be independent entirely of London and have their own fully fledged Parliament and their own head of state. They won't want some Lions-loving English Prince William paying a weak show of "support" for their Welsh rugby to be invested as Prince of their country.

My question is this: If the Prince of Wales title goes away, would it take with it the earldom of Chester? That would leave, what? The Dukedoms of Cornwall and Rothesay, Lordship of the Isles, Barony Renfrew, and the Great Stewardship and Principality of Scotland.

One more question: Charles, if I remember, has only a bachelor's degree in history. He does not have a master's degree, does he? With only a bachelor's degree, he cannot really be a historian, can he? In the US, historians actually have the full doctorate, which I am working towards.... but obviously Charles has studied extensively in many subjects, so I'm not trying to say he isn't educated. Far from it. He would give many, including me, a run for the money, certainly.... He's brilliant. I just mean, I think he is not a formal historian, unless the term in Britain is used more loosely.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

With only a bachelor's degree, he cannot really be a historian, can he? In the US, historians actually have the full doctorate, which I am working towards.... but obviously Charles has studied extensively in many subjects, so I'm not trying to say he isn't educated. Far from it. He would give many, including me, a run for the money, certainly.... He's brilliant. I just mean, I think he is not a formal historian, unless the term in Britain is used more loosely.

Hm... I think we can conclude that Charles is able to work intellectually towards information if he wants it. He has had some formal training on coping with historical sources (at least this should have been included in his studies at university). He has undoubtedly the best access to all kind of sources about British history if he chose to have it( including the most secret state archives). Plus he could call the best experts to aide him.

Thus I think we can call him a full-fledged historian, even if he doesn't fit the formal accademic definition of it (which is something I don't know about at the moment).

 

[Elspeth]

A lot of traditions don't make sense in the context of the modern world, but Charles is such a traditionalist that that might not matter to him. He may feel it more important that the Prince of Wales title carry on (especially in the hope that the Princess of Wales title gets to be associated with someone other than Diana) than for 21st-century reality to be taken into account. He hasn't shifted himself very far to pay attention to the Welsh - he could have bought his country house in Wales when he was young but he bought it in Gloucestershire, and he seems to be far more interested in his position as Duke of Cornwall. But I somewhat doubt that that will make much difference when it comes time to decide whether to create his heir Prince of Wales.

One thing that does interest me is whether, when Harry gets his dukedom when he marries, it'll include an Irish title. Prince Andrew's did, but Prince Edward's didn't (or a Scottish one, for that matter). Given the way feelings have run so high for so long about the Irish question, I wonder if they'll be phasing out Irish titles as subsidiaries to royal dukedoms.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Charles will have to play it like everything else, by ear, I imagine. Wales may not be satisfied forever with their puppet assembly in Cardiff, may want to be independent entirely of London and have their own fully fledged Parliament and their own head of state. They won't want some Lions-loving English Prince William paying a weak show of "support" for their Welsh rugby to be invested as Prince of their country.

My question is this: If the Prince of Wales title goes away, would it take with it the earldom of Chester? That would leave, what? The Dukedoms of Cornwall and Rothesay, Lordship of the Isles, Barony Renfrew, and the Great Stewardship and Principality of Scotland.

One more question: Charles, if I remember, has only a bachelor's degree in history. He does not have a master's degree, does he? With only a bachelor's degree, he cannot really be a historian, can he? In the US, historians actually have the full doctorate, which I am working towards.... but obviously Charles has studied extensively in many subjects, so I'm not trying to say he isn't educated. Far from it. He would give many, including me, a run for the money, certainly.... He's brilliant. I just mean, I think he is not a formal historian, unless the term in Britain is used more loosely.

The US system is different to other countries.

I regard myself as an historian when I only had a Bachelor's degree and my Masters degree made no difference.

As our kids at high school are doing the sort of research papers that were only required from Honours and Masters degree students when I was at uni after Charles but not long after, it is clear that standards are different. When I went to uni and did both my Bachelors and Masters degrees use of secondardy sources was the norm and accepted but now our school kids must use primary sources even from the start of High School and in Year 12 do original research on a topic of their choosing. That is something that I have never really done (but am doing this year with the kids in the class just for fun).

Many people can be historians with no formal qualifications at all and many are - particularly those researching and writing their family histories. A degree doesn't an historian make but the ability to research and analyse, synthsise etc the information gained.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

One thing that does interest me is whether, when Harry gets his dukedom when he marries, it'll include an Irish title. Prince Andrew's did, but Prince Edward's didn't (or a Scottish one, for that matter). Given the way feelings have run so high for so long about the Irish question, I wonder if they'll be phasing out Irish titles as subsidiaries to royal dukedoms.

Do you think the Dukedom of Gloucester, when it loses the royal status, is to drop the earldom of Ulster then?

The thing is, Prince Charles may not have a choice about the future of the Wales title. He likes tradition, but he will be constitutionally bound to take the advice of his prime minister, won't he? I believe the whole reason for the 1969 Investiture pomp and ceremony was political. The Queen, I think, was quite happy to just declare in the 1950s that her son was Prince of Wales, but it was the ministers who wanted a big ceremony to please the Welsh and make them feel all cozy about the UK....

Thanks for explaining about the non-US definitions of historian. Yes, here in te US a historian means a professional that has the title of Doctor of History. Just initials to write after the name.....

 

[wbenson]

Do you think the Dukedom of Gloucester, when it loses the royal status, is to drop the earldom of Ulster then?

It can't be dropped by any means but an Act of Parliament.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I assume we will see a change to this as devolution takes hold more strongly. The Scots seem well and truly on a road to independance and it's only natural that the Welsh will want to follow.

 

[Skydragon]

One thing that does interest me is whether, when Harry gets his dukedom when he marries, it'll include an Irish title. Prince Andrew's did, but Prince Edward's didn't (or a Scottish one, for that matter). Given the way feelings have run so high for so long about the Irish question, I wonder if they'll be phasing out Irish titles as subsidiaries to royal dukedoms.

Quite a few people I know are far from happy that Andrew was created Earl of Inverness. His visits there are few and far between.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Be fair, there's no golf courses in Inverness.

 

[BellaFay]

He hasn't shifted himself very far to pay attention to the Welsh - he could have bought his country house in Wales when he was young but he bought it in Gloucestershire, and he seems to be far more interested in his position as Duke of Cornwall. But I somewhat doubt that that will make much difference when it comes time to decide whether to create his heir Prince of Wales.

In 1969 after the Prince had spent a crucial term away from Cambridge at the University of Wales learning Welsh, the Earl of Powys did offer the Queen Powys Castle as Prince Charles's Welsh residence for the future. But the Queen turned it down without consulting the Prince. He only found out about the offer when Jonathan Dimbleby dug the offer up from the Royal Archives at Windsor. He did bother to learn Welsh + he employs several Welsh-speaking people on his staff + he visits Wales several times a year (including tomorrow). What more is he expected to do condifering he has plenty of other places around the UK that his many titles oblige him to visit at least once a year.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

I believe Prince Charles extends himself into Wales as much as he is able to do. I think he, as King, would be inclined to make his heir apparent The Prince of Wales because that is traditional and he likes tradition, as Elspeth said. The problem, I suspect, might arise from a political aspect that is beyond his control.

 

[Elspeth]

In 1969 after the Prince had spent a crucial term away from Cambridge at the University of Wales learning Welsh, the Earl of Powys did offer the Queen Powys Castle as Prince Charles's Welsh residence for the future. But the Queen turned it down without consulting the Prince. He only found out about the offer when Jonathan Dimbleby dug the offer up from the Royal Archives at Windsor. He did bother to learn Welsh + he employs several Welsh-speaking people on his staff + he visits Wales several times a year (including tomorrow). What more is he expected to do condifering he has plenty of other places around the UK that his many titles oblige him to visit at least once a year.

One thing he could do was to have had a home there. He didn't have to wait for someone to offer him a home; he didn't wait to be offered Highgrove, he went out and bought it. The fact that the Queen turned down one home for him without his knowledge doesn't stop him finding one for himself.

He spent one term at Aberystwyth, which isn't long enough to really learn Welsh for an English-speaking adult. He learned enough to get by in a speech or two. Sure he visits Wales; so do all the working royals at some time or other, but he doesn't seem to give it any particular priority. He makes no particular secret of how much he loves Scotland; he's pretty silent on the subject of loving Wales. And considering the history of how the Prince of Wales title was conferred by the king who destroyed Wales as an independent nation, there isn't a great deal of positive association with it in Wales.

 

[Madame Royale]

So, if at any time Wales became an indapendant state from the British Crown, what would the alternative style for the heir to the throne be? What could it be?

 

[Royal Fan]

Earl of London!

 

[Iluvbertie]

So, if at any time Wales became an indapendant state from the British Crown, what would the alternative style for the heir to the throne be? What could it be?

The inherited title of the heir to the throne is Duke of Cornwall and unless Cornwall became independent that title will be inherited by the eldest son of the monarch.

Presumably, if the legislation is passed to allow for equal inheritance rights for males and females, then the legislation would also include the right of the eldest child to hold the Cornwall title.

After all it is the Cornwall title that provides the Prince of Wales with his income not the Wales title.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I believe Prince Charles extends himself into Wales as much as he is able to do. I think he, as King, would be inclined to make his heir apparent The Prince of Wales because that is traditional and he likes tradition, as Elspeth said. The problem, I suspect, might arise from a political aspect that is beyond his control.

That was part of my idea: if it is politically opportunate, could the Welsh Assembly ask the new king to keep his title of Prince of Wales or could parliament in London declare that Charles still holds the title of Prince of Wales in addition to being king of the UK? After all, from the moment Charles ascends the throne till the declaration of William as next prince of Wales, there is no Prince of Wales anymore which makes no sense to me in case the title of "Wales" is more than just another title like all the others. It really is not important if there is a duke of "York" or "Edinburgh" or "Gloucester" as there is no duchy and never was historically. But there was a principality of Wales like there was a kingdom of England and one of Scotland. So IMHO, if Wales was treated like England and Scotland, there should be the rule: the king/queen/prince(ss) is dead, long live the king/queen/prince(ss). By rights, not Charles should be Prince of Wales but the queen should be The Princess of Wales among her other titles. In this case it would make sense that her heir would take her second highest title (which is that of Wales) as his courtesy title. But then he would automatically become prince of Wales but not "The Prince of Wales", as this is the king's title.

IMHO this would give Wales the feeling that their principality still exists in a way or is at least acknowledged as having been an independant principality after the Norman Conquest of England. Neither Scotland nor England have been conquered after the Norman conquest - the Scottish king inherited the Crown of England in 1601.

Apart from the Crown of the UK, of which he is legally the next heir due to the current law governing the succession, Charles Mountbatten-Windsor's claim to both ancient crowns goes back to his ancestress Elizabeth Stuart, who was born a princess of Scotland and became a princess of England as daughter of the Scottish king who inherited England.

Today all more senior lines from James VI./I. Stuart are not longer existing or without legal claim if the laws are applied that were valid at the time these lines emerged. When Henriette Marie Stuart of England and Scotland, granddaughter of James VI./I. and daughter of Charles I. married the brother of the French king, noone in England and Scotland was interested in any French child of hers ever to become king or queen of England and Scotland. Thus the princess had to give up her rights to both crowns which means that even though there is still progeny of hers around, this line is not able to claim the crowns of the kingdoms of Scotland and England (and of course not the Crown of the UK, whose line of succession is ruled by the Act of Succession). Their claim does not exist and that's how they (the current Head of the House of Wittelsbach Duke Franz and his eldest daughter, Sophia, wife of Liechtenstein's heir) see it, too, even though some "Jacobites" see it differently.

Thus, even the most ardent fighters for "independant" kingdoms of England and Scotland have no other choice than to accept that the queen of the UK is rightfully queen of England and queen of Scotland. But what about Wales? At the moment Wales is treated as a conquered country who was included into England. While I don't believe that Wales and the UK will go their separate ways in the near future, it would be a nice gesture by Charles to declare himself the heir of the Welsh princes by keeping his title, and not behave as the heir of their conquerors.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

That was part of my idea: if it is politically opportunate, could the Welsh Assembly ask the new king to keep his title of Prince of Wales or could parliament in London declare that Charles still holds the title of Prince of Wales in addition to being king of the UK....

The question that keeps plaguing my mind is this: How long will Wales be happy with their Assembly but ultimately answerable to London? It would be understandable if they wanted to have their own Parliament like Scotland.

That said, even if Wales gains a measure of independence, they could theoretically still have a 'Prince of Wales' as in the past. In this way, they could keep their nominal link to the UK royal family and the traditional "role" for the Heir to the Throne would survive.

 

[BellaFay]

One thing he could do was to have had a home there. He didn't have to wait for someone to offer him a home; he didn't wait to be offered Highgrove, he went out and bought it. The fact that the Queen turned down one home for him without his knowledge doesn't stop him finding one for himself.

He spent one term at Aberystwyth, which isn't long enough to really learn Welsh for an English-speaking adult. He learned enough to get by in a speech or two. Sure he visits Wales; so do all the working royals at some time or other, but he doesn't seem to give it any particular priority. He makes no particular secret of how much he loves Scotland; he's pretty silent on the subject of loving Wales. And considering the history of how the Prince of Wales title was conferred by the king who destroyed Wales as an independent nation, there isn't a great deal of positive association with it in Wales.

In 1969 he wouldn't have had the money to purchase a property in Wales as he was financially tied to the Queen. He wasn't allowed access to the funds from the Duchy of Cornwall until 1973 & even then he had to have financial help from the Queen to buy Highgrove in 1980. His divorce settlement to Diana also wiped him out financially. According to what his financial advisor told the Financial Times about 5 years ago he had had to sell every share he had, including ones bequeathed to him by Queen Mary, to finance it. So it is only recently that he has been able to buy a property. + The Duchy of Cornwall Management Act prevents him from using Duchy money to finance expenditure that doesn't benefit the Duchy in some way.
Granted 1 term to learn Welsh is not very much, but it was all that Cambridge University would allow him from his History Degree. As it was his tutors & the Master at Trinity College were very annoyed about it as they thought that the whole Investiture had been created to benefit the Labour Party's standing in Wales and that the Prince was being used for party political purposes.

 

[Maike]

Prince of Wales - Title

Hello, I am from Germany and quite new here. I have got a question. Charles bears the title Prince of Wales along many more. But why isn't he called Crownprince of the UK?

 

[magnik]

The title of PoW is granted to the hair apparent to the reigning monarch of the UK. So PoW means CP. Something like with the Spanish Prince of Asturias.
The Royal Family > Royal titles > Style and titles of The Prince of Wales

Prince of Wales - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crown prince - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

Hello, I am from Germany and quite new here. I have got a question. Charles bears the title Prince of Wales along many more. But why isn't he called Crownprince of the UK?

The title Prince of Wales has traditionally been granted to the heir of the British throne since 1301, when Edward I completed the conquest of Wales and gave the title to his son, the future Edward II.

It is a title that must be created for the eldest son of a monarch or eldest male descendant, and is granted at the pleasure of the sovereign. It is not automatically granted at birth. The same is true for investing the Prince of Wales with the ancient Earldom of Chester.

Because of this, not all English kings held the title of Prince of Wales. A more recent example is that of George VI. He was Duke of York until his brother's abdication, and was never invested as Prince of Wales.

The eldest son of the British monarch is automatically invested with the Duchy of Cornwall, the Duchy of Rothesay and the Earldom of Carrick in Scotland, and the title of Lord High Steward and Prince of Scotland.

The Prince of Wales title may only be invested in the heir apparent, who must be the eldest male in line to succession. It may not be created for a female, and has never been held by a female in her own right.

Another recent example of this is Queen Elizabeth II, who also never held the title of Princess of Wales. Females in Great Britain are considered "heirs presumptive", because they may be displaced by any future sons born to the sovereign. They are never considered "heirs apparent".

I suppose before investiture as Prince of Wales, the heir of the monarch could be termed the "Crown Prince", but I don't believe that term has ever had popular use in Britain.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

That was part of my idea: if it is politically opportunate, could the Welsh Assembly ask the new king to keep his title of Prince of Wales or could parliament in London declare that Charles still holds the title of Prince of Wales in addition to being king of the UK?

The title of Prince of Wales must be created for each male heir to the throne, because if the heir subsequently inherits and becomes Sovereign, the title then merges with the Crown. From that point forward, the title invested in the man who is now monarch ceases to exist. There is no further Prince of Wales until it is invested in the next male heir.

This title is in the gift of the Sovereign and may only be granted by the Sovereign. It is held separate from any inheritable titles of the heir, precisely because the title is destined to merge with the Crown, and the investiture reserves the special status of Wales within Great Britain. Even if a Prince of Wales dies without becoming King, the title goes back to the Crown, and may only be re-invested as the gift of the reigning Sovereign.

If, for instance, Prince Charles pre-deceases the Queen, then the title "Prince of Wales" would have to be re-created for Prince William, even though he is currently known as Prince William of Wales. There is a distinction between being a "prince of Wales" and "The Prince of Wales". Officially, Charles is HRH The Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales. If and when William is invested, he will be HRH The Prince William, The Prince of Wales.

It is also important to remember that females, even if they are the next in line to the throne, may not be invested in the Prince of Wales title.

It really is not important if there is a duke of "York" or "Edinburgh" or "Gloucester" as there is no duchy and never was historically.

That depends on your meaning that these titles were never duchies historically. A peerage was originally considered to be a landed title, from which the holder can derive or collect income, and has authority over the people living in his landed estates.

The Duchy of York was first created in 1385, and was a landed dukedom until it merged with the Crown in 1461, when the holder became Edward IV. There have also been several Earls of York in medieval times. Since 1461, it has traditionally been the title for the second son of the Sovereign.

The Duchy of Gloucester was also first created in 1385, and was a landed dukedom. The first three dukes all died without issue, and afterwards it was considered unlucky, and was not granted again for 150 years.

The Duchy of Edinburgh has existed since 1726, and to all intents and purposes, is not a dukedom in the sense of the two others, however, it was supposedly a source of income for the initial holders of the title.

But there was a principality of Wales like there was a kingdom of England and one of Scotland.

This is quite true, there was a Principality of Wales, but there were very few men that were actually "Prince of Wales" and recognized by the English Crown. The principality was divided into several separate kingdoms, and each had their own prince - the Prince of Gwynedd, for example.

Prior to the Norman Conquest, the most powerful Welsh ruler of any given time was known as "King of the Britons". In the 12th and 13th centuries, the title evolved to that of Prince of Wales.

The last native Prince of Wales was Owain Glydwr, who was proclaimed Prince in 1400. His short reign ended in 1409.

But what about Wales? At the moment Wales is treated as a conquered country who was included into England. While I don't believe that Wales and the UK will go their separate ways in the near future, it would be a nice gesture by Charles to declare himself the heir of the Welsh princes by keeping his title, and not behave as the heir of their conquerors.

Unfortunately, Wales is a conquered country, just like Ireland, and Ireland never even had a special designation. The Sovereign, of course was known as the Lord of Ireland until the time of Henry VIII. Prior to that, the country was under the guardianship of the Pope. When Henry broke away from the Catholic Church, he declared himself King of Ireland, as did subsequent monarchs. But for the Irish, there has never been a "Prince of Ireland" as there has been a Prince of Wales.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain consists of England, Scotland and Wales. Even if there were a Welsh Parliament, I doubt they would request that the Prince of Wales keep his title after becoming King. And I doubt the British Parliament would overturn centuries of tradition, even if such a request were made.

The special status of Wales is that they "hold the heir of the Crown", and they do so exclusively. The Prince of Wales is not the Crown Prince of Scotland, nor is does he hold a title in Northern Ireland. Hereditarily speaking, he doesn't hold an Irish title at all.

At least with Wales, they have their own Crown Jewels, which are separate from the Crown, and known as the Honours of the Principality of Wales. Wales has historically retained its special status within the kingdom of Great Britain, and likely will continue to do so.

 

[Warren]

The discussion of the Duke of Edinburgh title has been moved to the Royal Dukes and Ducal Titles thread.

 

[branchg]

Wales does not exclusively hold the heir of the Crown. The British heir and eldest son is also Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Prince & Great Lord Steward in Scotland, reflecting the title and historical styles of the heir to the Scottish throne. In England, he is Duke of Cornwall as the duchy's revenues and lands are exclusively reserved for the heir to the throne.

The title "Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester" reflects the bestowing of the lands to the King's son after being conquered in 1301. While it is accompanied by historical tension and sensitivities of sovereignty, it is inextrictably tied with a United Kingdom of England, Wales and Scotland.

The tradition of bestowing the title to the heir will continue unless Parliament agrees to grant Wales special status separate from the State as represented by the Crown. Not likely to happen.

 

[RoyalistRiley]

I think Jo of Palatine has the right idea - the Prince of Wales should reflect their position in the country, not be just another title. The creation of a separate Prince of Walesor Prince of Scotland would be similar to how the Queen reigns separately as Queen of the UK to Queen of Australia, Queen of Canada, Queen of New Zealand etc, while it would also serve as a reminder of Wales's former status as a principality.

 

[Renata4711]

# 23
Just a small correction about the UK:

There is the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" - that's official

"Great Britain" consists of England, Scotland and Wales.

"Northern Ireland" is a province within the UK.

The progress of DEVOLUTION:

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have devolved governments, each dealing with "devolved" and "reserved" matters, e.g. Armed Forces is a reserved matter, whereas Education is a devolved matter.

Each of the three want to make further progress, e.g. by obtaining fiscal autonomy, or additional devolved matters.

Of the three, Scotland has made the most progress so far, and, at the time of writing, the UK government has offered to transfer a range of devolved matters to the Scottish Government. Watch this space....

 

[CrownPrincess5]

Does anyone know why Charles' title is "Prince Charles" instead of "Crown Prince Charles" like the rest of the heirs of the European thrones. Is it different because that's how its always been?

 

[Mermaid1962]

His title Prince of Wales indicates that he's the heir to the throne. There's no need, therefore, of his also being called Crown Prince Charles or The Crown Prince. That title seems to be a European convention, not a British one.

Does anyone know why Charles' title is "Prince Charles" instead of "Crown Prince Charles" like the rest of the heirs of the European thrones. Is it different because that's how its always been?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Does anyone know why Charles' title is "Prince Charles" instead of "Crown Prince Charles" like the rest of the heirs of the European thrones. Is it different because that's how its always been?

In Spain the heir has the title Prince of Asturias and in Britain when the heir is the eldest son of the monarch and thus the heir apparent he holds the title of Duke of Cornwall etc and the title Prince of Wales is also added to indicate that he is the heir. These two titles can only be given to the heir.

The Cornwall title can also only be held by the eldest son of the monarch. If Charles were to die during the present reign then William could be created Prince of Wales but could never be Duke of Cornwall as he wouldn't be the Queen's eldest son and heir at the same time. The eldest surviving son of the Queen would be Andrew but as he isn't the heir he couldn't be Duke of Cornwall either but if the dreadful happened and both William and Harry died along with their father in the present reign then Andrew would automatically become Duke of Cornwall as he would then be the eldest living son of the monarch and the heir.