Talk:Controversy of the Prince of Wales title

Is there a campaign to end the Prince of Wales title?

This is a good article, and the individual claims made in it are well referenced. What is lacking, though, is any clear evidence that there is a campaign ("an organized course of action to achieve a goal") to end the Prince of Wales title. There are clearly individuals who oppose the use of the title by the heir to the throne, and there are those who oppose the monarchy (not just the Prince of Wales title), and the background section is thorough and covers the history of English rule of Wales well - but none of these things point to a campaign to end the Prince of Wales title.

A google search of Campaign to end the Prince of Wales title yields little to convince me that such a campaign exists. I suspect that what exists in this article could be adequately covered by the Welsh republicanism article, as this campaign (if indeed it is a campaign) would seem to be just a part of the goals of welsh republicanism. Llwyld (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

You raise a good point. I think "Movement" rather than "Campaign" might be better. Titus Gold (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I would add that some people may actually support the monarchy and are not republicans but view the "Prince of Wales" title as inappropriate. Dafydd Elis-Thomas for example has not spoken against the monarchy and has said they would have a role in Wales if Wales became independent. Titus Gold (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that refer to a 'Movement to end the Prince of Wales title'? Llwyld (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Cofia 1282, Cymdeithas yr Iaith, Plaid Cymru and other groups all protested against Charles' investiture. Those movements/groups alone qualify for "campaign" or "movement" I think. I will add more relevant content in due course to the page so can see how it plays out and whether page title needs tweaking. Titus Gold (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that Cofia 1282, Cymdeithas yr Iaith, Plaid Cymru and other groups all protested against Charles' investiture, but I don't see any reliable source claiming that those groups' actions were part of a 'movement'. Llwyld (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. I've added a source for the term "movement" Titus Gold (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I still question the use of the word "Movement". The only citation for the word concerns the 1969 Investiture - not, so far as I can tell, the title itself. The word "Movement" implies a process leading inexorably towards a desirable goal - which is a non-neutral position. I would be happier with "Campaigns to end...", as undoubtedly there are have been, and are, such initiatives. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a fair comment. If you wish to make a change of wording to "Campaigns", I would not oppose that. I would rather you found evidence to support the use of the term "Campaigns" first though, and included these citations in the article. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• If we are questioning the title of the article, I believe controversy or opposition may be better words than movement/campaign to describe the article. Such terms are already used in subheadings, so either Prince of Wales title opposition [in Wales] / Opposition to the Prince of Wales title (as @Sionk: suggested elsewhere) or Prince of Wales title controversy. Opposition would make sense for the article in its current state as it only discusses those opposing the title, but I also suggest "controversy" so the article can be more general about the debate, i.e. have pro-title arguments if any. – DankJae 14:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  I agree @DankJae There are citations that support the use of the term "movement" and "campaign" also. They are all potential options, but a move is not essential. Titus Gold (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

These are all of a piece with Campaign to change the WRU logo, Campaign for a Wales cricket team and Campaign for a Wales Olympic Team. It is easy, over the course of a century and more, to find individuals who have expressed their opposition to the continuance of the PoW title. That does not make it a movement, let alone a campaign. And 10,00 signatures is the equivalent of a poorly-attended Change.org motion. At some point, we are going to have to face into User:Titus Gold's POV and their attempts to push their agenda on here. The clean-up required when we do will be substantial. KJP1 (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

After checking, I'm not sure that 15,000 people signing on a Welsh matter would be considered poor attendance. These three seem to be genuine movements, but I welcome a discussion on the exact titles of the pages. A major deficiency of info prior to these recent edits are ones that you have perceived as POV, which is quite unfair. I myself have also made significant additions to Unionism in Wales, so a POV suggestion is a bit unnecessary. I'm not sure what strict criteria these are missing to exist as pages? Bringing discussions about name changes is perfectly acceptable, but to delete seems a little extreme. Titus Gold (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Titus Gold, can you please point to those sources, most sources I can access in this article do not use either term or may be applied to other campaigns, i.e. Croeso 69 or Republic's billboard campaign (from my understanding, it refers in the source to the billboards as the campaign, rather than a wider campaign/movement, quote "the campaign has seen billboards all across the UK introduced", the source discusses mainly the billboards as part of Republic's wider pro-republican campaign rather than exclusively about the PoW title). Other sources are about individual support/petitions, rather than a wider campaign or movement. The mention of "anti-investiture movement" in the article only points to one source and is per the title not the main subject as it is about the investiture rather than the title PoW as in the article title. Thanks DankJae 14:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to tweak the Billboard sentence to say UK-wide, rather than Wales.

I've added some citations in the lead and yes you're right it is historically known as the anti-investiture movement but seems to have gained media attention recently with paraphrases of "end the use of the Prince of Wales title". Titus Gold (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The sentence on billboards is fine, I just browsed through all sources used to see where campaign/movement is mentioned as I did not know which source you were referring to, although some I couldn't access. And of the ones that did state either term, I clarified it was not about PoW title exactly.

The lead sources you added are still about the investiture, a source on the actual removal of the PoW title by a campaign/movement would be preferred to justify the article title.

I still believe the article title should drop movement/campaign for opposition/controversy and be expanded on the general debate on the title and possibly the investiture, although the latter could have a more suitable place at Investiture of the Prince of Wales rather than here. The article still gives prominence to some individual opinions. DankJae 15:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The term "anti-investiture campaign" is used as I'm sure you've read. It's pretty clear to me that it's all a part of the anti-Prince of Wales sentiment. "Opposition" would be ok as an alternative as you've suggested. If you think that some individual opinions are given more prominence, you're welcome to make adjustments. Titus Gold (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

TBH, I'd support the deletion of this page. Unless there's a huge protest, bordering on revolution, if/when Prince William has his investiture. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and support the removal of this article Kalamikid (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Some sensible suggestions above by @Llwyld, @DankJae and @Ghmyrtle about the merits of the term "movement" or whether the page should be renamed. @Ghmyrtle suggested "Campaign to end (the Prince of Wales title)". @Sionk proposed "Prince of Wales title opposition [in Wales]" or "Opposition to the Prince of Wales title" and finally @DankJae proposed "Prince of Wales title controversy". Can we narrow these down to the best option that is most agreeable? Thanks for the suggestions Titus Gold (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Even you, as the primary author, call it "Opposition". Anyone can start a petition on Change.org, it doesn't constitute a movement. Sionk (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's fair enough. Titus Gold (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I actually suggested "Campaigns..." plural, not "Campaign..." singular. But I accept the view that the word is not ideal, and suggests greater organisation than seems to have been the case. How about something more neutral such as "Proposals to discontinue the Prince of Wales title"...? That would allow individuals' proposals such as those by Sheen and Elis Thomas to remain mentioned in the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Ok, shall we go with "Proposals to discontinue the Prince of Wales title" then? Titus Gold (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Eh. I think "Opposition to the Prince of Wales title" is the best of the bunch, since it's more opposition to something, rather than a proposal of something/a new idea. Jr8825 • Talk 22:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, as has been mentioned above, I'm not really sure this is a distinct from Welsh republicanism. Seems like something that could be covered in a section there. Jr8825 • Talk 22:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Moved as per your suggestion. There do seem to be people like Dafydd Elis-Thomas and others who seem to be pro-monarchy but have voiced opposition to the prince of Wales title. The only general republican citation in the article is by "Republic" really, so I would support moving that sentence over but otherwise, It seems to be distinct from general republicanism in Wales. Titus Gold (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I may be too late, but does the use of the word "opposition" in the title go against WP:CRITS? Just wondering. Tony Holkham (Talk) 18:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair suggestion. "Controversy of the...." could be an alternate option. Titus Gold (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

...or just cover the "controversy" in the Prince of Wales article, where it could be more balanced (and possibly delete this article as superfluous?). The controversy is real and important, I have no doubt, but its treatment in a separate article is questionable, in my view, and possibly contrary to WP policy. In addition, it's premature until Prince William's investiture is mooted, as I suspect it may be raised in the Senedd before then. No need to respond; just thinking aloud. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Reasonable suggestion BUT far too much valuable content here to merge pages. Titus Gold (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Much of the content may not be particularly valuable given time, and may fall under WP:NOTNEWS or WP:EXCESSDETAIL. Can this article ever be balanced, irrespective of title changes? Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the content falls under those categories. "Opposition to" is still a valid title and is probably the best name for the page. "Controversy" is an option also. Titus Gold (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

It's an interesting and valid point raised by Tony Holkham. We've established there is no organised "movement" or "campaign" to be the subject of the article, so this article is simply a collection of criticisms. Sections in articles titled "Controversies" (etc.) where everything negative is bundled together, are generally discouraged. It could be (and is now being) reasonably argued that an entire article dedicated to critisms and random opposition goes against WP:CRITS. Sionk (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

There was a movement and campaign against the Charles investiture as is well established. Undod is an organised group supporting the abolishment of the title, so arguably there does exist a campaign or movement. Plaid supports a referendum on the issue, so arguably there exists an organised movement there for a choice on the matter also.

Another option is to include a counterargument to the current opposition to the title and rename the heading "Controversy". Titus Gold (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

A Welsh independence thinktank has also come out against the title. That's at least two organisations proposing abandoning the title and one in favour of a Senedd vote. (There may be more that express a position in the coming week or two.) I've added all three to the article. Titus Gold (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

These are all still largely random criticisms from disparate sources. To my surprise I can't find a Wikipedia article about the 1969 investiture, but if there was one, the reactions/opposition to that event would be contained there. Sionk (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Your Opinion polls section stops at the date of June 2022 with 46% support for retaining the Prince of Wales title. I found a YouGov poll from late September; here is the pdf file titled "YouGov / Barn Cymru Survey Results. Sample Size: 1014 Adults in Wales (16+). Fieldwork: 20th - 22nd September 2022"; the question is "Do you have a favourable or unfavourable opinion of each of the following?", Prince William → "Very favourable: 47, Somewhat favourable: 28, Total Favourable: 75, Somewhat unfavourable: 11, Very unfavourable: 8, Total Unfavourable: 19, Don't know: 7". Another recent YouGov poll via The New York Times (web archive) says that: "In one online survey from the British polling company YouGov, William ranked as the third most popular royal, with a 66 percent approval rating; he trailed only the queen, who had 75 percent popularity before her death, and his wife Kate, with 68 percent.". No disrespect to its creator but like @GoodDay: and @Kalamikid:, I would support the removal of this article because the poll above shows that this is not a considerable protest or revolution. Oroborvs (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

34% disapproval is still a significant number of people. But I agree this article is on dodgy ground, even more so now it is called "Controversy of the Prince of Wales title", considering "Controversy" sections in articles are usually renamed or removed. I've created an Investiture of Charles, Prince of Wales article and included details of the Welsh nationalist opposition in the late 1960s. In my view, other opposition can be included in the Prince of Wales article and the William, Prince of Wales article. Sionk (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

There are now references that have recently emerged describing the opposition as a "movement" and "campaign".[1]

[2]

In addition to these, there are multiple references that describe the "anti-investiture campaign" against Charles' investiture.

Could the page now be moved to "Campaign against the Prince of Wales title"? Titus Gold (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any revolution breaking out in Wales. Nor any overwhelming attempts to get the UK Parliament to dissolve the title, or the Welsh Parliament passing a motion to deny recognition of the title. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Obviously, a movement or campaign is not always widespread or successful. That's quite obvious. Titus Gold (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd still support the deletion of this page, if anyone nominates it. GoodDay (talk) 04:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

A Change.org petition by a guy in Pontypridd doesn't constitute a notable 'campaign' ...and the longer this article stays up, the more likely it is to start driving the 'news'. TBH I can't see any mention of a campaign, in the article about the history of the Princess of Wales. But I'm not a royalist, there are many terrible articles on Wikipedia and I don't want to look like I have a vendetta against TitusGold by proposing another of his creations for deletion. I'll leave that for the 66% who support Prince William ;) Sionk (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Think we need to stay neutral and scientific here. A movement is described according to the Cambridge dictionary as "a group of people with a particular set of aims or ideas", Collins: "A movement is a group of people who share the same beliefs, ideas, or aims." I'll support whatever is the most sensible name or merger. Titus Gold (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Because the petition has received over 37,000 signatures on Change.org, does that mean it is a "movement" or something significant? Indeed, it is a large number of people, but the petition represents 1.2% of the population of Wales, which is 3,107,500 in 2021. Oroborvs (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

For the purposes of this article, it is a 'movement' if or when reliable sources describe it as a movement. Llwyld (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions for page improvements

Please makes suggestions here to improve the page and allow removal of improvement template banners. ThanksTitus Gold (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@Titus Gold, I am confused why you're adding details such as the very specific details about the death of Dafydd and various other aspects of Welsh medieval history, these are not really relevant to the title Prince of Wales, as used by the Heir Apparent, nor the investiture. The background section should be mainly on the details of how the title is used by the English/British monarch as that is the main source for its opposition, doubt many nationalists would oppose a Welshman as PoW, and if so that's mainly generic republicanism. The section can have a short paragraph on native-born Princes, but not so much detail on their battles, nor Welsh politics, i.e. the annexation, unless it specifies its relation to the title. So details on how it was applied to the English/British heir apparent and details on how the investiture was organised would be better. Omit if none can be found.

Please do not give undue weight to the killing of medieval Welsh Princes, for, as the article portrays, this opposition is a largely modern debate (there are no opposition sources pre-Charles). The section should not be too long either, they have their own articles. DankJae 22:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Not a problem if you wish to summarise some detail. Oh I see, I'll look to add that sort of content then. Titus Gold (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion? Delete the page entirely. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your very well-considered and constructive feedback. Titus Gold (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

New source

There is a quite lengthy article on this in today's i newspaper - here - which should be incorporated into the article and gives the whole subject some additional weight. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Here's another article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

---

I propose the merger of this page into Prince of Wales, where there is already a controversy section that might be expanded a little. Although there is clearly something to be said about opposition to the title within Wales, this largely amounts to protests at the investiture of Charles to the title and a petition now that has thus far reached 40,000 signatures (just over 1% of the Welsh population). Opinion polls also show falling support for the title, and the low percentage on the petition is more indicative of those for whom the matter is pertinent rather than the full extent of opposition, but there is no large movement here, and as per the discussion above, several editors have questioned why this page represents a subject in its own right.

Much of the article is strung together from primary sources, but I would suggest there is good information here about opposition to the last investiture and this one that should be merged. The opinion polling could be summarised in a couple of sentences, showing how attitudes have changed since the last investiture.

There are under 3,000 words on the target page so it can easily accommodate the pertinent information here within recommended article sizes. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Pinging:@Llwyld, Titus Gold, Ghmyrtle, DankJae, Kalamikid, Jr8825, Sionk, Tony Holkham, Oroborvs, and GoodDay:. I believe that is everyone who has expressed a view above.

@Sirfurboy:, ping did not work WP:PINGFIX, please perform it again, including the addition of your signature in the same edit as the usernames you would like to ping. (be free to omit me, 'cause I'm already here) DankJae 12:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Pinging:@Llwyld, Titus Gold, Ghmyrtle, DankJae, Kalamikid, Jr8825, Sionk, Tony Holkham, Oroborvs, and GoodDay:. Fixing ping. Thanks DankJae. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: The page meets WP:Notability quite easily and is a significant topic that has been covered widely for a prolonged period. Titus Gold (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Support. Controversy does not automatically establish notability, otherwise any article with a controversial aspect could/would spawn another subsidiary article, and this would inevitably be one-sided. For balance across the whole subject, this article should be merged with the article on Prince of Wales. Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Support now it's been formally raised. Per WP:CRITS we shouldn't encourage sections in articles devoted to criticism, let alone entire articles. All of the information here could be incorporated into the Prince of Wales article and Investiture of the prince of Wales and Investiture of Charles, Prince of Wales at the appropriate points. Sionk (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Support in accordance with the reasoning given above by Sionk. Oroborvs (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Support per above. Also I just did a clean up of the article, removing WP:UNDUE and repetitive content. But that was reverted by suggesting that it was "relevant content". Peter Ormond 💬 13:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I support all your edits of earlier, which I have been watching. Many were edits I had considered too on reading this article, and simply not attempted ahead of the merge discussion. Information is both repetitive and too reliant on selected quotations from primary sources, which raises a neutrality concern. Titus Gold, rather than simply undoing all the edits (which were explained in edsums), perhaps you could explain why the information should be in the article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support merge – merge and redirect into Prince of Wales per WP:CRITS. There is plenty of space in that article for content from here to be moved, so no length concerns necessitating this fork. Some content may also be relevant to Republicanism in Wales. Jr8825 • Talk 16:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  The page is not about republicanism but rather about the controversy of the title. If we move all the significant content over it's going form a very large part of Prince of Wales. Titus Gold (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

That's fine. It's not a problem if a considerable chunk of Prince of Wales is about the controversy of the title, given that the sources here indicate the controversy is significant. The problem is that they're not clearly separate subjects – this article focuses exclusively on an issue/criticism related to the title Prince of Wales. The content here would be given better context at that article. Jr8825 • Talk 16:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support - As it appears that most people in Wales, have little concern over the title, 'or' who holds it. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support - this is not a separate encyclopedic topic. Per previous discussion, there's not a campaign, there's not a movement, so there's just controversy - which rightly belongs in Prince of Wales. Llwyld (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support As a Welshman I confirm there is opposition, but it's a niche issue from a very small subsection, I don't think it merits it's own page. Include a trimmed down version of this in the page of PoW. Kalamikid (talk)
• The percentage support behind the movement is not neccessarily relavant (there is support of around 1/3 of the Welsh population anyway to end the use of the title). I've moved and adapted the relevant content over. Some editors may wish to summarise some parts of this content, but I suggest that care is taken not to ommit any relevant information. ThanksTitus Gold (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support the merger, with the caveat that the content will need to be trimmed down considerably to avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to the controversy in the Prince of Wales article – as was the case with the premature merge that I have just reverted. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, the premature merge included all information including the repetitive and undue information trimmed out by Peter Ormond 2 days ago. I would expect information to be merged more in line with the article as it is today, bearing in mind that a merge is not meant to be a mere cut and paste, but a merge of relevant information with sympathy to the integrity of the target article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Partial support - some of the content, including (but not necessarily all) that was deleted during this discussion, would make more sense at Investiture of the prince of Wales, Investiture of Charles, Prince of Wales and maybe Welsh republicanism (a mention?), the rest, an overview and redirect can go to Prince of Wales. Would've considered this reformed into Debate on the Prince of Wales title in Wales but never did it and the controversy overall is not as mainstream generally. And this article for a long time seemed WP:CRITS and a mash-up of various critiques of PoW, it is best split and merge to the main topics. I would like to keep the opinion poll tables somewhere over a text description of polls however, as more reader-friendly. "Partial" as I am proposing additional merges. DankJae 18:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for this. Where would the opinion poll tables fit? Graphically pleasing as they are, I think they are overkill in Prince of Wales. Perhaps Welsh republicanism make the most sense, as there are already tables in there on the monarchy, and there is a synergy between these. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mountain removal

There has been a massive -27,147 removal from the page. Some of this is acceptable trimming and removing a long background however, a significant amount of relevant content has been unnecessarily removed. I kindly ask @Peter Ormond to re-include some parts of the removal that may have merit for inclusion. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Which parts do you think should be re-included? and why? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

There is also a neutrality concern e.g three conservative are mentioned in the William as Prince of Wales section in favour of the title with one mention of Labour and no mention of Plaid Cymru on that section. Titus Gold (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Majority of "anti-investiture" content is removed which is also a neutrality concern. Titus Gold (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there are neutrality concerns here. This "she said/he said" format is quite problematic. So what secondary sources discuss the debate? It would be better rewritten based on a good secondary source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that all the content here is relevant but very open to re-structuring, summarising and balancing sections. I've moved the "anti-investiture" content to the investiture of Charles page, so it can be summarised more concisely here.

Here is a rough initial draft but needs summarising of some sections without loss of content.

Copy/paste of the article page

Opposition 1960s anti-investiture movement (This section to be summarised with main page link) The 1960s movement surrounding the investiture of Charles as Prince of Wales has historically been described as the "anti-investiture movement" and "anti-investiture sentiment". The investiture occurred during a period of revival of the Welsh national consciousness with an outspoken section considering it as an English Prince being imposed upon Wales. Protesters opposing the investiture of Prince Charles at Caernarfon Castle (1969) Communities and institutions were divided on the issue of the investiture. These included the Urdd, Plaid Cymru, the Gorsedd and non-conformist denominations. Students in all of the University of Wales campuses held multiple sit-in protests and hunger strikes to show their opposition to the investiture. The FWA and Mudiad Amddiffyn Cymru also added to the tension. Because of the tension and protests leading up to the investiture of July 1969, the UK government drafted many soldiers and detectives, as well as agents provocateurs, to ensure a smoothly running ceremony in Caernarfon. Welsh singer Dafydd Iwan voiced his opposition and protest against investing Charles as Prince of Wales and also wrote a song "Carlo" mocking Charles. Iwan stated "[It is a] song to be taken lightly, ... like the Investiture itself, and every other vanity. The shame is that there was meaning and a serious purpose to [the role of] Prince of Wales once". Cofia 1282 (Remember 1282) a protest against the investiture of Charles. The investiture of Charles as "Prince of Wales was controversial and also led to widespread protests in Wales. The group "Cofia 1282" ("Remember 1282", the death year of Llywelyn the Last) also held protests against the investiture. The Welsh Language society (Cymdeithas yr Iaith) also held a rally against the investiture on 29 August, 1969 at Cilmeri, the site of the death of Llywelyn the Last. Tedi Millward, professor of Welsh at Aberystwyth University, became friendly with Charles in the lead-up to the investiture whilst teaching him some Welsh. He refused invitations to the investiture ceremony, as well as the 1981 wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer. Charles himself said in 2019 "Every day I had to go down to the town where I went to these lectures, and most days there seemed to be a demonstration going on against me". On the day of the investiture, a few nonviolent protesters were arrested. Some were escorted away carrying signs saying "Cymru nid Prydain" (Wales not Britain). Others booed and made obscene gestures at the royal carriages. One protestor threw an egg at the Queen’s carriage as it passed by. Another threw a banana skin under the feet of the military escort as it processed by. After Charles' investiture The successful Welsh rock band Manic Street Preachers released a song "Charles Windsor" with lyrics describing the deposing of Charles. Because the title has no constitutional value or meaning according to Plaid Cymru, the party called for the title to be ended altogether in 2006. Welsh actor Michael Sheen has called for the royal family to end the practice of handing the title of Prince of Wales to the heir apparent to the English throne. Sheen stated that it would be a "really meaningful and powerful gesture for that title to no longer be held in the same way as it has before, that would be an incredibly meaningful thing I think to happen". On the matter, Sheen has also said "There’s an opportunity to do that at that point. Don’t necessarily just because of habit and without thinking just carry on that tradition that was started as a humiliation to our country". "Why not change that as we come to this moment where things will inevitably change". Response to announcement of William as Prince of Wales Upon King Charles III's visit to Cardiff Castle on 16 September, which coincided with Owain Glyndŵr Day, giant Owain Glyndŵr flags were displayed by some protestors and one placard included "End Prince of Wales title". On the day of Charles' visit, Michael Sheen asked for the Prince of Wales title to be ended. In a video message posted to his Twitter account, Sheen pondered whether Charles and William appreciated the history and traditions of Wales, and pointed out that the celebrations for Owain Glyndŵr Day were cancelled "because of the visit of an English monarch". He questioned whether the visit was scheduled on purpose, calling it "insensitive to the point of insult" if so, and added, "And if it wasn't done on purpose – if it was done accidentally without realising what that day was – then one does wonder what being Prince of Wales was so long actually meant if you're not aware of what that day means." He ended his video by quoting Lily Smalls, Mrs. Beynon’s maid, from Dylan Thomas's Under Milk Wood: "Where you get that thing from, Willy? Got it from my father, silly. Give it back then, love". A petition calling for the end of the Prince of Wales title was started following its vacancy. By 17 September, despite Prince William receiving the title, the petition calling for the end of the title had received over 30,000 signatures. The petition states "The title remains an insult to Wales and is a symbol of historical oppression. The title also implies that Wales is still a principality, undermining Wales's status as a nation and a country". "In addition, the title has absolutely no constitutional role for Wales, which is now a devolved country with a national Parliament"."Whatever your political views, this is an important step for us of all in Wales". By May 2023, the petition had received almost 40,000 signatures. In response to the creation of the title, former leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood said "Wales has no need for a prince". Current leader of Plaid Cymru, Adam Price stated "I don't believe there is a role in modern, democratic Wales for the Prince of Wales, and I haven't changed my view on that". A Welsh independence thinktank Melin Drafod, also took the position that the Prince of Wales title should be abandoned with its chairman saying "Our position is we think that the title should be abandoned." He added that the title is "divisive and contentious and sets Welsh people against each other" and was imposed on the Welsh people without democratic consent. On 6 October, Gwynedd Council, the local authority where Charles' investiture took place, voted by 46 votes to four, declaring opposition to the title of ‘Prince of Wales’ and against holding another investiture in Wales. On 30 October, Senedd Llywydd Elin Jones said to WalesOnline that an investiture is not a constitutional requirement and that 21st century Wales does not need an investiture. She added "Ceremonial Prince of Wales investitures were therefore the product of the political imagination of the 20th Century and should be consigned to that century. The Welsh people and the Welsh Parliament can design a modern relationship with the Prince of Wales, based on people not pageantry. If William and Kate want to meet people throughout Wales to learn first-hand of their hopes and concerns, then today's politicians should free them to do so, rather than encumber them with the controversy of investiture. 21st century Wales does not need an investiture. The 21st century monarchy may not want it either." In November, William was criticised for holding the Prince of Wales title whilst having affiliations with England football, particularly after he presented England jerseys to the squad in advance of the FIFA world cup in which both Wales and England would be playing. Those who criticised him included Welsh football followers and the Welsh actor Michael Sheen who tweeted, "He can, of course, support whoever he likes and as Pres of FA his role makes visit understandable - but surely he sees holding the title Prince of Wales at same time is entirely inappropriate? Not a shred of embarrassment? Or sensitivity to the problem here?". Support People at the investiture of Charles. Title held by Charles Although the investiture of Charles in 1969 took place during a period of social change and a growing Welsh nationalist movement, it was largely welcomed by people in Wales. The investiture was also attended by invitation, by 3,500 people who lived and worked in Wales. In the UK, the press focused on the pomp and regalia, with some newspapers stating "Welsh go wild for Their Royal Prince" and "Proud Wales takes Prince to her heart." It was also supported by the Welsh secretary of state at the time, George Thomas, although he remained a controversial figure in Wales. Thomas later stated to Prime minister Harold Wilson that Charles' speech had "boosted Welsh nationalism." Prior to the death of Queen Elizabeth, in June 2022, ITV/YouGov poll showed 46% of adults in Wales wanted the Prince of Wales title to continue, 31% said it should be abolished, with 23% don't knows. Title held by William During his first address, King Charles III said of his son William, "Today I am proud to create him Prince of Wales, Tywysog Cymru. The country whose title I've been so greatly privileged to bear during so much of my life of duty." According to Buckingham Palace, "The Prince and Princess [of Wales] look forward to celebrating Wales's proud history and traditions as well as a future that is full of promise". According to the First Minister of Wales, William will be absolutely aware of the sensitivities that surround the title. Conservative MP for Clwyd West, David Jones, said "I think it was deeply inappropriate of Drakeford to comment on something which is entirely a matter for the new King, not Drakeford or any other politician for that matter". He added "Drakeford suggested they should get to know Wales. Well, I can say as an MP in North Wales, that the new Prince and Princess of Wales know North Wales much better than he does." Conservative MS for South Wales East, Laura Anne Jones, has suggested that the new Prince of Wales will be an "extraordinary ambassador" that will be "above" politics. English Conservative MP Michael Fabricant said that the matter was entirely up to the King and not the First Minister of Wales. Kensington Palace released a statement saying an investiture is "not on the table" with William visiting Cardiff with plans to tell the people of Wales that there are no formal plans for an investiture ceremony, aware of the controversy of the 1969 event. Proposals for a debate and Welsh decision When asked if he was glad about the decision, the First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford stated, "Well, it's a decision that has been made". Different investiture debate Lord Elis-Thomas said in 2022 on previous discussions he had with Prince Charles, "I can tell you in discussions with him when he was still Prince of Wales, when I had cultural responsibilities in the Welsh Government, one of the issues I did raise with him was that I hoped there would never again be an investiture in Caernarfon Castle. (Prince Charles) laughed and said, 'Do you think I want to put William through what I went through?". Following the announcement of the title, the First minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford revealed that he heard the news about the appointment of a new Prince of Wales on the same day as everyone else. The first minister added "The Wales of 2022 is not the Wales of 1969. I don't think it would be sensible to look back and say you could simply replicate that". "My only advice, if it was ever sought, would be to give these things time. There is no rush". After meeting Charles at Cardiff Castle, Drakeford said "Well, I certainly don't think that 1969 is a good guide for what should happen in 2022. Wales is a very different place". "The nature of the monarchy has developed over that period. My message is that we shouldn't be in a rush about all of this". "We should allow the new prince, as I say, to become familiar with his new responsibilities, develop the job in a way that will work for him and will work for Wales". "And then we can think about how and whether there is a need for any further ceremonial underpinning of what has already been announced". Leader of Plaid Cymru, Adam Price stated that "On the question of investiture then it's the people of Wales, through the democratically elected representatives, that should decide on that, not have that decision made in London by the UK Government". Price stated that the Senedd should make the decision on whether to hold an investiture following a "national conversation". On BBC Radio Wales Breakfast, Price said "It is not necessary and it was decided in 1911 and 1969, essentially by politicians, to hold the ceremony so I think that it is a legitimate area of discussion". Price added, "I think the first minister was right to say it's important that there is an opportunity for us in Wales to have a conversation about whether we want to have that ceremony, which effectively invests in the title of an official role, and a national status, like almost a constitutional role". Title debate Welsh Liberal Democrat leader, Jane Dodds stated "There should be a debate - but not right now. Let's have that discussion and see what the people of Wales actually want." Welsh independence group YesCymru are neutral when it comes to the monarchy, but have taken the position that a decision on a "Prince of Wales should be collective decision of the people of Wales." Plaid Cymru called for a national conversation and Senedd vote on the matter of the title. The Welsh government responded saying that the matter had already been decided. Laura McAllister, Welsh academic, former international footballer and senior sports administrator said that the title merits a proper debate due to its historical and political controversy. Predictions Following the death of Queen Elizabeth II on 8 September 2022, which led to the vacancy of the Prince of Wales title, Dafydd Elis-Thomas said "I think this title will disappear because it doesn't make any sense for a devolved, democratic country like Wales to have a prince these days" and "What sense does it make to have a Prince of Wales who has no constitutional function? But that is a matter for discussion". Swansea University professor Martin Johnes has suggested that William will be the last Prince of Wales, stating: “If I was a gambling man I would say William will probably be the last Prince of Wales because I imagine that one of the things the monarchy will do in the future is try and lose anything that's contentious and Prince of Wales is a contentious title." “So I suspect that when we see William become King - he won't pass that title on. He will try and reinvent the monarchy to be something stripped-down, relevant and non-contentious.” Other controversies The naming of the cup for the winner of Wales v South Africa rugby matches as the "Prince William cup" caused considerable controversy in Wales. Many people called on the WRU to rename the trophy in honour of Welsh international rugby star Ray Gravell, who died on 31 October 2007. During a tribute to Gravell at the inaugural match the stadium announcer asked the crowd to remember Ray as 'gwir dywysog Cymru', ("true prince of Wales").The matter was raised in the National Assembly for Wales by Helen Mary Jones AM backed by multiple assembly members. Multiple MPs from different parties also introduced a motion in Westminster calling on the Welsh Rugby Union to name the cup after the late Ray Gravell. In 2018, over 30,000 people signed a petition against the renaming of Second Severn Crossing as the "Prince of Wales bridge". William's continued presidency of the English football association has been questioned in media, particularly as Wales played England in the FIFA World Cup 2022 and will "remain a regular fixture cheering on England" despite receiving the honorary title of Prince of Wales. Titus Gold (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC) References

Please don't do that! That is just the page as it was. The first reference and first line I checked is still in the article, and the same is true for much of it, so all you are saying is that you think the page should be as it was per this diff: [3]. This is not explaining what content you believe should go back in nor why, and it is cluttering up the talk page. I have collapsed the content, but maybe it should just be deleted. Maybe you should use your sandbox? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that the removal of content diminishes the breadth and depth of the article and I think summarsing has been done that includes removal of relevant information. I think this is a more sensible structure if we merge, including virtually all of this content but it can be trimmed down and summarised more succintly without exclusion of any significant information. The anti-investiture movement can be summarised more concisely with a link to the main page of the investiture. I think we should move certain controversies that are not directly about the title or investiture into a seperate "Other controversies" heading as well.Titus Gold (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy I've just made the condensed/summarised additions that I thought were missing. Titus Gold (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

40,000 votes as a percentage

I am not surprised my edit was reverted, nor by whom; however, their edit summary was inaccurate. The percentage is relevant to the significance of the vote, and does not need a source as it is a simple calculation, and a generous one at that, because I used the total population, not the population eligible to vote (i.e. adults). Having said that, I don't mind if it is the article or not, as anyone can look up the population of Wales if they want to know (and it's going to be merged anyway); I just thought it would be interesting to readers of the article. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

no citation Titus Gold (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:CALC Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

1. Need consensus (as per WP:CALC)

2. Need citation for the population number used

3. Need a citation to show comparison with population is relevant Titus Gold (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Not seeking consensus. Made my point. Tony Holkham (Talk) 17:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Well as Tony says, maybe this is moot as there is clear consensus to merge. Titus Gold, per WP:MERGECLOSE we don't need an admin closure where consensus is clear. As the only oppose vote, do you object to me closing the merge discussion now? Please do say if you object and I will request a neutral closer. However, if you are content, I will close as consensus to merge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

You may go ahead and merge since there is clear consensus. Titus Gold (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy Titus Gold (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Merge

I have merged what I believe is the core of this article now into Prince of Wales. A notable omission is the polling charts, which as per the merge discussion, I suggest might be better merged into Welsh republicanism. I will leave this article as "Being merged" for now, and will move the polls later (unless anyone wants to help). I don't propose to set the redirect until all mergeable content is relocated. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy, seems I missed the comment above. Would prefer Welsh republicanism or Investiture of the prince of Wales (for those relevant polls). But in the end, no strong opinions, just thought the table is much easier to read than text for readers, but if all the polls are retained in text then there is no loss of info/sources. But as I was the only one that raised keeping them (I think I was?) be free to disregard the comment and only merge in the text if merging it would make it out-of-place, such as at PoW. In the end, I do realise that they'll seem a bit out-of-place and recentist on short-ish articles on long-term topics. DankJae 21:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I split the difference. :) The investiture polls are now in Investiture of the prince of Wales and the use of the prince of Wales title polls are now in Welsh republicanism. This balances the material out nicely in appropriate articles without overwhelming any of them. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)