Discussion:
Princess of Wales?
(too old to reply)
b***@yahoo.com
2005-03-14 20:56:03 UTC
Permalink
The male heir to the throne may be created "Prince of Wales" as Charles
was in 1958.

My question is this: say Prince William marries and only has daughters.
When he becomes King, would he be able to create the heiress
presumptive "Princess of Wales" or is the title "Prince of Wales"
reserved exclusively for male heirs?

Thanks for everyone's help.

Brooke
***@yahoo.com
m***@gmail.com
2005-03-14 21:23:54 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com wrote:
> The male heir to the throne may be created "Prince of Wales" as
Charles
> was in 1958.
>
> My question is this: say Prince William marries and only has
daughters.
> When he becomes King, would he be able to create the heiress
> presumptive "Princess of Wales" or is the title "Prince of Wales"
> reserved exclusively for male heirs?
>
> Thanks for everyone's help.
>
> Brooke
> ***@yahoo.com

Well, the Prince of Wales is reserved for heirs-apparent. Thus, if
William becomes King and only has daughters, his eldest will be
heiress-presumptive, not -apparent, so she would be ineligible for the
title. That is why our current Queen was not created Princess of Wales
(she was instead Duchess of Edinburgh, given to her husband).

However, if William were to predecease his eldest daughter, I suppose
it is feasible that she could be made Princess of Wales in her own
right, because she would be heiress-apparent. It is hard to say whether
or not that would happen; the only precedent is Queen Anne. She was
heiress-apparent (since the current King's children would place after
her on the succession line, since he was King by marriage), but she was
not made Princess of Wales by William.
Fiddledeedee
2005-03-14 22:09:31 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com wrote:
> The male heir to the throne may be created "Prince of Wales" as
Charles
> was in 1958.
>
> My question is this: say Prince William marries and only has
daughters.
> When he becomes King, would he be able to create the heiress
> presumptive "Princess of Wales" or is the title "Prince of Wales"
> reserved exclusively for male heirs?
>
> Thanks for everyone's help.
>
> Brooke
> ***@yahoo.com

George IV created his only child Charlotte "princess of Wales". Its
been done.
Fiddledeedee
2005-03-14 22:53:46 UTC
Permalink
Fiddledeedee wrote:
> ***@yahoo.com wrote:
> > The male heir to the throne may be created "Prince of Wales" as
> Charles
> > was in 1958.
> >
> > My question is this: say Prince William marries and only has
> daughters.
> > When he becomes King, would he be able to create the heiress
> > presumptive "Princess of Wales" or is the title "Prince of Wales"
> > reserved exclusively for male heirs?
> >
> > Thanks for everyone's help.
> >
> > Brooke
> > ***@yahoo.com
>
> George IV created his only child Charlotte "princess of Wales". Its
> been done.

OOps, checked my books and she was "princess Charlotte of Wales" but
the Wales part was through her father's title. Sorry
Gary Holtzman
2005-03-14 23:44:41 UTC
Permalink
"Fiddledeedee" <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> George IV created his only child Charlotte "princess of Wales". Its
> been done.

This is not correct. Princess Charlotte was dead by the time her father became king.

--
Gary Holtzman

-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Frank Johansen
2005-03-15 17:24:31 UTC
Permalink
Fiddledeedee wrote:
>
>
> George IV created his only child Charlotte "princess of Wales". Its
> been done.
>

Can you please tell us where you found the Letters Patent where he did this?

No?

First of all - Charlotte died a little over two years *before* her
father became King. Thus he was Prince of Wales for as long as Charlotte
was alive.

Second of all - even if Charltte had lived - she could (theoretically)
still have gotten a young brother. And the title Prince of Wales would
have gone to him. The only way Charlotte could have been heiress
apparent was if her father had pre-deceased her.

Regards
Frank H. Johansen
Fiddledeedee
2005-03-15 21:48:45 UTC
Permalink
Frank Johansen wrote:
> Fiddledeedee wrote:
> >
> >
> > George IV created his only child Charlotte "princess of Wales".
Its
> > been done.
> >
>
> Can you please tell us where you found the Letters Patent where he
did this?
>
> No?
>
> First of all - Charlotte died a little over two years *before* her
> father became King. Thus he was Prince of Wales for as long as
Charlotte
> was alive.
>
> Second of all - even if Charltte had lived - she could
(theoretically)
> still have gotten a young brother. And the title Prince of Wales
would
> have gone to him. The only way Charlotte could have been heiress
> apparent was if her father had pre-deceased her.
>
> Regards
> Frank H. Johansen

I corrected my post almost immediately. You obviously prefer to be
critical.
Robert Hall
2005-03-15 21:59:20 UTC
Permalink
If the succession were changed to first-born regardless of sex, as as
been discussed, could a doughter then not ne Princess of Wales ?
m***@gmail.com
2005-03-16 21:25:28 UTC
Permalink
Robert Hall wrote:
> If the succession were changed to first-born regardless of sex, as as
> been discussed, could a doughter then not ne Princess of Wales ?

Of course she could. She would probably automatically also become
Duchess of Cornwall and Duchess of Rothesay.
Michael Rhodes
2005-03-17 02:45:09 UTC
Permalink
***@gmail.com wrote:
> Robert Hall wrote:
> > If the succession were changed to first-born regardless of sex, as
as
> > been discussed, could a doughter then not ne Princess of Wales ?
>
> Of course she could. She would probably automatically also become
> Duchess of Cornwall and Duchess of Rothesay.

Can the succession to the Dukedoms of Cornwall and Rothesay be diverted
from the eldest son of the Sovereign?
Gary Holtzman
2005-03-17 02:49:40 UTC
Permalink
"Michael Rhodes" <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > Robert Hall wrote:
> > > If the succession were changed to first-born regardless of sex, as
> as
> > > been discussed, could a doughter then not ne Princess of Wales ?
> >
> > Of course she could. She would probably automatically also become
> > Duchess of Cornwall and Duchess of Rothesay.
>
> Can the succession to the Dukedoms of Cornwall and Rothesay be diverted
> from the eldest son of the Sovereign?

Not under current arrangements, but presumably if coganatic succession were
introduced, all titles pertaining to the sovereign's eldest son would be either redirected
to the sovereigns eldest child or (perhaps more likely under New Labour) abolished.

--
Gary Holtzman

-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Michael Rhodes
2005-03-17 08:27:21 UTC
Permalink
Gary Holtzman wrote:
> "Michael Rhodes" <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Robert Hall wrote:
> > > > If the succession were changed to first-born regardless of sex,
as
> > as
> > > > been discussed, could a doughter then not ne Princess of Wales
?
> > >
> > > Of course she could. She would probably automatically also become
> > > Duchess of Cornwall and Duchess of Rothesay.
> >
> > Can the succession to the Dukedoms of Cornwall and Rothesay be
diverted
> > from the eldest son of the Sovereign?
>
> Not under current arrangements, but presumably if coganatic
succession were
> introduced, all titles pertaining to the sovereign's eldest son would
be either redirected
> to the sovereigns eldest child or (perhaps more likely under New
Labour) abolished.
>
> --
> Gary Holtzman
>
> -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------

Am I correct in thinking that the Dukedom of Cornwall was created by an
Act of Parliamwent, and not by Letters Patent?
c***@hushmail.com
2005-03-17 16:14:35 UTC
Permalink
Michael Rhodes wrote:
> Gary Holtzman wrote:
> > "Michael Rhodes" <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Robert Hall wrote:
> > > > > If the succession were changed to first-born regardless of
sex,
> > > > > as as been discussed, could a doughter then not ne Princess
of Wales
> > > > > ?
> > > >
> > > > Of course she could. She would probably automatically also
become
> > > > Duchess of Cornwall and Duchess of Rothesay.
> > >
> > > Can the succession to the Dukedoms of Cornwall and Rothesay be
diverted
> > > from the eldest son of the Sovereign?
> >
> > Not under current arrangements, but presumably if coganatic
succession were
> > introduced, all titles pertaining to the sovereign's eldest son
would be
> > either redirected to the sovereigns eldest child or (perhaps more
likely
> > under New Labour) abolished.
> >
> > --
> > Gary Holtzman
> >
> > -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
>
> Am I correct in thinking that the Dukedom of Cornwall was created by
an
> Act of Parliamwent, and not by Letters Patent?

No. It was created by a Letter Patent, which remains in force. So an
Act of Parliament can, of course, modify a Letter Patent.

But the Dukedom of Cornwall has been bestowed by Letter Patent to a
person not a son of Sovereign. That was Richard. So it is certainly
legal to bestow the dukedom on someone else...

The Dukedom of Rothesay was originally created by Letter Patent, but
later an Act of Parliament changed the remainder of that as well as the
titles Earl of Carrick, Baron Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Great Steward
of Scotland.

Since then there have been 4 heirs apparent who were not literally
"eldest son" (Charles I, Anne, George III and George V) and 3 heirs
apparent of queens (Mary I, Victoria and Elizabeth). How was their
right or absence of right to Rothesay title determined?

If a change is desired to the remainder of the Rothesay and other
titles, like bestowing them on a grandchild of the Sovereign, what is
the relevant Parliament? The Westminster or Scottish Parliament?
Tim McDaniel
2005-03-17 22:13:29 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
<***@hushmail.com> wrote:
>The Dukedom of Rothesay was originally created by Letter Patent, but
>later an Act of Parliament changed the remainder of that as well as the
>titles Earl of Carrick, Baron Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Great Steward
>of Scotland.

What act? Can I see the text anywhere on-line?

For that matter, is the text of the letters patent that established
the duchy of Cornwall available anywhere on-line?

--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: ***@panix.com
W***@gmail.com
2005-03-18 12:13:45 UTC
Permalink
On 17 Mar 2005 16:13:29 -0600, ***@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:

>In article <***@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> <***@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>The Dukedom of Rothesay was originally created by Letter Patent, but
>>later an Act of Parliament changed the remainder of that as well as the
>>titles Earl of Carrick, Baron Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Great Steward
>>of Scotland.
>
>What act? Can I see the text anywhere on-line?
>
>For that matter, is the text of the letters patent that established
>the duchy of Cornwall available anywhere on-line?

No, because the duchy of Cornwall was not created by Letters Patent. It was
actually created by a Parliamentary Charter.
Tim McDaniel
2005-03-18 17:27:53 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>,
<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 17 Mar 2005 16:13:29 -0600, ***@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
>
>>In article <***@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> <***@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>>The Dukedom of Rothesay was originally created by Letter Patent,
>>>but later an Act of Parliament changed the remainder of that as
>>>well as the titles Earl of Carrick, Baron Renfrew, Lord of the
>>>Isles, Great Steward of Scotland.
>>
>>What act? Can I see the text anywhere on-line?
>>
>>For that matter, is the text of the letters patent that established
>>the duchy of Cornwall available anywhere on-line?
>
>No, because the duchy of Cornwall was not created by Letters Patent.
>It was actually created by a Parliamentary Charter.

"Parliamentary Charter"? I don't recall hearing that term before.
<http://www.vauxhallsociety.org.uk/Duchy.html> says it was actually a
royal charter. A few Cornish nationalist pages appear to say that
Coke wrote something about the ducal charter having the power of an
act of parliament, but the citations I found were garbled there and I
can't make them out. E.g.

... This is generally disregarded although confirmed as the legal
position by Princes Case", 1606,
Report 27a).
Charter being '
is equally invalid thus rendering royal income from the Stannaries
of questionable validity on the grounds of not having had the
approval of Parliament. ...

In any event, I care not at all whether the duchy of Cornwall was
created by royal charter, royal charter in parliament, parliamentary
charter, act of Parliament, or Alien Space Bats zapping mind-control
rays at the royal clerks. Is the original text of the 1377 [insert
proper term] available on the Web, preferably translated into English?

I see that we missed, bu one day and two years, the 666th birthday of
the duchy of Cornwall (if you date from the [insert proper term] that
was dated 17 March 1337).

--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: ***@panix.com
m***@gmail.com
2005-03-18 03:32:51 UTC
Permalink
***@hushmail.com wrote:
> Michael Rhodes wrote:
> > Gary Holtzman wrote:
> > > "Michael Rhodes" <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Robert Hall wrote:
> > > > > > If the succession were changed to first-born regardless of
> sex,
> > > > > > as as been discussed, could a doughter then not ne Princess
> of Wales
> > > > > > ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course she could. She would probably automatically also
> become
> > > > > Duchess of Cornwall and Duchess of Rothesay.
> > > >
> > > > Can the succession to the Dukedoms of Cornwall and Rothesay be
> diverted
> > > > from the eldest son of the Sovereign?
> > >
> > > Not under current arrangements, but presumably if coganatic
> succession were
> > > introduced, all titles pertaining to the sovereign's eldest son
> would be
> > > either redirected to the sovereigns eldest child or (perhaps more
> likely
> > > under New Labour) abolished.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Gary Holtzman
> > >
> > > -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
> >
> > Am I correct in thinking that the Dukedom of Cornwall was created
by
> an
> > Act of Parliamwent, and not by Letters Patent?
>
> No. It was created by a Letter Patent, which remains in force. So an
> Act of Parliament can, of course, modify a Letter Patent.
>
> But the Dukedom of Cornwall has been bestowed by Letter Patent to a
> person not a son of Sovereign. That was Richard. So it is certainly
> legal to bestow the dukedom on someone else...
>
> The Dukedom of Rothesay was originally created by Letter Patent, but
> later an Act of Parliament changed the remainder of that as well as
the
> titles Earl of Carrick, Baron Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Great
Steward
> of Scotland.
>
> Since then there have been 4 heirs apparent who were not literally
> "eldest son" (Charles I, Anne, George III and George V) and 3 heirs
> apparent of queens (Mary I, Victoria and Elizabeth). How was their
> right or absence of right to Rothesay title determined?

Someone who is heir-apparent and is a child of the sovereign is Duke of
Cornwall/Rothesay. Someone who is heir-apparent but the grandchild of
the sovereign or for some other reason (e.g. George III, Anne) is not
Duke of Cornwall/Rothesay.

> If a change is desired to the remainder of the Rothesay and other
> titles, like bestowing them on a grandchild of the Sovereign, what is
> the relevant Parliament? The Westminster or Scottish Parliament?
Graham Truesdale
2005-03-20 12:57:01 UTC
Permalink
<***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> ***@hushmail.com wrote:
>> Michael Rhodes wrote:
>> > Am I correct in thinking that the Dukedom of Cornwall was created
>> > by an Act of Parliamwent, and not by Letters Patent?
>>
>> No. It was created by a Letter Patent, which remains in force. So an
>> Act of Parliament can, of course, modify a Letter Patent.
>>
>> But the Dukedom of Cornwall has been bestowed by Letter Patent to a
>> person not a son of Sovereign. That was Richard. So it is certainly
>> legal to bestow the dukedom on someone else...
>>
>> The Dukedom of Rothesay was originally created by Letter Patent, but
>> later an Act of Parliament changed the remainder of that as well as
>> the titles Earl of Carrick, Baron Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Great
>> Steward of Scotland.
>>
>> Since then there have been 4 heirs apparent who were not literally
>> "eldest son" (Charles I, Anne, George III and George V) and 3 heirs
>> apparent of queens (Mary I, Victoria and Elizabeth). How was their
>> right or absence of right to Rothesay title determined?
>
> Someone who is heir-apparent and is a child of the sovereign is Duke of
> Cornwall/Rothesay. Someone who is heir-apparent but the grandchild of
> the sovereign or for some other reason (e.g. George III, Anne) is not
> Duke of Cornwall/Rothesay.
>
The future Richard II was the grandson of Edward III, but was still created
Duke of Cornwall. Though the future George III, in the same situation, was
not.

>> If a change is desired to the remainder of the Rothesay and other
>> titles, like bestowing them on a grandchild of the Sovereign, what is
>> the relevant Parliament? The Westminster or Scottish Parliament?
Stan Brown
2005-03-20 16:30:00 UTC
Permalink
"Graham Truesdale" wrote in alt.talk.royalty:
><***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:***@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Someone who is heir-apparent and is a child of the sovereign is Duke of
>> Cornwall/Rothesay. Someone who is heir-apparent but the grandchild of
>> the sovereign or for some other reason (e.g. George III, Anne) is not
>> Duke of Cornwall/Rothesay.
>>
>The future Richard II was the grandson of Edward III, but was still created
>Duke of Cornwall. Though the future George III, in the same situation, was
>not.

Which at least suggests that the precedent solidified between the
fourteenth century and the eighteenth.

Not that precedent in the matter of titles and styles for members
of the Royal Family seems to count for much this last decade or so.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Tim McDaniel
2005-03-21 00:29:29 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@individual.net>,
Stan Brown <***@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>"Graham Truesdale" wrote in alt.talk.royalty:
>><***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:***@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>> Someone who is heir-apparent and is a child of the sovereign is
>>> Duke of Cornwall/Rothesay. Someone who is heir-apparent but the
>>> grandchild of the sovereign or for some other reason (e.g. George
>>> III, Anne) is not Duke of Cornwall/Rothesay.
>>
>>The future Richard II was the grandson of Edward III, but was still
>>created Duke of Cornwall. Though the future George III, in the same
>>situation, was not.
>
>Which at least suggests that the precedent solidified between the
>fourteenth century and the eighteenth.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Cornwall> says

The Dukedom of Cornwall always belongs to the eldest son of the
Sovereign. Cornwall was the first dukedom ever conferred in
England, being created for Edward, the Black Prince, the eldest
son of Edward III in 1336. After Edward predeceased the King, the
dukedom was recreated for his son, the future Richard II. Under a
charter of 1421, the dukedom passes to the Sovereign's eldest son
and heir.

Another article I saw said that there were two grants of Cornwall, to
Richard II and to someone else who I don't recall, but after them it
followed the 1377 charter.

<http://www.termsdefined.net/du/duke-of-cornwall.html> says

Holders of the Dukedom of Cornwall, with the process by which they
became dukes of Cornwall:

1. Edward, the Black Prince, created Duke of Cornwall by
Parliament 1336/7, died 1376.
2. Richard of Bordeaux, by charter 1376, ascended throne as
Richard II in 1377.
3. Henry of Monmouth, by Parliament 1399, ascended throne as Henry
V in 1413.
4. Henry, son of Henry V, by birth 1421, ascended throne as Henry
VI in 1422.
5. Edward of Westminster, son of Henry VI, by birth 1453, died
1471.
6. Edward Plantagenet, son of Edward IV, by charter 1470 and by
patent 1471, ascended throne as Edward V in 1483.

After that, every acceded due to an older brother dying or due to his
father becoming king. The only one in that sequence that didn't
follow the "eldest son and heir of the king" rule is Richard of
Bordeaux (skipping over the 1470 disputed-succession stuff).

--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: ***@panix.com
Don Aitken
2005-03-21 16:04:21 UTC
Permalink
On 20 Mar 2005 18:29:29 -0600, ***@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:

>In article <***@individual.net>,
>Stan Brown <***@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>"Graham Truesdale" wrote in alt.talk.royalty:
>>><***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:***@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Someone who is heir-apparent and is a child of the sovereign is
>>>> Duke of Cornwall/Rothesay. Someone who is heir-apparent but the
>>>> grandchild of the sovereign or for some other reason (e.g. George
>>>> III, Anne) is not Duke of Cornwall/Rothesay.
>>>
>>>The future Richard II was the grandson of Edward III, but was still
>>>created Duke of Cornwall. Though the future George III, in the same
>>>situation, was not.
>>
>>Which at least suggests that the precedent solidified between the
>>fourteenth century and the eighteenth.
>
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Cornwall> says
>
> The Dukedom of Cornwall always belongs to the eldest son of the
> Sovereign. Cornwall was the first dukedom ever conferred in
> England, being created for Edward, the Black Prince, the eldest
> son of Edward III in 1336. After Edward predeceased the King, the
> dukedom was recreated for his son, the future Richard II. Under a
> charter of 1421, the dukedom passes to the Sovereign's eldest son
> and heir.
>
>Another article I saw said that there were two grants of Cornwall, to
>Richard II and to someone else who I don't recall, but after them it
>followed the 1377 charter.
>
><http://www.termsdefined.net/du/duke-of-cornwall.html> says
>
> Holders of the Dukedom of Cornwall, with the process by which they
> became dukes of Cornwall:
>
> 1. Edward, the Black Prince, created Duke of Cornwall by
> Parliament 1336/7, died 1376.
> 2. Richard of Bordeaux, by charter 1376, ascended throne as
> Richard II in 1377.
> 3. Henry of Monmouth, by Parliament 1399, ascended throne as Henry
> V in 1413.
> 4. Henry, son of Henry V, by birth 1421, ascended throne as Henry
> VI in 1422.
> 5. Edward of Westminster, son of Henry VI, by birth 1453, died
> 1471.
> 6. Edward Plantagenet, son of Edward IV, by charter 1470 and by
> patent 1471, ascended throne as Edward V in 1483.
>
>After that, every acceded due to an older brother dying or due to his
>father becoming king. The only one in that sequence that didn't
>follow the "eldest son and heir of the king" rule is Richard of
>Bordeaux (skipping over the 1470 disputed-succession stuff).

CP (in the appendix on dukes) confirms that there have only been four
explicit creations:

Edward (Black Prince) 3 Mar 1337
Richard (II) 20 Nov 1376
Henry (V) 15 Oct 1399
Edward (V) 17 Jul 1471

All other holders have acquired it in accordance with the terms of the
original Letters Patent of 1337. I can find no reference to a "charter
of 1421". Henry VI became Duke at birth on 6 December that year.

--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
c***@hushmail.com
2005-03-21 16:30:49 UTC
Permalink
Don Aitken wrote:
> On 20 Mar 2005 18:29:29 -0600, ***@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
>
> >In article <***@individual.net>,
> >Stan Brown <***@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >>"Graham Truesdale" wrote in alt.talk.royalty:
> >>><***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:***@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> Someone who is heir-apparent and is a child of the sovereign is
> >>>> Duke of Cornwall/Rothesay. Someone who is heir-apparent but the
> >>>> grandchild of the sovereign or for some other reason (e.g.
George
> >>>> III, Anne) is not Duke of Cornwall/Rothesay.
> >>>
> >>>The future Richard II was the grandson of Edward III, but was
still
> >>>created Duke of Cornwall. Though the future George III, in the
same
> >>>situation, was not.
> >>
> >>Which at least suggests that the precedent solidified between the
> >>fourteenth century and the eighteenth.
> >
> ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Cornwall> says
> >
> > The Dukedom of Cornwall always belongs to the eldest son of the
> > Sovereign. Cornwall was the first dukedom ever conferred in
> > England, being created for Edward, the Black Prince, the eldest
> > son of Edward III in 1336. After Edward predeceased the King,
the
> > dukedom was recreated for his son, the future Richard II. Under
a
> > charter of 1421, the dukedom passes to the Sovereign's eldest
son
> > and heir.
> >
> >Another article I saw said that there were two grants of Cornwall,
to
> >Richard II and to someone else who I don't recall, but after them it
> >followed the 1377 charter.
> >
> ><http://www.termsdefined.net/du/duke-of-cornwall.html> says
> >
> > Holders of the Dukedom of Cornwall, with the process by which
they
> > became dukes of Cornwall:
> >
> > 1. Edward, the Black Prince, created Duke of Cornwall by
> > Parliament 1336/7, died 1376.
> > 2. Richard of Bordeaux, by charter 1376, ascended throne as
> > Richard II in 1377.
> > 3. Henry of Monmouth, by Parliament 1399, ascended throne as
Henry
> > V in 1413.
> > 4. Henry, son of Henry V, by birth 1421, ascended throne as
Henry
> > VI in 1422.
> > 5. Edward of Westminster, son of Henry VI, by birth 1453, died
> > 1471.
> > 6. Edward Plantagenet, son of Edward IV, by charter 1470 and by
> > patent 1471, ascended throne as Edward V in 1483.
> >
> >After that, every acceded due to an older brother dying or due to
his
> >father becoming king. The only one in that sequence that didn't
> >follow the "eldest son and heir of the king" rule is Richard of
> >Bordeaux (skipping over the 1470 disputed-succession stuff).
>
> CP (in the appendix on dukes) confirms that there have only been four
> explicit creations:
>
> Edward (Black Prince) 3 Mar 1337
> Richard (II) 20 Nov 1376
> Henry (V) 15 Oct 1399
> Edward (V) 17 Jul 1471
>
> All other holders have acquired it in accordance with the terms of
the
> original Letters Patent of 1337. I can find no reference to a
"charter
> of 1421". Henry VI became Duke at birth on 6 December that year.
>
> --
> Don Aitken
>
Well, let us then make a list of the early Dukes of Cornwall:

1) Black Prince. Created 3 Mar 1337. By whom - Crown or Parliament? And
what is the text of the original Letters Patent?

2) Richard(II). Created 20 Nov 1376, by Crown, not a son of Sovereign.

3) Henry(V). For some reason, did not become automatically Duke on the
accession of father - created explicitly on 15 Oct 1399.

4) Henry(VI). Seems to have been regarded as Duke by virtue of the 1337
Letters Patent since birth. No explicit document issued - the first
Duke of Cornwall to have no creation.

5) Edward of Westminster. Seems to have become automatically the Duke
of Cornwall on birth in 1453, and perhaps in 1470 on accession of
father, with no explicit creation either time.

Was the title explicitly taken away in 1461?

6) Edward Plantagenet. For some reason, did not become Duke either on
birth (was he then plain Master Edward Plantagenet? His father may then
have been neither king nor noble) or on accession of father. Explicit
creation on 17 Jul 1471.

7) Edward of Middleham. Was he explicitly created by Act of Parliament?
Possible, but uncertain, as Tituli regis was destroyed unread.

8) Arthur. Apparently held the title by 1337 Letters Patent.

9) Henry of York. Apparently received the title under the 1337 Letters
Patent, the first younger son to do so.

Since then, the practice has been somewhat more consistent. But does it
seem so that the Parliament has never ever legislated on who can be the
Duke of Cornwall and that therefore the Sovereign is perfectly entitled
to confer the title on any future heir apparent who is a grandchild of
Sovereign, by issuing a Letter Patent on the precedent of that of 1376?
Graham Truesdale
2005-03-25 22:53:56 UTC
Permalink
<***@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Don Aitken wrote:
>> On 20 Mar 2005 18:29:29 -0600, ***@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
>> >In article <***@individual.net>,
>> ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Cornwall> says
>> > The Dukedom of Cornwall always belongs to the eldest son of the
>> > Sovereign. Cornwall was the first dukedom ever conferred in
>> > England, being created for Edward, the Black Prince, the eldest
>> > son of Edward III in 1336. After Edward predeceased the King, the
>> > dukedom was recreated for his son, the future Richard II. Under a
>> > charter of 1421, the dukedom passes to the Sovereign's eldest son
>> > and heir.
>> >
>> >Another article I saw said that there were two grants of Cornwall, to
>> >Richard II and to someone else who I don't recall, but after them it
>> >followed the 1377 charter.
>> >
>> ><http://www.termsdefined.net/du/duke-of-cornwall.html> says
>> >
>> > Holders of the Dukedom of Cornwall, with the process by which they
>> > became dukes of Cornwall:
>> >
>> > 1. Edward, the Black Prince, created Duke of Cornwall by
>> > Parliament 1336/7, died 1376.
>> > 2. Richard of Bordeaux, by charter 1376, ascended throne as
>> > Richard II in 1377.
>> > 3. Henry of Monmouth, by Parliament 1399, ascended throne as Henry
>> > V in 1413.
>> > 4. Henry, son of Henry V, by birth 1421, ascended throne as Henry
>> > VI in 1422.
>> > 5. Edward of Westminster, son of Henry VI, by birth 1453, died
>> > 1471.
>> > 6. Edward Plantagenet, son of Edward IV, by charter 1470 and by
>> > patent 1471, ascended throne as Edward V in 1483.
>> >
>> >After that, every acceded due to an older brother dying or due to his
>> >father becoming king. The only one in that sequence that didn't
>> >follow the "eldest son and heir of the king" rule is Richard of
>> >Bordeaux (skipping over the 1470 disputed-succession stuff).
>>
>> CP (in the appendix on dukes) confirms that there have only been four
>> explicit creations:
>>
>> Edward (Black Prince) 3 Mar 1337
>> Richard (II) 20 Nov 1376
>> Henry (V) 15 Oct 1399
>> Edward (V) 17 Jul 1471
>>
>> All other holders have acquired it in accordance with the terms of the
>> original Letters Patent of 1337. I can find no reference to a "charter
>> of 1421". Henry VI became Duke at birth on 6 December that year.
>>
> Well, let us then make a list of the early Dukes of Cornwall:
>
> 1) Black Prince. Created 3 Mar 1337. By whom - Crown or Parliament? And
> what is the text of the original Letters Patent?
>
> 2) Richard(II). Created 20 Nov 1376, by Crown, not a son of Sovereign.
>
> 3) Henry(V). For some reason, did not become automatically Duke on the
> accession of father - created explicitly on 15 Oct 1399.
>
> 4) Henry(VI). Seems to have been regarded as Duke by virtue of the 1337
> Letters Patent since birth. No explicit document issued - the first
> Duke of Cornwall to have no creation.
>
> 5) Edward of Westminster. Seems to have become automatically the Duke
> of Cornwall on birth in 1453, and perhaps in 1470 on accession of
> father, with no explicit creation either time.
>
I don't think anybody believed that Henry VI acceded in 1470. Lancastrians
thought that the de jure monarch had been restored to power, Yorkists
thought
he was an usurper

> Was the title explicitly taken away in 1461?

I think that the then Duke of York got the revenues, but not the title,of
Cornwall late in Henry VI's reign
>
> 6) Edward Plantagenet. For some reason, did not become Duke either on
> birth (was he then plain Master Edward Plantagenet? His father may then
> have been neither king nor noble) or on accession of father. Explicit
> creation on 17 Jul 1471.

Was 'Edward IV' Duke of York in the Lancastrian universe, or had that title
been attainted. ISTR reference to 'Henry VI' as 'Sir Henry of Lancaster' in
the
Yorkist universe.
>
> 7) Edward of Middleham. Was he explicitly created by Act of Parliament?
> Possible, but uncertain, as Tituli regis was destroyed unread.
>
> 8) Arthur. Apparently held the title by 1337 Letters Patent.
>
> 9) Henry of York. Apparently received the title under the 1337 Letters
> Patent, the first younger son to do so.
>
> Since then, the practice has been somewhat more consistent. But does it
> seem so that the Parliament has never ever legislated on who can be the
> Duke of Cornwall and that therefore the Sovereign is perfectly entitled
> to confer the title on any future heir apparent who is a grandchild of
> Sovereign, by issuing a Letter Patent on the precedent of that of 1376?
Stan Brown
2005-03-17 17:05:32 UTC
Permalink
"" wrote in alt.talk.royalty:
>Robert Hall wrote:
>> If the succession were changed to first-born regardless of sex, as as
>> been discussed, could a doughter then not ne Princess of Wales ?
>
>Of course she could. She would probably automatically also become
>Duchess of Cornwall and Duchess of Rothesay.

The current remainder is to the eldest _son_ and heir of the
monarch, isn't it? I think it would be necessary to change that by
legislation. It could (and should) be done in the same bill that
changed the succession to the throne -- if the drafters read this
newsgroup and think of that necessity. :-)

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
m***@gmail.com
2005-03-17 20:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Stan Brown wrote:
> "" wrote in alt.talk.royalty:
> >Robert Hall wrote:
> >> If the succession were changed to first-born regardless of sex, as
as
> >> been discussed, could a doughter then not ne Princess of Wales ?
> >
> >Of course she could. She would probably automatically also become
> >Duchess of Cornwall and Duchess of Rothesay.
>
> The current remainder is to the eldest _son_ and heir of the
> monarch, isn't it? I think it would be necessary to change that by
> legislation. It could (and should) be done in the same bill that
> changed the succession to the throne -- if the drafters read this
> newsgroup and think of that necessity. :-)
>
> --
> Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
> http://OakRoadSystems.com
> Royalty FAQs:
> 1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
> 2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
> Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
> more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm

Even if by some blunder Parliament *didn't* put a remainder allowing
females to hold the Dukedom of Cornwall, they probably would when the
issue came up when a female becomes heiress-apparent.
James Dalton-Thompson
2005-03-16 03:48:24 UTC
Permalink
It is not a case of one being critical; it is the way in which the
atr.royalty group (Googl-ing, as it were) posts things. The posts do
not always follow the immediate antecedent. Having followed this group
for some time, I can assure you that Mr. Holtzman (I refer that this is
im to whom you refer) is not, by nature, critical.

Not to mention that we should all be here to learn, one from another.

Best regards,
James
Stan Brown
2005-03-15 01:35:51 UTC
Permalink
"" wrote in alt.talk.royalty:
>The male heir to the throne may be created "Prince of Wales" as Charles
>was in 1958.
>
>My question is this: say Prince William marries and only has daughters.
> When he becomes King, would he be able to create the heiress
>presumptive "Princess of Wales" or is the title "Prince of Wales"
>reserved exclusively for male heirs?

He is able to, but it would be against all precedent.

On the other hand, it's 600 or 700 years since a sovereign's son
was created a mere earl, so who knows.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Rico
2005-03-16 14:43:28 UTC
Permalink
"Stan Brown" <***@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:***@individual.net...
> "" wrote in alt.talk.royalty:
> >The male heir to the throne may be created "Prince of Wales" as Charles
> >was in 1958.
> >
> >My question is this: say Prince William marries and only has daughters.
> > When he becomes King, would he be able to create the heiress
> >presumptive "Princess of Wales" or is the title "Prince of Wales"
> >reserved exclusively for male heirs?
>
> He is able to, but it would be against all precedent.
>
> On the other hand, it's 600 or 700 years since a sovereign's son
> was created a mere earl, so who knows.
>
> --
> Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA


The title has only ever been given to heir apparents, and all of those heir
apparents were male. Given the history of the title, I would assume that
the only way for a female to hold the title in her own right would be for
full cognatic succession to be introuduced into the British line of
succession
m***@gmail.com
2005-03-16 21:04:21 UTC
Permalink
Rico wrote:
> "Stan Brown" <***@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:***@individual.net...
> > "" wrote in alt.talk.royalty:
> > >The male heir to the throne may be created "Prince of Wales" as
Charles
> > >was in 1958.
> > >
> > >My question is this: say Prince William marries and only has
daughters.
> > > When he becomes King, would he be able to create the heiress
> > >presumptive "Princess of Wales" or is the title "Prince of Wales"
> > >reserved exclusively for male heirs?
> >
> > He is able to, but it would be against all precedent.
> >
> > On the other hand, it's 600 or 700 years since a sovereign's son
> > was created a mere earl, so who knows.
> >
> > --
> > Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
>
>
> The title has only ever been given to heir apparents, and all of
those heir
> apparents were male. Given the history of the title, I would assume
that
> the only way for a female to hold the title in her own right would be
for
> full cognatic succession to be introuduced into the British line of
> succession

Not necessarily. If HRH The Prince of Wales, his sons, and HRH The Duke
of York died this instant, HRH Princess Beatrice would be
heiress-apparent.

Also, HM Queen Anne was heiress-apparent upon the death of HM Queen
Mary II.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...