Not Prince of Wales

LeopoldPhilippe

Banned
Prince of Wales is a title traditionally granted to the heir apparent of the English or British monarch.
Edward of Caernarfon (later Edward II) was created Prince of Wales on February 7, 1301.
Suppose Prince of Wales had not been used as a title.
What title should be used for the English or British heir apparent?
 

xerex

I could see Duke of Cornwall, York or Lancaster becoming the new princely title.

Chester might also have been upgraded to a Duchy and made the Crown Prince's title.

or alternately, Prince of Wessex ?

Wessex was never made into its own title and could be a good call back to the predecessor of England.
 

Blurgle

LeopoldPhilippe said:
Prince of Wales is a title traditionally granted to the heir apparent of the English or British monarch.
Edward of Caernarfon (later Edward II) was created Prince of Wales on February 7, 1301.
Suppose Prince of Wales had not been used as a title.
What title should be used for the English or British heir apparent?
Click to expand...

More importantly, how do you stop Edward I from naming his son Prince of Wales?
 
Yuelang

Yuelang

Banned
Some non regionals taken from another kingdoms...

"The Infant"

"Dolphin"

"The Baby"

"Wolf Puppy" (maybe Lion Cub is better here)

"Son of Heaven"

"The Bloodsword Prince"

"Oathsworn Prince"
 

mcdnab

Prince of Wales has to be given by the monarch it is usually granted fairly quickly after the birth of an heir to a reigning monarch though not always (Edward VII delayed giving it to George V for some months after his accession for example - the current Prince wasn't created Prince of Wales until 6 years after his mother's accession)

Technically Cornwall (which was the first English duchy) is the style automatically borne by the eldest surviving son of a reigning monarch and has been since the 1330s. (Unlike Wales it can under statute only be held by the Sovereign's son) - under the two charters it has land and income attached and rights and responsibilities within the Duchy which is unusual in England

Technically in the 14th century a number of other titles could have been used instead of Cornwall - it was largely Edward III's choice - Cornwall for his heir, Lancaster for his cousin Henry of Grosmont and then for his third son and Clarence for his second son.
Cornwall had a long association with the crown - and Edward III's brother John had been Earl of Cornwall until his death in 1336 which was probably why it was chosen to be raised to a dukedom for Edward's heir.

Lancaster and Clarence were specific aswell (john of gaunt was married to the daughter of Henry of Grosmont who was of course Earl of Lancaster before becoming Duke) Clarence was married to the de Burgh heiress which included lands held by the de Clare family hence Clarence.

Other titles - Chester (borne by royal heirs as an earldom since 1301 - usually granted along with the Principality of Wales so not automatic)


The Scots titles are regulated by the 1469 act of Scots Parliament - Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick Great Steward of Scotland etc (they fell out of usage after the union of the crowns but Queen Victoria decided they should be used by the heir when in Scotland)
 

larpsidekick

A less devilish Devils Brood a longer lived, more successful Young Henry and a longer lived Angevin or English Empire may make the idea of crowning ones heir as subregulus more fashionable? So King of England rather than Prince of Wales?
 

wietze

you could postulate it different: what if Wales ever devolves from the uk, what title does the heir apparent of the uk get.
 

illini1

Cornwall had (still has?) economically important tin deposits. Some say Edward III gave the area to his heir in order to keep control of the deposits in the family.
 

larpsidekick

Sevarics said:
What about Prince of Ireland?
Click to expand...

Ireland's a kingdom, unlike Wales - Prince of Wales was the legitimate title of the ruler of the Welsh, not a made up title like Prince of Ireland would be. I'd think Duke of Cornwall is the best bet if they didn't want to establish rule over Wales this way.
 
Sevarics

Sevarics

larpsidekick said:
Ireland's a kingdom, unlike Wales - Prince of Wales was the legitimate title of the ruler of the Welsh, not a made up title like Prince of Ireland would be. I'd think Duke of Cornwall is the best bet if they didn't want to establish rule over Wales this way.
Click to expand...

Ireland isn't anything until it's conquered so they can call it the principality of Ireland and make it the title of the heir. Or Lord of Ireland.
 

larpsidekick

Sevarics said:
Ireland isn't anything until it's conquered so they can call it the principality of Ireland and make it the title of the heir. Or Lord of Ireland.
Click to expand...

Nope, Ireland is an ancient kingdom, and was given to the English king by the pope (Adrian 2? Nicholas Breakspear, anyway) as such. Making the heir prince of Ireland gives him a different relation to the land and its revenues than making him Prince of Wales, duke of Cornwall or similar.
 

historyfool

How about just Prince or Crown Prince of England (or of England, Scotland and Wales/of the United Kingdom/of the British Empire)? Lots of monarchies just name the heir after the area he is supposed to rule one day. Or just a "job description" like the Tsarevitch or the Prince Impérial of the second French Empire without region.
 

larpsidekick

historyfool said:
How about just Prince or Crown Prince of England (or of England, Scotland and Wales/of the United Kingdom/of the British Empire)? Lots of monarchies just name the heir after the area he is supposed to rule one day. Or just a "job description" like the Tsarevitch or the Prince Impérial of the second French Empire without region.
Click to expand...

I think the issue with that is that it doesn't give the heir any income or administrative responsibility. He essentially remains a drain on the Monarchs purse until becoming monarch - while to assign those revenues to the heir does reduce the royal demense it also ships off the responsibility for administration, troop raising, justice and preference in those areas, reducing the burden of the monarch while training the heir.
 

TheBrunswickian

Duke of Cornwall makes sense. But perhaps after Henry Tudor took the throne, the tradition could be changed to Prince of York and Lancaster.
 
Alex Richards

Alex Richards

Donor
TheBrunswickian said:
Duke of Cornwall makes sense. But perhaps after Henry Tudor took the throne, the tradition could be changed to Prince of York and Lancaster.
Click to expand...

Nope. Those are Duchies, Lancaster was, by that point, a title held by the monarch and the Yorkist cause was still too prominent during the early Tudor period to really be adopted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top