yeah, I did make that typo just now. But I didn’t do that before. So I don’t see what your point is? I clearly stated CHARLESwas THE Prince of Wales…so either you’re not getting what I wrote or you’re trying to argue over nothing?
there.
Do you really think that answers the question, though? Do you think the question was ‘is he a Prince of Wales?’ Because, well, unless Wales has suddenly seceded from the UK, he’s obviously a Prince of Wales, so it’d be a pretty stupid question.
I couldn’t even tell if the OP was serious.
You go pull it up, you read it, and then if you think I’m being a jerk because I made a little half joke (and actually explained it later), then you go ahead and think that.
If you needed something else to do on a Monday night, I’m sure there’s a cooking show on.
I don’t think you’re being a jerk. Well, not until that last post. Don’t take things so personally.
BTW, before you tell people to reread the OP, check that the question was in the OP. It wasn’t.
It’s clear he’s asking about the title specifically.
Enjoy your cooking shows.
I meant Original Poster, not OPpost. It wasn’t the OP? Crap. Maybe I am a jerk. Anyway. i though I explained the difference.
thanks for the correction. yes, the style is given to the eldest daughter of the monarch but not always. it’s a lifetime title that’s why. this is what mystifies me. so elizabeth and margaret were never bestowed the title because their aunt princess mary held it. mary held the title up to her death in 1965. i can only assume margaret couldn’t have it since their father george VI was already dead and her sister was already queen.
the title was given to anne in 1987, a 22-year gap. not clear why it was given to her that year. she was born in 1950 and married in 1973.
Margaret was never the eldest daughter of a monarch. Not even after Mary’s death.
Nope, it doesn’t work that way. Only the heir apparent can be created Prince of Wales, not the heir apparent of the heir apparent, and not the heir(ess) presumptive. The only way King Charles III would create his grandson PoW is if Prince William was dead. George II did the same thing when his son (Frederick, Prince of Wales) died and then his son (the future George III) became heir apparent. Back the '40s the was some talk of Princess Elizabeth being created Princess of Wales in her own right, but nothing came of it because she was only the heiress presumptive and could always (at least in theory) be displaced by the birth of a son. A woman cannot be made Princess of Wales in her own right because she can always* be displaced by the birth of a son.
*There is one situtation where an heiress apparent could arise under current law. If an heir apparent (who is always male) were to die leaving only daughters his eldest daughter would become the heiress apparent because there’s no way her father could ever sire a son to displace her. That’s never happened in British history.
You seem to know what you’re talking about, so I’ll take your word for it, but I’d prefer a cite if you have one. I’ve only garnered what I know about the Prince of Wales from general reading, no detailed study or anything, so I’m not claiming any great authority.
From The Royal Canadian Air Farce’s “English As A Second Language News”, circa 1999: “Two surprises from England tonight: One, Prince Edward is getting married. Two, to a woman!”
Funny.
As to royals whacking other royals in order to move up the line of succession, in the only recent example of which I can think, it didn’t end well at all: Nepalese royal massacre - Wikipedia. The Nepalese monarchy was abolished by the people just a few days shy of seven years later.
What if she was transgender, and transitioned to a man? Would she then become Prince of Wales?
What if it was the second-eldest daughter who did this – now being male, would he move ahead of his elder sister in the line of succession to the throne?
if she was a “natural spinster” and opted to alter herself physically, it will not alter the fact that inheritance of the title did not come to ‘her’.
Note that this scenario happened in real life, a dozen years ago, not in the UK, but in Nepal. The crown prince murdered not only the king, but his whole family, along with an uncle.
Officially, he then committed suicide, but died as a result only some days later, and technically he was king during those days (I say “officially” because many have expressed doubts about the official version, for instance the following king and survivor was held in suspicion about the whole story).
In any case, he conveniently died and was succeeded by a remaining uncle who dedicated his reign to the trashing of the public perception of the monarchy, which was eventually abolished (he was quite an autocrat in a country in a politically very volatile situation).
But no matter how many times you say it, in no matter how many different ways, Prince William is not “a” Prince of Wales. There is no such thing, other than in a sort of philosophical sense that as a Prince of the United Kingdom, he is a Prince in/of any place within the United Kingdom.
There is only ever “the” Prince of Wales. There is never “a” Prince of Wales.
Charles is both a “Prince” and the “Prince of Wales”. Charles has the “of Wales” because it’s part of his title. William isn’t the “X” of anywhere, because he doesn’t have a substantive title of his own; the “of Wales” in his case, and in the case of his brother, is a sort of surname. Being known as Prince William “of Wales” does not make William a “Prince of Wales” any more than being known as Princess Beatrice “of York” makes Beatrice a “Princess of York”.
I’ll admit to being unclear as to what exactly your point is/was. But if the earlier poster asked whether William could be “Prince of Wales”, and your answer was/is that he already is, then your answer is wrong. William is either not a Prince of anyplace (just like I’m not a “Mr” of anywhere), or he’s a Prince “of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.
It was a play on language. I am so terribly sorry this grossly offends you, Mr. ____ of ____.
Everything else you just typed out wasn’t an argument…because I’m not arguing with you.
Did you read what I wrote?
Sincerely,
Ms. CitizenPained of Denver
Who said that I was offended?
I suggest that you work on your written humour. If nobody realises that you’re joking, then you’re probably not doing it properly…!
I could swear that a few years back Elizabeth II issued a proclamation about titles or succession or some such going to the eldest son or daughter in the generation following those currently living. I can’t seem to find any evidence of this, which is really frustrating given the news of the past couple days.
Did I completely imagine this, or was the effect of her statement so minor that it hasn’t been worth mentioning in recent discussion?