Though, Googling, a majority of the population of Wales doesn’t speak Welsh.
Wouldn’t it be a major break in tradition if William wasn’t named Prince of Wales? While it’s not a legal requirement for the succession, the title has been used as a sign of the heir for over seven hundred years now. If William does not receive it, there will be a lot of speculation about him being cut out of the line of succession. Even if the speculation is baseless, why create a situation that feeds it?
Maybe Charles and Camilla will sneak off to a Justice of the Peace and get crowned in a little Civil ceremony.
It’s quite common for there to be no Prince of Wales. As far as I can tell from Wikipedia, no one held the title between Edward VIII’s ascension in 1936 and 1958, when Prince Charles was made Prince of Wales. Elizabeth was never Princess of Wales, nor was George VI.
And while it’s true that the majority in Wales are not fluent in Welsh, it’s still a very important issue in the country. https://www.thenational.wales/news/19582819.right-want-another-prince-wales/, an article from September, has a pretty good if brief overview of all the issues: there is general support of William becoming Prince of Wales, there is not general support for an alternative, it’s still a fraught issue, the Nationalists and Plaid Cymru are certain to make a big stink around it. Note that the article specifically notes that Welsh-speakers support William’s becoming Prince of Wales: they’re a minority, but a significant one.
Elizabeth and George weren’t heirs apparent. They were heirs presumptive.
When was the last time an heir apparent wasn’t named Prince of Wales? Was it Edward III?
The stamps will be changed fairly quickly. The coins will take longer (a year or so). Other heraldry may take a while.
Dumb question from an American; what’s the difference between “heir apparent” and “heir presumptive”?
I don’t know, but you’re correct that all the heirs apparent since at least the Act of Union have also been made Prince of Wales, with occasional delays for younger kids. I had never realized that this distinction factored in: thanks for pointing it out.
Possibility, however remote, of any newborn getting ahead of an heir presumptive; if no possibility, then the next in line is heir apparent.
A “heir presumptive” is someone who might, between now and the death of the current monarch, be leapfrogged by a new royal. So Elizabeth II was “heir presumptive” because it was technically possible that George VI might have had a son, even though it was more than a little unlikely that her mother (in her late 40s / early 50s) was going to produce a legitimate male heir that last decade.
An heir apparent is the current monarch’s oldest son; this person is guaranteed the first spot in the line of succession as long as they live.
An heir presumptive is somebody who is currently in the first spot in the line of succession but who could be displaced if another child is born.
When Edward was king, he had no children. So his younger brother George was the heir presumptive. If Edward had remained king and had a son, that son would have become the heir apparent.
Elizabeth was a girl. She was first in line but would have lost her spot if her father (or her uncle if he had remained king) had had a son. Under the laws at the time, sons succeed before daughters, even if the daughter is older. (This law has since been changed.)
Heir presumptive is currently the first in succession but could be knocked out of position by e birth of someone with higher priority Example: a monarch’s nephew, who could be knocked out of place if the monarch has a child. Or the monarch’s eldest daughter, who could be knocked out of place if the monarch has a son.
Heir apparent is the legal first in line who cant be knocked out of place. Usually the monarch’s eldest son.
Eldest child, since the law changed in 2013, though (barring accidents) this would make no practical difference for the next three generations.
My vote is for Sandra Schmirler.
She had a young family. He won’t (probably).
The Prince of Whales ! (Hulk saves the whales from puny Russian whalers!)
Okay, next question: Why is the heir apparent called the heir apparent? If he/she can’t be displaced from next-in-line, why be called “apparent”? Why not simply be called the heir? (Assuming said heir actually outlives the current monarch?) (And isn’t deposed? And doesn’t pre-abdicate?)
Coronated does sound a bit awkward, at least to the American ear, I think. Perhaps because the word doesn’t see much usage in these parts. We don’t coronate much around here.
The word may also be awkward because it brings to mind other such odd words as coruscated and consternated. See, for example:
And see also:
And all of this is irrelevant anyway. The Monarchy is not a democracy, the Welsh people don’t get to choose, and Prince William will be made Prince of Wales by Charles when he ascends to the throne. The whole show is about history and tradition - this particular 700 year old tradition isn’t going to change. Plaid Cymru are not going to ‘make a stink about it’ - they are perfectly respectful of the Prince of Wales, and William is a popular guy who lived in Wales during the early part of his marriage.
(For the record, roughly 20% of the Welsh people speak Welsh ‘as a first language’. Most of the rest have a smattering of the language as it’s now taught in all Welsh schools - my wife uses Welsh for certain phrases without thinking about it.)
Because it makes it clearer - language is wonderful like that. All heirs are not equal.