Cecil’s column on the Prince of Wales and other assorted members of the United Kingdom’s royal family has fallen a bit out of date since 1976, especially the last paragraph regarding Princess Anne. Just to provide a list of the changes for those not fortunate enough to be familiar with these issues:
[ul][]Princess Anne was created Princess Royal in June, 1987[]She divorced Mark Phillips in April, 1992 and married Timothy Laurence in December, 1992. Like Phillips, Laurence was not granted any royal or noble title. He did, however, rise from the rank of Commander in the Royal Navy at the time of the wedding to Vice-Admiral.[*]The list of those Anne would have to bump off to assume the position of heir apparent has grown considerably. Third in line at the time of her birth, she is now 10th behind not only her brothers (younger and older) but also their children.[/ul]
Occasionally someone suggests Canada (or Australia) should become a republic and ditch the monarchy. I like to point out that the alternative to royalty is that some “freind of the prime minister” gets appointed president, or we elect some used politician into an embarrasing figurehead job. In Italy and Isreal, politicians have been indicted in office while holding the figurehead position. The “governor general” position is equally a plum, but less prestigious and more work.
At least the queen provides a moderate but real stopgap on what politicians do. She has real power to stop any bill or call an election - but like nuclear weapons, you can only do it once. If the public disagrees, the right will be removed next opportunity.
In the constitutional crisis in 1982, the governor general (and Margaret Thatcher) mused about not allowing a constitutional change in Canada without real consensus - guess what - in the end we got consensus, not Trudeau’s arrogance. The system, oddly enough, works.
Plus, we get an endless collection of royals who can visit, giving various excuses for pomp and parties. And when they aren’t visiting, someone else pays for them.
Thanks, paperbackwriter, for the update on Princess Anne. Having married a sailor, she has also taken to wearing Royal Navy uniform on state occasions; I think the first time she did so was for the Queen Mother’s (her grandmother’s) funeral. Here’s a picture from Wiki (she’s to the far right) from a recent Trooping the Colour ceremony: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Trooping_the_Colour%2C_Saturday_June_16th_2007.jpg
Strangely enough I was watching a program on Charles’ inauguration as Prince Of Wales the night before last.
Apparently there was a group of disgruntled Welshmen trying to make a mess of things. Most of their bombs failed to explode, apart from one which killed the people trying to plant it and another, which was forgotten and blew a child’s leg off.
My nitpick:
Um, even in 1974, there was an obvious counterexample in the form of Her Majesty herself, wasn’t there? The Princess Elizabeth was not even Princess of Wales, let alone Prince of Wales, at the time of her father’s death. The Principality was thus vacant until she bestowed it upon Charles in 1958.
Powers &8^]
Good point. All that was missing was the word “male.”
As far as I’m aware it’s only the male heir apparent to the throne who is created Prince of Wales. (Most women who ascend the throne are heirs presumptive anyway, as a male offspring could theoretically be sired by the monarch up till the time of his death and this infant would become the heir apparent.)
Was George VI ever the Prince of Wales? I don’t see how he could have been.
No. He wasn’t Edward VIII’s son but his brother.
I assume that Edward gave up the title when he (a) became king then (b) abdicated.
If you think about it, it was a pretty neat trick on Edward I’s part back in the 1200’s. It solved the problem of infighting among the Welsh nobles, and reduced the threat that one of them would see himself as top dog and try to take his “country” independent. It also removed the threat of infighting among English nobles for the spot, and the danger that one of them would consider himself too important; and any resentment the Welsh lords would have to an English prince. The prince was likely to be too young and absorbed in other matters (and remote in London) to spend too much time running Wales.
Basically it said, “you guys are all equal to English nobility, nobody is higher than anyone else, and we won’t stick our nose into things provided you stay loyal to the crown”. I assume the “real” administrator of Wales was someone with a title like chancellor, meaning a lowly civil servant who wouldn’t get uppity ideas.
“…only one British ruler, Edward III, has taken the throne without the title since Edward I acquired it for the English royal family by killing the last Welsh Prince of Wales in 1282.”
BZZZT! Thanks for playing!
Off the top of my head…
Rulers ------- Prince of Wales?
Edward III - No (had something to do with his mother overthrowing his father before Daddy could give him the title of Prince of Wales)
Richard II - I think he got it; his father definitely was, but Edward the Black Prince (of Wales) predeceased his own father
Henry IV - NEIN! Overthrew Richard II
Henry V - Yup
Henry VI - I don’t think so, if only because the title is formally granted rather than devolving at birth, and Henry VI became king at about 11 months old
Edward IV - NOPE! Overthrew Henry VI
Edward V - Yes (but I disagree that he should be counted as a monarch, frankly. If he is, then Matilda should be officially as well, IMHO)
Richard III - NIET! Overthrew Edward V
Henry VII - NONONONO! Overthrew Richard III (see a pattern here?)
Henry VIII - Yes (got the title after his older brother died)
Edward VI - Yes
Mary I - So/so case (was officially Princess of Wales at one point in her life, but not immediately preceding her ascension)
Elizabeth I - See older sister Mary
James I (of England) - I nae think so.
Charles I - I can’t remember if they granted him the title after his older brother died (according to Wiki, yes)
Charles II - Yes
James II - NO! Succeeded after his brother’s death (I don’t know of a single instance where the Prince of Wales was the sibling of a sovereign rather than a child)
William III and Mary II - Neither
Anne - Nope
George I - Nope
George II, III and IV - Yes (George IV is more famous for being the Prince Regent than he is for eventually becoming king)
William IV - NOPE (see note on James II)
Victoria - SHE IS NOT AMUSED NOR WAS SHE PRINCESS OF WALES
Edward VII - Yup
George V - Yup
Edward VIII - Yes
George VI - NOPE! Took over when his brother abdicated to marry an American Catholic divorcee (three strikes against her)
Elizabeth II - NOPE! (Despite having been heir apparent since 1936; I assume it was because the title of Prince of Wales was still popularly associated with her abdicated uncle)
So, to wrap up:
- No Queen Regent was ever Princess of Wales directly before her ascension
- No brother/cousin/really-really-distant-cousin of a king was Prince of Wales before his ascension
Also, when the PM’s a turd, you can still respect the Queen. Here in the US, when we have a turd in the White House, we are forced to accept a big dent either in our personal patriotism or in our morals and good sense.
I’m an American, but whenever I’m in a place where the folk are singing “God Save the Queen”, I sing it as loud as anyone.
presumptive
More to the point, because, as a woman, she could never be the heir apparent.
regnant
I don’t think that’s a Royal Navy uniform. She’s wearing the uniform of the Blues and Royals (one of the guard cavalry units), whose colonel she is.
This appears to be the same uniform, and that’s a Royal Navy topper, innit?: http://cryptome.info/ik46/pict9.jpg. According to Wiki, she holds honorary RN appointments as Rear Admiral and Chief Commandant for women of the Royal Navy and Commodore-in-Chief of HMNB Portsmouth.
[quote=“paperbackwriter, post:1, topic:502187”]
Cecil’s column on the Prince of Wales and other assorted members of the United Kingdom’s royal family has fallen a bit out of date since 1976, especially the last paragraph regarding Princess Anne. Just to provide a list of the changes for those not fortunate enough to be familiar with these issues:
[ul][li]Princess Anne was created Princess Royal in June, 1987[]She divorced Mark Phillips in April, 1992 and married Timothy Laurence in December, 1992. Like Phillips, Laurence was not granted any royal or noble title. He did, however, rise from the rank of Commander in the Royal Navy at the time of the wedding to Vice-Admiral.[]The list of those Anne would have to bump off to assume the position of heir apparent has grown considerably. Third in line at the time of her birth, she is now 10th behind not only her brothers (younger and older) but also their children.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
She also did get granted the title of Princess Royal in 1987.
Um… you did see the first bulleted point, right? 
Certainly it would not have been possible for Princess Elizabeth to be heiress apparent to her father King George VI. But the general notion of an heiress apparent is not an impossibility. If, during the monarch’s lifetime, a Prince of Wales were to die leaving no sons, but one or more daughters, then his eldest daughter would become heiress apparent.
Oops. I looked for that, too. :smack:
This has come up before, in the context of a previous discussion of this howler by Cecil.
Mary I was never Princess of Wales. It is true that in 1525 she was sent to live at Ludlow Castle, the traditional seat of the English administration in Wales, and that some contemporaries began referring to her as Princess of Wales. But she was never formally given the title and she was never called that in official documents.
What Henry was doing was strengthening her claim to be heiress presumptive by treating her as if she was an heir apparent, but without giving her any official title. And there was no way that Henry was going to make her Princess of Wales, because he still hoped to get a male heir, even if not by Catherine of Aragon. The title would have been especially useful if he had gone down the route of legitimising Henry Fitzroy.