In the archived column that appears at on the Straight Dope website today, Cecil Adams says: “… only one British ruler, Edward III, has taken the throne without the title [Prince of Wales] since Edward I acquired it for the English royal family by killing the last Welsh Prince of Wales in 1282”.
In fact, a substantial number of the kings of England were never Prince of Wales, including: Richard III, Henry VII, Edward VI, James I, William III, George I, William IV, and George VI.
And none of the queens were Prince (or Princess) of Wales, including: Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II, Anne, Victoria and Elizabeth II.
The Princes of Wales are eldest sons (or in a few cases, surviving second son or grandson) of a king or, in one case, a ruling queen (Victoria). Men who reached the throne other than by succession to their father’s or grandfather’s throne (say, by killing the prior king or by succeeding to the throne of collateral relative like a brother, cousin or uncle) werer never made prince of Wales. Edward VI could have been Prince of Wales as son of Henry VIII, but his father died when Edward was quite young, and Edward went straight to the throne before before he could be invested. And of course no woman has ever been invested as Princess of Wales, though six have been ruling queens since the origin of the title.
You can see a complete list of the Princes of Wales at:
CKDH, assuredly true as that is, it’s a pretty piss poor excuse as to why the column was reposted
Maybe a generic disclaimer should be added to these columns along the lines “This Cecil column was honest to g_d gospel at the time of writing, but we we haven’t checked if it’s still correct”
Well, I dunno, woolly, I guess I figure there’s a “duh” factor involved.
I mean, do you want every book on politics or history or sports records, every encyclopedia or textbook, to bear a warning label, “Certain facts or claims in this book may become outdated when later history happens?”
Seems to me that it isn’t rocket science to note that a date that appears at the top of a column called “classic” would be an indicator of when it was written. I dunno, maybe you think that’s too difficult for our readers.
You could be right. I will suggest to our editors that we change the name from the simple but elegant “classic columns” to: “historic columns that were written in the past, and later facts or evidence may have supplanted the information contained therein. Furthermore, these columns should not be taken as offering legal advice – anyone wanting to really become Prince of Wales should be aware that murder is illegal. Similarly, these columns do not offer medical advice, and anyone wanting to be born into the royal family needs to make arrangements before birth, not through genetic manipulation after birth. Management is not responsible for damage to printers if someone prints out this column and knocks the printer off the table.”
I agree with woolly’s point of view here, C K Dexter Haven, mainly because such columns as this one go into the archive on the main site, where it is among others
The Straight Dope, due to efforts of Cecil and staff (including yourself) has become a real reference of choice for many out there, either in book form or via the Internet. Not everyone would look at the date of such “golden oldies”, and think that, because of the time lapsed since writing, that such serious reevaluation of the facts would be required. The likes of Dopers would – hence this thread. But the world isn’t populated just by Dopers.
I wouldn’t yank the words of Cecil just because time has sped on in some regards to the articles from the Classics collection. Frankly, I also wouldn’t want further cost added to what is a fantastic free service – but it would surely also be in the Chicago Reader’s interests to have something published under it’s name that is as error-free as possible.
Well I read the column without noticing the date which is in rather small print. And when it says “recent additions” I didn’t bother checking the date at all.
I don’t think it’s too much to ask that old columns which are re-cycled be checked for obvious inaccuracies. The same problem cropped up in the Reagan landslide question. At least old columns should be put in a category distinct from genuinely “recent additions”
:rolleyes: What about simply asking Cecil to insert a followup remark, as he does so often in response to letters? It would add greatly to the entertainment value and informativeness to have a short “what happened next” paragraph.
She was never Princess of Wales in her own right but only as the wife of her husband. RobNYNY is therefore correct to say that no woman has been ‘invested’ (or otherwise created) as Princess of Wales.
The case of Mary Tudor is not a counterexample. In 1525 Mary, who was then aged only ten, was given her own household at Ludlow, the traditional centre of English government administration in Wales. Here is what the Dictionary of National Biography has to say about this: ‘It does not appear that she [Mary] was formally created Princess of Wales, although her removal to Ludlow was clearly intended to endow her with all the rights attaching to that title, and outside purely legal documents she was so designated’. In other words, some contemporaries called her ‘Princess of Wales’ but she was never officially given that title. The arrangement meant that she was treated as if she was the equivalent of a Prince of Wales so as to strengthen her position as heiress presumptive but, mindful that her father might yet produce a son, nothing irreversible was granted to her.
On the more important issue, Dex has a valid point about the effort and cost which would be needed to update old columns. Such fact-checking is likely to be as time-consuming as writing the column in the first place. On the other hand, making an educated guess as to which columns are likely to have been overtaken by events requires almost no time at all. If in doubt, just run another column.
With all the specialists of one stripe or another we have among the Teeming Millions, surely we could get some volunteers either for fact checking or for writing up addenda to the “classic” columns–even if the “advisory board” doesn’t have time. How about it? This way, the Straight Dope could be a true storehouse of human knowledge, as opposed to a musty scrapbook of Ann Landers’ greatest hits.
There are precedents for “revisiting” the columns, both those by Cecil and by the staff. I do think this should be considered in the case of the “Prince of Wales” one.
I definitely second Doghouse Reilly, in that the point made by him echoes my own previously – The Straight Dope has come to be seen as “a storehouse of human knowledge”. We’re all fallible, and time indeed does move on – but even encyclopaedias offer updates here and there where resources permit.
<< There are precedents for “revisiting” the columns, both those by Cecil and by the staff. >>
Sure, if Cecil and/or staff feel like doing the updating. Which usually means when Cecil can get a whole new column out of it, or when we can get a whole nother Staff Report. Editing or revising so that the classic “files” are still current would be a monumental task.
Anyone interested in volunteering, we can take it under consideration. Email me. Note that this job (like staff jobs and like the Science Advisory Board) has no emolument attached to it – that means, no pay.
CK, I appreciate the comment about updates - these columns are little gems of Cecil’s thoughts at the time, frozen in amber as it were. They’re classics, no need to update.
But the main criticism here isn’t the bit about the Princess Royal - it’s that the column was inaccurate when it first came out, and on two different points!
Cecil sez:
First, as RobNYNY noted in his OP, there are several kings and queens of England and the U.K. who never were Prince of Wales. To the ones listed by RobNYNY, I would add Henry IV (deposed Richard II), Edward IV (deposed Henry VI), and James II (succeeded his brother, Charles II).
By my count, there have been 31 monarchs since Edward I. Of those, 18 have not been Prince of Wales. That’s a pretty big discrepancy between Cecil’s answer and reality.
The second inaccuracy is the use of the word British. There were lots of other British kings who never were Prince of Wales: the kings of Scotland. Between Edward I’s time (13th century) and the accession of George I in the early 18th century, the title of Prince of Wales was purely an English title, for the sons of the Kings of England.
Whoops. I left one king off the total numbers, and I mistakenly thought that Henry VI had been Prince of Wales. He wasn’t, according to the site RobNYNY gave.
Here’s my list. Kings who were Prince of Wales are in bold:[list=1]
[li]Edward II[/li][li]Edward III[/li][li]Richard II[/li][li]Henry IV[/li][li]Henry V[/li][li]Henry VI[/li][li]Edward IV[/li][li]Edward V[/li][li]Richard III[/li][li]Henry VII[/li][li]Henry VIII[/li][li]Edward VI[/li][li]Mary I[/li][li]Elizabeth I[/li][li]James I[/li][li]Charles I[/li][li]Charles II[/li][li]James II[/li][li]William III[/li][li]Mary II[/li][li]Anne[/li][li]George I[/li][li]George II[/li][li]George III[/li][li]George IV[/li][li]William IV[/li][li]Victoria[/li][li]Edward VII[/li][li]George V[/li][li]Edward VIII[/li][li]George VI[/li][li]Elizabeth II[/li][/list=1]So, only 13 out of 32 were Prince of Wales before becoming king. I hate to say it, but I think Cecil was a little off.
However:
[ol]
[li]Edward II[/li][li]Edward III – child usurper, though he was Edward II’s son[/li][li]Richard II[/li][li]Henry IV – usurper[/li][li]Henry V[/li][li]Henry VI – infant succession[/li][li]Edward IV – usurper[/li][li]Edward V[/li][li]Richard III – usurper[/li][li]Henry VII – usurper[/li][li]Henry VIII[/li][li]Edward VI – child[/li][li]Mary I – sister, and a woman[/li][li]Elizabeth I – sister, and a woman[/li][li]James I – collateral[/li][li]Charles I[/li][li]Charles II[/li][li]James II – brother[/li][li]William III – usurper[/li][li]Mary II – co-usurper, and a woman[/li][li]Anne – sister, and a woman[/li][li]George I – collateral[/li][li]George II[/li][li]George III[/li][li]George IV[/li][li]William IV – brother[/li][li]Victoria – collateral, and a woman[/li][li]Edward VII[/li][li]George V[/li][li]Edward VIII[/li][li]George VI – brother[/li][li]Elizabeth II – woman[/li][/ol]
So none of the exceptions are completely normal cases and Edward III and Edward VI are the only ones that are at all remarkable.
Sure, the monarchy isn’t a nice orderly succession. My point, though, is that Cecil essentially made the bald claim that of the 31 English/U.K. monarchs since Edward I, 30 had been Prince of Wales. He was incorrect, and his answer should have taken into account the untidiness of the succession.
Plus, I would respectfully disagree with the suggestion that successions by collaterals, daughters, or brothers are not normal cases. They’re implicit in a system of hereditary succession based more or less on primogeniture.