As I recall, his mother announced it in an audio message to the closing ceremony of the Empire Games in Cardiff in 1958.
The investiture and its timing was to some extent chosen for PR reasons.
Looking at the list of Princes of Wales, except for Charles, the last few were made Prince of Wales a few months after they became heir apparent.
William was created on his father’s first full day as King, which is unusual. They seem to want to wait at least till after the funeral. I wonder if they wanted to do it quickly, before the Welsh nationalists could make it an issue.
I think it’s more likely that Wills is already 40, so why wait? Plus, seamless transition.
Yeah. The royal titles are usually given as a wedding present or a coming-of-age present. He’s already married and middle-aged.
It looks as though someone is busy on this Wikipedia page, claiming that thousands have already signed a petition objecting to the title:
At least his mother died knowing that the United Kingdom didn’t break up on her watch.
Was talking with an acquaintance today, and she reminded me of something.
“Remember back in the '90s, when Charles was giving a speech and someone ran up with him with, not a real gun, or not a loaded one?..Yeah, some kind of protest. And if that had been a real gun, William might be King right now!”
Wikipedia tells me that it happened in Sydney, it was a starter pistol that fired blanks, and he got two shots off, neither of which hit Charles. And that he is now a barrister. Whatever. Anyway, glad that was an empty gesture.
Yes, it’s pretty hard to hit somebody with a starter pistol firing blanks.
I get what you’re saying, but technically, a blank is what killed Brandon Lee. Although it wasn’t fired from a starter pistol.
Actual factual question: I saw a bit of a proclamation ceremony or something where Charles stood before a room full of officials, the front row being former Prime Ministers, and they went through a series of formalities where he was asked to assent to various operational matters. The vast bulk of these were asking his agreement that local royal representatives in a long list of territories would continue using their old royal seals, presumably still featuring Elizabeth’s name, until new seals with Charles’s name get verified and distributed.
But before that happened, the very first thing he was required to sign was an affirmation of the defense of the Church of Scotland. After he did this, a number of witnesses added their signatures, including Nicola Sturgeon.
Here is an article about this specific action.
The article just describes what he did, and what the affirmation says, and mentions that it is important, but it doesn’t provide any other background. I’ve googled around, and have been unsuccessful in finding more information.
What is the significance of this? Is there a reason the protection of the Church of Scotland needed to be (apparently) the first thing out of the gate?
It’s one of the key terms of the Act of Union of 1707: that England would not impose episcopacy on presbyterian Scotland.
Under the Acts of Union 1707, monarchs are required upon succeeding to the throne to make an oath to “maintain and preserve” the Church of Scotland. This oath is normally made at the Accession Council. The provision in Article XXV Section II of the Acts of Union 1707 states with respect to confirmed Acts of Scotland:
And further Her Majesty with Advice aforesaid expressly declares and statutes that none of the Subjects of this Kingdom [Scotland] shall be liable to but all and every one of them for ever free of any Oath Test or Subscription within this Kingdom contrary to or inconsistent with the foresaid true Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government Worship and Discipline as above established and that the same within the Bounds of this Church and Kingdom shall never be imposed upon or required of them in any sort And lastly that after the decease of Her present Majesty (whom God long preserve) the Sovereign succeeding to Her in the Royal Government of the Kingdom of Great Britain shall in all time coming at His or Her Accession to the Crown swear and subscribe that they shall inviolably maintain and preserve the foresaid Settlement of the true Protestant Religion with the Government Worship Discipline right and Privileges of this Church as above established by the Laws of this Kingdom in Prosecution of the Claim of Right[5]
“Her Majesty” here referred to is Her late Majesty, Queen Anne.
It goes back beyond the Act of Union; His late Majesty, King Charles I’s attempt to impose the English Book of Common Prayer in Scotland is attributed to be one of the spark points for the civil wars:
Janet “Jenny” Geddes (c. 1600 – c. 1660) was a Scottish market-trader in Edinburgh who is alleged to have thrown a stool at the head of the minister in St Giles’ Cathedral in objection to the first public use of the Church of Scotland’s 1637 edition of the Book of Common Prayer in Scotland. The act is reputed to have sparked the riot that led to the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, which included the English Civil War.
Even bureaucracy can full of ritual and ceremony. It was watching David, Theresa, & Boris pretend to be civil with eachother. Is Canada the only Commonwealth realm (well other than the UK) to have an ascension ceremony?
Thank you, that makes sense and is exactly what I was looking for.
I was amused that at such an important, historic occasion, Boris Johnson still refused to comb his hair.
No, others do too. See wikipedia:
Australia has just had its ceremony [noon, Sunday local time].
No speeches, just reading out official proclamation, 21 gun salute, national anthems, flags go up from from half mast to the top [and back down for mourning later], everything old is new again. Huzza! as another monarch would say.
The government of Saskatchewan had a proclamation ceremony today:
Would that Charles could rest his head easy that his successor will one day say the same about his reign.
That’s mean. Funny as hell, but mean. This USAian thanks you for your rapier wit at this delicate moment in latter-day British Empire history.
Your kid is correct, I strongly suspect. He loves his son, he just wanted to mention him, too.
It’s not like Harry and Meghan are national security risks, the way Edward VIII was.