Talk:Prince of Wales's feathers

Title

Shouldn't the article's title be Prince of Wales' feathers? I'm ESL, but I'm pretty sure in situations such as this the second s is dropped.--Caranorn 21:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

See Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending in s, z, or x — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 13:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

I have just read through this article and noticed that the following sentence unnecessarily uses the word "been" twice. "The badge has been traditionally been worn on the jerseys of players in the Welsh rugby union team and as the logo of the Welsh Rugby Union". This article doesn’t allow me to edit it personally so I thought I would mention something here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.sutton88 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why you weren't allowed to click "edit this page". I've addressed it now, anyway. -- Jao (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wru logo.jpg

Image:Wru logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Prince of Wales feathers, naming, citations

A contributor says they should be called the Duke or Cornwall's feathers but without citation of any kind. The Prince of Wales official website states that these are the "The Prince of Wales's Feathers" and refers to the feathers as the "badge of The Prince of Wales". That seems pretty clear cut. I'll amend, do provide a citation showing the badge to be named for the Duke of Cornwall and we can add that as an option - regardless this is clearly [also?] used for the Prince of Wales. Note that some military sites mention a white rose, for example the "award of the White Rose of York, the personal emblem of the Duke of Cornwall and York" and others the "Duke of Cornwalls coronet". The page on the Prince's coat of arms unifies the relationship of the various badges and emblems and mentions the coronet as an emblem of 'Cornwall. Pbhj (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This article and this Dicussion-page are all wrong. This article should be titled "Heir Apparent's Feathers". This page is contradicted by other Wikipedia pages. The Ostrich Feathers are not a badge of PrinceS of Wales (in general). They are not a badge of DukeS of Cornwall (in general) either. They are a badge of HeirS Apparent to the Throne (in general). If the Feathers were a badge not only of the present Prince of Wales but uniquely of men who WERE PrinceS of Wales in the past, then the Feathers would not have belonged to Prince Charles before his creation as Prince of Wales in 1958. But that is not true -- the Feathers belonged to him in 1952, from the moment Elizabeth II became Queen, when he, Prince Charles, became Heir Apparent.

See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_wales

where it says

QUOTE:

He has a badge of three ostrich feathers

UNQUOTE

and

QUOTE

it dates back to the Black Prince and is his as the English heir even before he is made Prince of Wales.

UNQUOTE

If the Feathers are a badge of a man who is not Prince of Wales (as was the case before Prince Charles's 1958 creation) then obviously they can't be the badge of PrinceS of Wales (in general) just because later on the same man has both the Feathers and the title of "Prince of Wales". It's wrong to say that Emblem A symbolizing Title B also symbolizes Title C just because one man at one time holds both Title B and Title C. The text at

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/theprinceofwales/abouttheprince/theprinceofwalessfeathers/

says "The badge of The Prince of Wales comprises" which is LOOSELY true in that RIGHT NOW this is a badge that is used by a man (Prince Charles) who is Prince of Wales. But it's wrong to use that loose language to assert that the Feathers are LINKED to the title "Prince of Wales". They're not linked.

Symbols of PrinceS of Wales (in general) are (more-or-less) symbols of EarlS of Chester (in general) because any Prince of Wales MUST be Earl of Chester and any Earl of Chester MUST be Prince of Wales. But while the titles "Prince of Wales" and "Earl of Chester" DO have this equivalence, the titles "Prince of Wales", "Duke of Cornwall", and "Heir Apparent to the Crown" do NOT. A man can be Heir Apparent with no hope of becoming Duke of Cornwall if his father is dead and his grandfather is King. Further, an Heir Apparent might or might not be, whether he is Duke of Cornwall or not, a Prince of Wales or someone who is waiting to be created Prince of Wales.

So the three titles are not linked, and thus emblems of any one of the three titles are not emblems of any other even though all three are emblems of the CURRENT title-holder, Prince Charles.

This Discussion-page repeats the same fallacy by claiming that because multiple Dukes of York have adopted the White Rose of the Yorkist side of the Wars of the Roses (opposing the Red Rose of Lancaster), and because one man was both Duke of York AND Duke of Cornwall at the same time, that, therefore, the White Rose is now a symbol of the Duke of Cornwall. Furthermore, the very language quoted by this Discussion-page is "personal emblem of the Duke of Cornwall and York". "PERSONAL emblem". In other words NOT a symbol of DukeS of Cornwall (in general) nor of the Duchy of Cornwall. Given the White Rose's standing as almost a synonym for the very WORD "York" and its present use by Yorkshire and appearance on buildings and bridges in the CITY of York, it is likely that no Duke OTHER than York would employ it.

(It is not hard to imagine how a man can be both Duke of Cornwall and Duke of York at the same time: a 2nd son of a King, first created Duke of York, and then having his only older brother die without descendants, causing the title "Duke of Cornwall" to pass to the man who is now the oldest SURVIVING son of, and senior lineage off of, the King. Nor is it hard to imagine how the titles would re-separate later on: the man who is Duke of Cornwall and Duke of York later becomes King. Instantly his eldest son becomes Duke of Cornwall. Equally instantly the title "Duke of York" goes defunct by merger with Crown. Later on this man, now a King, re-creates the title "Duke of York" for his OWN 2nd son. All the while the White Rose represents only the Dukedom of York, NEVER the Duchy of Cornwall, notwithstanding that AT ONE TIME one man was both Duke of Cornwall and Duke of York at the same time.)

This Discussion-page also cites

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/theprinceofwales/abouttheprince/coatofarms/

. The coat-of-arms shown on that page is accurate for the CURRENT Prince of Wales but not for all PrinceS of Wales (in general). When the later George III was still only Prince of Wales he did not have any Cornwall components in his arms, since he was never Duke of Cornwall (being the grandson of, but never the son of, a previous Monarch). Even if past PrinceS of Wales who WERE also DukeS of Cornwall COULD include Cornwall components in their arms, I've never seen arms of any who DID include them, and I do not believe the present Prince of Wales/Duke of Cornwall included them until it was decided that his 2nd wife would be known as the Duchess of Cornwall rather than the Princess of Wales. The Cornwall armorial components are not mentioned in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles%2C_Prince_of_Wales

so they could be rather new.

The entire page at

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/theprinceofwales/abouttheprince/coatofarms/

should not be accepted as definitive because manifestly the sentence "Around its neck there is also a white label, to distinguish it from that of the Sovereign" belongs not in its own paragraph as they have set it but in the preceding paragraph, since it refers to the Welsh dragon-badge, which, being a ROYAL badge (as the page itself states), can be used undifferenced, today, only by the current Queen, requiring a white label-of-difference when used by her Heir Apparent, Prince Charles.

badge of the Heir Apparent is the Welsh dragon badge with [3 point?] label of difference, is that what you're saying here? Pbhj (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This Discussion-page states that this same page

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/theprinceofwales/abouttheprince/coatofarms/

"unifies" emblems when in fact it DIFFERENTIATES them, telling us that some of Prince Charles's emblems are possessed in his status as Prince of Wales, others in his status as Duke of Cornwall, at least one element in his status as Knight of the Garter, and others in his status as Heir Apparent to his mother.

Finally the editor above states that this page

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/theprinceofwales/abouttheprince/coatofarms/

"mentions the coronet as an emblem of 'Cornwall". It does no such thing. It DOES say that the separate shield of Cornwall arms is surmounted by "his" coronet. The word "his" could refer to one of two things: "his" (Prince Charles's) coronet as Heir Apparent (the Royal Crown minus two half-arches), or a coronet for the title of Royal Duke. The image is too small for me to be sure but it appears to be, and most likely WOULD be, Prince Charles's coronet of two half-arches as Heir Apparent. Whichever coronet it is, this coronet is NOT an emblem of Cornwall. Either it is an emblem of all Heirs Apparent (including those who cannot become Duke of Cornwall) or else it is an emblem of all Royal Dukes, for instance the Duke of York. It's wrong to say that the Duchy of Cornwall has its own unique and special coronet, and the page cited has no language stating nor even merely implying that there is such a coronet.64.131.188.104 (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Response to rather long contribution

The above contribution is rather long, so I am going to respond in easy-to-navigate chunks.

Evidence

The Prince of Wales site states that the emblem is called the "The Prince of Wales's Feathers". You say they are not without citing any evidence other than Prince of Wales. You use two items from that page as "evidence". The first is the the caption on the image of the feathers. That caption does not attempt to argue the feathers belong to the heir apparent instead of the Prince of Wales. Rather it appears to be an inelegant substitution for "Prince of Wales". I'm not sure, but you may be trying to argue that because the feathers did not originally relate to the title, they don't now. That conclusion is faulty. The feathers became associated with the title by repeated use by Princes of Wales.

There was another place where the 'inelegant substitution' of 'Heir Apparent' for '"Prince of Wales"' occurred on that page, in the statement that Diana became Princess of Wales by marrying the Heir Apparent, and yes, I have posted that that she did not become Princess of Wales by marrying an Heir Apparent but, rather, by marrying a Prince of Wales.

I agree that this article should not be renamed "Heir Apparent's Feathers" but maybe a cross-link could be engineered so that people who are searching for the correct term get re-routed to this article. There is substantial popular usage of "The Prince of Wales's Feathers" and a good way for people to learn that the popular usage is wrong (as is often the case in matters heraldic, for instance "crest", "bar sinister") would be to have them read it in this article. But the article should so inform them.

As to showing that the popular usage IS wrong, if you google +"ostrich feathers", +"heir apparent" there is evidence. For instance at http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/wales-news/tm_headline=-stop-using--my-three-feathers-&method=full&objectid=18695820&siteid=50082-name_page.html a person named Tim Duke who is the Chester Herald at London's Royal College of Arms says that the badge is "strictly" that of the Heir Apparent. The page also has a Lord Chamberlain stating "usually known as the Prince of Wales Feathers"' which implies that the usual usage is incorrect since if the Lord Chamberlain believed the Feathers WERE the Prince of Wales's Feathers then the Lord Chamberlain would refer to them as such without the qualifying language "usually known as" which can only be there to imply "isn't". A Lord Chamberlain and a Chester Herald carry some weight as expert witnesses, no? I've edited this paragraph again to remove straight lifts of copyrighted text.64.131.188.104 (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson64.131.188.104 (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

If all you are looking to do is make a redirect page from "Heir Apparent's Feathers" to this page, I'll do that.

Thank you for the redirect. But (and I'll provide citations below) I'm also looking to have the article here clarify that the Feathers belong not to Prince of Wales but to Heir Apparent (and now I'm finding material stating that the Feathers go to Heir Apparent of ENGLAND, while the badge of UNITED KINGDOM Heir Apparent is different (the red dragon).64.131.188.104 (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Chester

I assume that your discussion of the Earldom of Chester is merely a lead-in to your discussion of Cornwall and York. If not, let me know. Unfortunately, your intention is not always clear.

No, I was not making a paralell of Wales/Chester and Cornwall/York. I wrote about Wales/Chester to contrast those two things with the three things "Prince of Wales", "Duke of Cornwall", and "Heir Apparent". In some ways "the Prince of Wales" and the "Earl of Chester" are different things, and in some ways they are the same thing, but, in contrast, there are no ways in which "Prince of Wales", "Duke of Cornwall", and "Heir Apparent" are the same thing, and it's wrong to confuse any one of the latter three with any one of the other two of the latter three.64.131.188.104 (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Cornwall and York

Your discussion of Cornwall and York is unnecessary. No one suggested that the white rose is an emblem of Cornwall.

The text on this page that states that the White Rose of York is an emblem of Cornwall is this:'I'll amend, do provide a citation showing the badge to be named for the Duke of Cornwall and we can add that as an option - regardless this is clearly [also?] used for the Prince of Wales. Note that some military sites mention a white rose, for example the "award of the White Rose of York, the personal emblem of the Duke of Cornwall and York" and others the "Duke of Cornwalls coronet"'.64.131.188.104 (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

I still think you are misinterpreting the white rose discussion.

Coat of Arms

No one suggested that the coat of arms was the coat of arms for any other Prince of Wales or that any other PoW used Cornish elements in his arms. I'm not sure what you built this straw man for, but it is clearly a straw man.

The armorial image cited to support the Feathers=Wales positon would not support such position unless the image cited pertained to ALL PrinceS of Wales in general, for if the image pertains to only one man then the Feathers could be born by that one man without their being connected to his being Prince of Wales.* Therefore to cite the image to support that Feathers=Wales is to tacitly assert that the image must pertain to PrinceS of Wales generally. *And in fact it is the case that this man IS bearing these Feathers for reasons having nothing to do with being Prince of Wales. He has them for the completely separate and disconnected reason that he is Heir Apparent.64.131.188.104 (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Incidentally, the Prince's arms were granted when he was a child. Also, the caption under the image at Charles, Prince of Wales explicitly states it is the "shield". The Cornish elements are part of the full achievement, not the shield. The Prince is entitled to supporters in his arms, but you don't see them in the article image. That is because they, too, are not part of the shield.

It is true that Prince Charles had armorial bearings as a child. It is true that his site has bearings today. But these two true statements are insufficient to refute the speculation that the Cornwall components were added more recently only to facilitate his 2nd wife's choice to be known as "Duchess of Cornwall". People's armorial bearings are not fixed for life but change during their lifetime. It could BE true that Prince Charles's armorial bearings have never changed since he first had any at all, but it's not AUTOMATICALLY true.64.131.188.104 (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

The Prince of Wales site page on the coat of arms is not written in paragraph form. All but two sentences are separated that way.

Readers can go there and decide for themselves whether the sentence about the label-of-difference on the dragon's neck belongs in the same paragraph as the sentence about the dragon.64.131.188.104 (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

I'm not sure what your point about "unifies" v. "differentiated" is. As I understood it, "unifies" referred to the fact that all the information was in one place. Either way, this point seems irrelevant. If it is not, please explain.

"Differentiates" as opposed to "unified" is important because by itemizing the components as referring variously to "Prince of Wales", "Duke of Cornwall", "Heir Apparent", "Knight of the Garter", etc. the material teaches us that these are all different things and not one of them equivalent to any other of them. "Prince of Wales" is not the same as "Heir Apparent", and so the Feathers of the Heir are not Feathers of the Prince.64.131.188.104 (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Again, I think you just misinterpreted "unifies".

I agree that "his coronet" does not seem to mean "his coronet as Duke of Cornwall", but your wordy explanation does nothing to prove that the feather belong to the heir apparent rather than the Prince of Wales.

True. I started writing to correct a mistake in the article, then found more mistakes on the Dicussion-page. The text on this Dicussion-page that asserts (wrongly) that there is a special coronet that is used only by the Duchy of Cornwall is this: 'I'll amend, do provide a citation showing the badge to be named for the Duke of Cornwall and we can add that as an option - regardless this is clearly [also?] used for the Prince of Wales. Note that some military sites mention a white rose, for example the "award of the White Rose of York, the personal emblem of the Duke of Cornwall and York" and others the "Duke of Cornwalls coronet"'.64.131.188.104 (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Conclusion

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not an appropriate source for a Wikipedia article. If you want to present this argument, use verifiable sources. I think you will have trouble making the argument, though. References to the Prince of Wales's Feathers can be found here, here, and here. One of these is about a book from 1953 called The Prince of Wales's Feathers. It is clearly not a "fallacy" created by this article or talk page.

Also, there is no reason to link to the same article more than once or to separate links from the paragraph. By the way, You can create hyper links by typing [http://www.example.org Example].

As far as typography, I wanted URLs and some words on their own lines single-spaced but if I didn't double-space I couldn't get that. As far as using Wikipedia as a source in Wikpedia, no, you can't cite an article that states "~p" to refute an article that states "p", but you can cite both of them to show that Wikpedia is logically inconsistent and internally self-contradictory (and, therefore, needs some work). Sources for the idea that the Feathers are attached not to the Prince of Wales but to the Heir Apparent abound if you google as I specified above.64.131.188.104 (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

My point was that edits need to be verified by reliable sources. It appeared to me that you were arguing for a change to the article without a source other than Wikipedia. If an article contradicts another, look to the one that actually has a verified source. If neither does, then neither has any meaning with respect to the other. In that case, the information should either be marked with a {{Fact}} tag or deleted. -Rrius (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

-Rrius (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Response by pbhj to Christopher L. Simpson based on Prince of Wales website page

The Prince is strongly identified with his badge The Prince of Wales’s Feathers, the use of which dates back to the 14th Century and the time of Edward, The Black Prince, who was the first Prince of Wales.

Christopher L. Simpson states that "The Ostrich Feathers are not a badge of PrinceS [sic] of Wales (in general)." this seems to directly contradict the above statement. I hear what you're saying that, paraphrasing, it just happens that he's PoW and this is his badge. However it's clear that the basis of the badge (in the quote) is that Edward was the first Prince of Wales. If it were the badge of the Heir Apparent the quote would say something like "dates back to ... Edward, ..., the first Heir Apparent to use this emblem." - it does not. Hence you should contact the Prince of Wales and tell him his highly paid royal historians are wrong. Once that page is corrected then I'd be happy to see a similar correction made here. I think we can assume that the PoW's own website is canonical unless a completely unambiguous authoritative print citation can be provided (something under crown copyright for example). My ha'penn'th. A bonus for you; you may like to study the investiture medallion of Edward Prince of Wales (1910) and note the prominence of the Feathers, a strange prominence if these are not the badge of the Prince of Wales. Pbhj (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Consider two statements: "Every Prince of Wales has been strongly identified with a badge which has been borne by every Price of Wales" and "The badge borne by every Prince of Wales and strongly identified with each of them during their respective lifetimes is NOT the badge of the Prince of Wales but is, rather, the badge of the Heir Apparent, a status also necessarily occupied by every single one of them." I do not believe that those two statements are contradictory. As to the 1910 Investiture ceremony: Consider why the symbols of CORNWALL would NOT be prominent: it would back the heralds into a corner of undoing it later when in some future century there occurs an Investiture of a Prince of Wales who is not and can never become Duke of Cornwall. But no such undo would ever be forced if the symbols of the Heir Apparent are allowed to drift onto the Prince of Wales, because every single Prince of Wales who is ever Invested will also be an Heir Apparent, and so those symbols will never have to be withdrawn from that ceremony.64.131.188.104 (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

"why the symbols of CORNWALL would NOT be prominent" the medallion is only to celebrate that specific event in 1910, everything about it is Prince-of-Wales-y. It's got Ed at Carnarfon, it's got Prince of Wales in welsh, it's got the welsh dragon and you're saying it has the symbol of the heir apparent ... wouldn't it be a bit out of place; Welsh people would no doubt find it antagonistic as their appears to be a presumption that Wales isn't just part of England (contrary to the truth from what I can tell). Meh. Pbhj (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The Black Prince was not the first Prince of Wales, his grandfather King Edward II was. (Littleangelicrose (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC))

• The coronet

The coronet quote "Beneath them in the centre is the shield of arms of the Duchy of Cornwall surmounted by his coronet." is a separate paragraph. The only reasonable antecedent to "his" is Duchy of Cornwall, but it may just be poorly written. The point was that military sites mentioned the Duke of Cornwall's symbol as being a coronet and this page appeared to confirm it. This being a minor evidenciary element to demonstrate that their is a coronet which is a symbol of 'Cornwall (I use an apostrophy to indicate that I wasn't writing out the full title of Duke/Duchy of Cornwall). As the coronet is used for 'Cornwall it seems unlikely that the Feathers would be too. Pbhj (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Unifies

I used the word "unifies" in the sense of combining elements together in a single body. The "Coat of Arms" combine the different elements which represent the different positions of Charles Windsor (PoW, DoC, Royal Arms ...) as you rightly say it is distinctly his. Pbhj (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• The White Rose

The mention of the White Rose of Yorkshire, which I suspect is the emblem/badge of the Duke of York was simply because in the context of the previous edit - which claimed the Feathers for the Duke of Cornwall - I found a couple of citations (again military history) which used a phrase like "the White Rose of York, the personal emblem of the Duke of Cornwall and York". The citations were ambiguous and so I referenced them - I can only 'assume' that the Duke of Cornwall at the time chose to use the white rose as his personal emblem because of his superior capacity as Duke of York. At no time did I imply that the 'rosa alba' was a symbol of 'Cornwall. Pbhj (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

But IS "Duke of York" a superior capacity to "Duke of Cornwall", given that the latter is always an Heir Apparent and, barring his own early demise, a future King? Is there a List of Precedence for Royal Dukes showing that if a Duke of Cornwall has not yet been created Prince of Wales then a Duke of York will walk in front of him? I don't know, but I doubt it. I can think of another reason why someone who is both Duke of Cornwall and Duke of York simultaneously might employ the White Rose: because he has been Duke of York for longer, long enough to already establish the White Rose as a kind of trademark with the public, and so might be reluctant to abandon it. He'd have been Duke of York first, becoming Duke of Cornwall only later after the death or disqualification of an elder brother who was the previous Duke of Cornwall.64.131.188.104 (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Please stop making long arguments like this without thinking about whether you and the other person are saying the same thing. It may be that Pbhj is saying that the Dukedom of York was superior in time, not in precedence. It would be polite to ask rather than to assume. -Rrius (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear I was speculating, I think it would be down to the Duke to decide which emblem to use - perhaps he prefers cricket to pasties? Perhaps he'd just had new bosses fitted with white roses? York has certainly been of more importance to the crown, IMHO. The Duchy of Cornwall is added to the Heir Apparent to make money, it's like giving him an alotment (no disrespect to Cornwall). Pbhj (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In summary the intent was to show that despite the overwhelming evidence of princeofwales.gov.uk (which I concede may yet be proved wrong) other sites lead in that general direction and away from the Feathers being a symbol of 'Cornwall. I'd add to that now that I also believe they are not a symbol of the heir apparent either but are truly a symbol of the Prince of Wales(note this last one mentions "heirs apparent"), as they have been since the Black Prince took them for his own. Pbhj (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I totally agree the feathers have nothing to do with Cornwall. I just think they have nothing to do with Wales either.64.131.188.104 (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Feathers around tomb of Edward the Black Prince, Canterbury Cathedral

As an additional quanta of information there's an image here from Trinity Chapel, Canterbury Catherdral (see eg Encarta) of the bronze effigy of Edward "the Black Prince" of Woodstock at Canterbury. You can clearly see the three "Ostrich" feathers or on a field of sable. These "shields" are alternating with the quartered shield showing the leopards with fleur-de-llys ([Plantagenat]). Before anyone starts this only shows a use in the memorial for that shield, it doesn't even prove that this Edward used it nevermind if mimicry of his use was intended to be a badge for Prince of Wales or Heir Apparent. Pbhj (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources

stating that badge belongs not to Prince of Wales but, rather to Heir Apparent (and in some sources not U.K. Heir Apparent but England Heir Apparent)

I'm back, with some citations. One of them is within royal.gov.uk and so in terms of being authoritative I would hope would rank as highly as princeofwales.gov.uk. Or higher, since the text I'm citing speaks far more specifally to this issue than princeofwales.gov.uk. The latter says 'his badge The Prince of Wales's Feathers' without ever really nailing it down that the badge is his badge AS Prince of Wales. But the material at royal.gov.uk states very specifically that this badge is his badge as HEIR APPARENT.

And, actually, people HAVE written to the Royal Family (as suggested above) and snitched on the various high-paid web-masters. The sites used to be littered with heraldic insignia that were defaced by smudgy photo-effects as if the sites sold mineral-water. I noticed after that was changed that you could no longer find an emblem presented in less than its complete visual form. So they DO admit that their sites get stuff wrong.

I think that princeofwales.gov.uk errs more than esthetically when it says at PrOfWGovUk that Edward The Black Prince was the First Prince of Wales. This assertion is used above to support the link between the Feathers and Wales, since The Black Prince was the first to use the Feathers. But elsewhere PrOfWGovUkList in the same site of princeofwales.gov.uk they say that the first Prince of Wales (of the English conquest) was the future Edward II, grandfather of The Black Prince. Sites that agree are EngMonarchs and Wales. Assenting too is the common folk-tale that Edward I facetiously told the Welsh that his candidate for Prince was born in Wales and could not speak a word of English, duplicitously referring to the newborn future Edward II, who had been born in Wales.64.131.188.104 (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

To give consideration to all sides, I concede that an (English) Prince of Wales preceding the first (English) Prince of Wales to use the Feathers proves nothing -- the badge could have been created (and linked to Wales) later than the first Prince of Wales. I'm just saying that princeofwales.gov.uk can't be correct all the time if on one page they say the Black Prince was first and on another page they say that his grandfather the future Edward II was first.64.131.188.104 (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

To give further consideration to all sides, I concede that it is not possible to state that picking any (English or U.K.) Prince of Wales and asserting that they were the First Prince of Wales is unequivocally wrong. Since the title is a new creation every time, there is a sense in which every post-conquest Prince of Wales who ever existed was the first Prince of Wales. By the operation of chance every Duke of York for many centuries now has been the first Duke of York. However, there has always been a possibility of a 2nd Duke of York (if a Duke of York doesn't become King and leaves a son) but there is no possibility of a 2nd Prince of Wales. Hence, it is not customary to refer to every Prince of Wales as the "first", and so "first Prince of Wales" USUALLY refers to the future Edward II.64.131.188.104 (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

At RoyalGovUK (an offical royal-family uk-government site) it says in the answer to the last question on the page that the appellation is "popular" (which means "not strictly correct") and very specifically and unequivocally that the Feathers are the badge of the Heir Apparent whether or not such Heir Apparent is also Prince of Wales. (Interesting aside: it states the Black Prince took the feathers from the King of Bohemia's symbols -- while legend states that he took REAL feathers off of the King of Bohemia's CORPSE. Another interesting aside: it uses the pronoun "they" to refer to an Heir Apparent. Since an Heir Apparent is not plural, this is the genderless SINGULAR pronoun "they" of recent invention. That means that this official UK-government site is unwilling to rule out the possibility of a future Heir Apparent who is female, which at present is an impossibility.)

Sorry to return AGAIN but I erred by stating Heiress Apparent is impossible. If a Prince of Wales dies leaving daughters and no sons, the oldest daughter is Heiress Apparent, not Presumptive, to the Thrones. Since her father is dead there is no possible future birth that could displace her.64.131.188.104 (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

You've erred again :0) a King could die leaving a daughter as the heiress, the Queen could then have a son in utero and so then yes the daughter would be presumptive; long shot. I think you've read too much into the choice of pronoun in this informal FAQ response. However, that is a pretty clear citation Pbhj (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, true. Even supposing that the powers that be will not rule out an indefinitely long gestation for the widow of the male Heir Apparent, should she die without first giving birth to a legitimate son of the male Heir Apparent then her daughter would become a female Heir Apparent. Or is there some other wrinkle or convolution that I have missed?64.131.188.104 (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

The New York Times NYTimes, answering a question about a New York City church's ornamentation, says they're "often called" the Prince's feathers (which, again, would be simply, if they WERE the Prince's feathers, "ARE the Prince's feathers", not "often called"), and says they're more correctly known as the badge of the heir apparent.

Your link says they are atop the pulpit a "crown and array of feathers". I couldn't find a closeup image but "The pulpit is surmounted by a coronet and six feathers, and fourteen original cut-glass chandeliers hang in the nave and the galleries." says http://www.nyc-architecture.com/LM/LM065.htm NYC Architecture] website. It appears that this is a different symbol entirely to the one under discussion. If that is the badge of the "heir apparent" ... Pbhj (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it likely that "six" is just a mistake for "three". It could be that three feathers going through a golden loop look like three above and three below. I am going downtown later this month and may have a chance to peek into this church and check on this.64.131.188.104 (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

At FlagsOfTheWorld there is an interesting assertion that I wasn't being specific enough in saying "badge of the Heir Apparent" but that, rather, the Feathers are the badge of the Heir Apparent of ENGLAND, and that Prince Charles's badge as Heir Apparent of THE UNITED KINGDOM is different, it's the difference-marked red-dragon badge mentioned before.

He goes on to say "As heir apparent to the throne of the United Kingdom, the Prince of Wales has his own badge, the Welsh dragon." - so if this guy is right, we're all wrong. Quoting now from the princeofwales.gov.uk coat of arms page "On the left is the badge of The Prince of Wales, the three ostrich feathers encircled by a gold coronet, and on the right is the royal badge of the Red Dragon of Wales.". Pbhj (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the red Welsh dragon, without difference, is a UK Monarch's badge, and so Prince Charles's version of it as UK Heir Apparent has the white-label-of-difference on the dragon's neck. I thought the www.princeofwales.gov.uk site said as much.64.131.188.104 (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

At PraguePost there is an assertion that the Ostrich Feathers scalped by the Black Prince on the battlefield are the Heir Apparent's badge "popularly called the Prince of Wales [sic] Feathers". Again, "popularly called" is qualifying language which no author would insert if the Feathers really WERE the Prince of Wales's Feathers.

Well he's wrong on the origin of the feathers and doesn't cite any source in the claim for them being for the heir apparent. As for "popularly called" this could be a literary device to show that the author doesn't know the proper name but is aware of the colloquial name. I claim they are one and the same. Incidentally, ich dien was part of Edward of Woodstock's signature it seems. Pbhj (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In the discussion of gaffes involving the three-feather Roosevelt crest at AmericanHeraldry an image of the feathers in question is captioned not as the Prince of Wales's Feathers but as "Badge of the English Heir Apparent", supporting the claim (above) that the badge for UNITED KINGDOM Heir-Apparent differs from ENGLAND's Heir-Apparent. But in any case these Feathers are not the badge of the Prince of Wales.64.131.188.104 (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Two quotes from the article (one in turn quoting NY Times) "The New York Times account of the event describes the house as being decked with pink roses and says that 'The attendants were in white faille silk frocks trimmed with lace and silver, and wore tulle veils attached to white Prince of Wales ostrich feathers, tipped with silver, and carried large bouquets of pink roses.'" and "Edward VIII, whose emblem it had been when he was Prince of Wales". This conflicts with the image blurb in that article - if if there was weight of will behind that blurb they would also say whose emblem it had been when he was Heir Apparent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbhj (talk • contribs) 05:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no conflict. Once again I say the language meaning "when Prince of Wales" should not be misinterpreted to mean "when Prince of Wales but not before that". It is correct to refer to the image as the badge of the English Heir Apparent, and it is also correct to refer to is as the emblem of Edward VIII when he was Prince of Wales, since for every millisecond that Edward VIII was Prince of Wales he was also Heir Apparent. Nobody stops being Heir Apparent just because they start being Prince of Wales, and nobody turns in any insignia they had as Heir Apparent when they become Prince of Wales. See below as to why writers should be permitted to refer to a badge which someone possessed as Heir Apparent as a badge which he possesed as Prince of Wales, and why that results in no misrepresentation. Error arises not if writers assert that this badge is possessed by Princes of Wales, but, rather, only if they assert that it's never possessed by anyone who is NOT Prince of Wales, or assert that this badge is "the" badge of "the" Prince of Wales.64.131.188.104 (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

As to the Times's reference to bridal attendants wearing white "Prince of Wales ostrich feathers": referring to all trios of ostrich-feathers on maids at American weddings as allusions to the badge we are discussing is like referring to all of their garters as references to the Order of the Garter. Edward VII was King at this time (1905) and had been famous as Prince of Wales just a few years earlier, and consequently the Times might have been disposed to refer (without the least justification or accuracy) to ANY three white ostrich feathers in terms of this badge, absent even a tenuous connection to the real Prince of Wales/Heir Apparent of the time.64.131.188.104 (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

unclear but noteworthy

A report from the Western Mail's (South Wales newspaper) website icnetwork.co.uk :

Tim Duke, Chester Herald at London's Royal College of Arms, which oversees coats of arms and heraldry, said Prince Charles was within his rights to insist on giving permission before the official insignia was used.

He said, "The form described is that of three ostrich feathers bound with 'Ich Dien'.

"That is the badge of the Prince of Wales, or, more strictly speaking, the Heir Apparent.

"The Prince of Wales has used it since Edward III."

The reason I say this is unclear is that he says the Prince of Wales has used it since Edward III, perhaps he meant to say the heir apparent, perhaps not? Otherwise this would have been strong support for the feathers being badge of the Heir Apparent. Pbhj (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he said "Prince of Wales" because he meant to say "Prince of Wales" and that his saying that does not imply that this badge belongs ONLY to an Heir Apparent AFTER such Heir Apparent has been created Prince of Wales and not before. As I say elsewhere on this discussion-page, none of the language stating the badge to be used by Princes of Wales refutes the assertion that the badge is ALSO used by all Heirs Apparent BEFORE they become Prince of Wales. It doesn't count as refutation because it's impossible to be Prince of Wales without being Heir Apparent at the same time. The badge of the Heir Apparent will ALWAYS be borne by anyone who is Prince of Wales.64.131.188.104 (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

We get it already. He was first Heir Apparent, then invested as Prince of Wales, fine.

An analogy: Imagine I get a badge given me (A). I'm a doctor and become a rugby player for a team comprising only doctors. Now, when referring to (A) people say "that is the badge of the rugby player" and also "rugby players have used it since the team began". Indeed whenever anyone refers to it they say it is the "badge of the rugby player". In what capacity would you imagine that I received the badge? You would say it's the badge of the doctor, I would say (based on the use) it's the badge of the rugby player. The only certain proof for the badge being given as a doctor is an instance of use of the badge as a doctor /analogy.

Some letter written by an Heir Apparent before his investiture but bearing the badge (for example) would be good proof. Should you establish such evidence then it is clear that the title of this article should not change as the badge in question is universally known as the Prince of Wales' Feathers or the badge of the Prince of Wales and occasionally mentioned to be strictly that of the Heir Apparent. To reiterate you say "The badge of the Heir Apparent will ALWAYS be borne by anyone who is Prince of Wales" (barring an uncertainty about an monarch abdicating due to catholicism, does he also give up his position as Prince of Wales? AND the fact that the badge wouldn't be borne but instead used for making possessions &c.); I can't understand why you would put it like that why not just say that The badge of the Heir Apparent will ALWAYS be borne by anyone who is Heir Apparent? Pbhj (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an unfair standard of proof given that so many Heirs Apparent will have been created Prince of Wales in infancy, or, if they were adults before becoming Heir Apparent, in some cases within days of becoming Heir Apparent. The periods involved are apt to be very brief and so not ones in which many letters are written, or are periods when the person in question has not yet learned how to write. As to "occasionally mentioned as", well, the sources are not occasional but unanimous. All agree that the badge is the badge of anyone who is Prince of Wales (as must be the case). But of all of the sources who speak further than that and comment specifically as to whether this badge is or is not also the badge of anyone who is Heir Apparent who is not yet Prince of Wales, ALL OF THEM that expand their thoughts sufficiently to consider that possibility do agree, unanimously, that the badge belongs to an Heir Apparent who is not yet Prince of Wales. Every one of them. And there is not one single source that refers to the badge as belonging to the Prince of Wales and then further asserts that it did OT belong to him UNTIL he was Prince of Wales. Not one.64.131.188.104 (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

stating that the feathers belong to the Prince of Wales

• "of the famous Prince of Wales feathers and the less famous epithet of the Black Prince by the hero of and Poitiers was" History of British Costume By James Robinson Planché, 1836. The author discusses at length the controversy of the origin of the feathers but doesn't mention anything about the feathers being to do with the Heir Apparent.
• "the origin of the badge of the Princes of Wales and refutes the stories of its origin to which Joshua Barnes and our later historians have given currency" The Gentleman's Magazine, 1826.
• "I have long hesitated whether to adopt the account usually given in regard to the three feathers now called the Prince of Wales's feathers and said to have been won by Edward the Black Prince from the old King of Bohemia on whose banner they were borne The statement rests solely I believe upon the authority of Camden who does not mention whence he derived it but he is in general so accurate that I can scarcely doubt that he himself received it from some source worthy of confidence." A History of the Life of Edward the Black Prince And of Various Events Connected Therewith, which Occurred During the Reign of Edward III, King of England By George Payne Rainsford James, 1836.
• "Unfortunately for Randle Holmes's hypothesis we have no contemporary example of the feathers being used by the Princes of Wale before the Black Prince nor of the coronet now combines the plume previous to the of Prince Edward afterwards King Edward the Sixth" The Literary Gazette By John Mounteney Jephson, George Augustus Frederick Fitzclarence, 1st Earl of Munster George Augustus Frederick Fitzclarence, 1827. This one is good; it goes at some length over uses by different Princes of Wales. It has good information on origin too.
• "as the eminent persons of the court of Edward he was likely to have known the origin of the Prince of Wales's Badge There are several copies of Ardern's treatise in the British Museum in most of which the passage alluded to is omitted but it occurs in two manuscripts both of which were certainly written towards the close of the fourteenth century a previous folio a nastere (a species of clyster pipe) and a feather of the Prince of Wales Et nota talem albam" Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London By Society of Antiquaries of London. This is an 1843 work quoting a 1376 work wherein is noted "the only contemporary notice of the Prince of Wales's badge should occur in a memorandum in a treatise on Hemorrhoids". There are several other mentions in this work as to the controversy of the origin, again no direct mention of the feathers in connection with the Heir Apparent.
• "thirty thousand of them were slain including twelve hundred knights and eleven persons of princely rank among the rest the aged John King of Bohemia from whom the Princes of Wales are said, though doubts have been lately cast upon the old story, to have borrowed their plume of three ostrich feathers with the motto Ich dien I serve." The Cabinet Portrait Gallery of British Worthies By C.Cox, 1845.
• "TWENTY THIRD OR THE ROYAL WELCH FUZILIERs In the centre of their colours the device of the Prince of Wales vizi Three Feathers issuing out of the Prince's coronet in the three corners of the second colour the hadges of Edward the Black Prince vizi Rising Sun Red Dragon and the Three Feathers in the coronet motto Ich dien On the grenadier caps the Feathers as in the colours White Horse and motto Nee aspera terrent on the flap The same hadge of the Three Feathers and motto Ich dien on the drums and hells of arms rank of the regiment underneath." ORIGIN AND SERVICES OF THE COLDSTREAM GUARDS. IN TWO VOLUMES. VOL. II., 1833. Pbhj (talk) 04:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Note on the acquisition of the feathers. There is no historically verifiable indication that John the Blind ever bore three ostrich feathers. On the other hand it is well known that his crest (not to be confused with the coat of arms) consisted of a pair or black eagle wings (un vol de sable semé de tilleuls d'or). This seems to be traditional crest of Bohemia (according to Loutsch), it is notable that John might parallely have used the Luxembourgish crest (a dragon, or rather Melusine rising from her bath). As to the veracity of what happened at Crécy, it's possible though somewhat unlikely that John indeed wore his crest to battle (usually it was only worn in ceremonies or tournaments, but some exceptions are documented), if so the Black Prince could have retrieved some actual feathers (as that's the most logical way to portray those eagle wings), though ostrich feathers seem rather unlikely. Alternatively the Black Prince or someone around him may have been aware of John's full arms...

Some of the material I'm reading suggests that the legend says not that Edward took HERALDIC feathers but, rather, ACTUAL feathers from the deceased John The Blind. Actual feathers from the helm's interior could be for insulation from heat (the cause of heraldry's mantlings arising from the hot middle-East in the Crusades), insulation from cold, or luxurious cushioning.64.131.188.104 (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

I won't get involved in the issue of whether this badge is the Prince of Wales', the heir apparent, or whoever as I have no clue. Oops, to my astonishment I just found something in Stephen Friar's A New Dictionary of Heraldry. Page 372 under the heading Wales, Prince of: The badge of the Prince of Wales is "y ddraig goch", the red dragon, upon a green mount and with a white label of three points about its neck. The so called 'Prince of wales' Feathers' badge, which comprises three white ostrich feathers enfiling a gold coronet of alternating crosses paty and fleurs-de-lis and, on a blue scroll, the motto 'Ich Dien', is the badge of the heir apparent to the English throne. It is likely that the ostrich feather badge was first used by Edward, the Black Prince, who inherited it through his mother, Philippa of Hainault (sic). Since that time it has been the personal badge of the heir apparent and may be used only by him or by his specific authority. My emphasis on heir apparent. If this is correct (I sometimes disagree with Friar's work, but he sounds so determined that I'd tend to believe his statement, though I'd prefer to verify the link to Philippa of Hainaut as I'm not aware of any such symbol in that family) the article's title would still be appropriate but the content would have to be somewhat reworked...--Caranorn (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the above "History of British Costume" citations is the best, it discusses the origin as possibly being the Count of Hainult, William III who Edward the Black Prince would have met at Poietiers (sic) apparently. This citation also discusses "Ich Dien Houmolt" as possibly coming from the same direction as the feather. It further makes mention of the haemorrhoid citation from John de Arden in 14C: "Et nota quod talem pennam albam porta bat Edwardus primogrnitus filius Edwardi Regis Angliee super cres tam suam et illam pennam conquisivit de Rege Boemiae quern inter fecit apud Cresse in Francia et sic assumpsit sibi illam pennam quee dicitur Ostrich Fether quamprius dictus Rex nobilissimus porta bat super crestam Et eodem anno quo dictus strenuus et bellicosus Princeps migravit ad dominum scripsi libellum istum manu propria videlicet anno Domini 1376 et dictus Edwardus Princeps obiit vi idus Junii videlicet die Sanctee Trinitatis apud Westmonasterium in magno Parliamento quern Deus absolvat quiafuitjlos miliciee mundi sine." Proc. Soc. Antiquaries of London. I'd be obliged to read a translation - but from what I can tell it refers to taking the feathers from the King of Bohemia at Cressy (so this is an early fable) but only talks of Edward as the first son of Edward King of England or as Prince, no mention of princeps Wallie, and so doesn't really help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbhj (talk • contribs) 12:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This entire section "Sources ... stating that the feathers belong to the Prince of Wales" is of no effect. It relies on misinterpreting sources that say "Princes of Wales" and "while Prince of Wales", or words to that effect, AS IF the sources had said (which they do not) "ONLY Princes of Wales" and "ONLY while Prince of Wales", or AS IF the sources had said "Princes of Wales but not Heirs Apparent who are not yet Princes of Wales" and "while Prince of Wales but never before becoming Prince of Wales."

It should not be necessary to pile on sources stating that the badge belongs to each Prince of Wales for the entire time that each is Prince of Wales. Nobody is disputing that. The question is whether the badge also belongs to an Heir Apparent even before he is created Prince of Wales. A million sources stating only that each Prince of Wales has the badge for the entire time that each is Prince of Wales will not shed any light on whether each also had the badge as soon as each became Heir Apparent, or whether non-Princes of Wales who died too soon but were Heirs Apparent also had the badge.

Rather than a million sources on Princes of Wales having the badge, a good refutation would be ONE good source on an Heir Apparent who was not yet created Prince of Wales who did NOT possess this badge UNTIL he became Prince of Wales.

It is not a refutation that is needed it is a citation of the use of the badge as Heir Apparent (only) and not as Prince of Wales. The absence of a mention of the badge in letters etc. pertaining to the HA will prove nothing. Their are many sources stating that it's the badge of the Prince of Wales. Now what must be shown [to demonstrate that these sources all absurdly label the badge for a position to which it does not pertain, namely Prince of Wales] is to show the use of the badge for the Heir Apparent before his investiture. Pbhj (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The citation being asked for ("the use of the badge as Heir Apparent (only) and not as Prince of Wales") is impossible to provide, for there could not be a hypothetical person who used this badge as Heir Apparent only, did later become Prince of Wales, and did not use it as Prince of Wales. And the absence of such a person proves nothing. For an example of a person who used this badge as Heir Apparent and CONTINUED to use it as Prince of Wales, we have the current Prince of Wales, Prince Charles, as at www.royal.gov.uk.

There are no sources that "absurdly" label the badge for a position to which it does not pertain. The sources you cite merely say that the badge is the badge of a PERSON who also occupies that position. The sources you cite don't assert a link between the badge and the position except insofar as both fall upon the same person. The purported link arises only if we twist their words. If we take those sources at face value and do not misinterpret them, they are not "absurd" or wrong. They are correct: these feathers are a badge of every person who was Prince of Wales (since the Black Prince's time). Saying that is, strictly, speaking the truth, and does not imply that the feathers belonged to the office of PofW and not to another office that is held by anyone who is PofW.64.131.188.104 (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson64.131.188.104 (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

The mere choice of language "Prince of Wales" over "Heir Apparent" is not evidence, for it has another explanation. A hypothetical writer says "George IV had the feathers while Heir Apparent". His editor says "Not everyone knows what 'Heir Apparent' means. Change that to 'Prince of Wales' UNLESS that's false." The revised sentence is NOT false, for it is true that George IV DID have this badge for every millisecond that he was Prince of Wales. Changing "while Heir Apparent" to "while Prince of Wales" only removes time, adding no time, so the sentence must still be true for all of the time remaining. The sentence now refers to time that is only SEVEN DAYS OF INFANCY shorter, which is trivial in the total time of more than FIFTY-SEVEN YEARS that George IV was Heir Apparent, and changing the language back to "Heir Apparent" is not necessary to achieve strict truthfulness and is not worth sacrificing the better-known term "Prince of Wales" just to restore those seven days of infancy.

EVERY source (including www.royal.gov.uk) that DOES speak explicitly to the issue of an Heir Apparent who is not yet Prince of Wales states that such person already has the three-feather badge. Sources that use the "Prince of Wales's" language instead of the "Heir Apparent's" language do not MAKE the fine distinction between an Heir Apparent who IS Prince of Wales and an Heir Apparent who is not, and, not bothering to make the fine distinction, should not be cited as if they had made the fine distintion and pronounced on it.64.131.188.104 (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

QUOTE from www.royal.gov.uk:

The Prince of Wales's Feathers is the popular name given to the badge of the heir apparent, whether or not they hold the title of Prince of Wales.

UNQUOTE

How can it be made any clearer than the above? "...the badge of the heir apparent, whether or not they hold the title of Prince of Wales." And this is www.royal.gov.uk.64.131.188.104 (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

The motto

It struck me that, whilst looking for source material (link to catalogue of seals in Nat.Mus. Wales with "Prince of Wales motto"). That this enquiry extends further. If the '3 feathers in a coronet with scroll' are the symbol of the heir apparent [to the English crown then so to the motto "Ich Dien" is the motto of the heir apparent, as it's born on the badge. Anyone care to say how this is not the case, or does the heir apparent use a badge without the scroll before enrolment as Prince of Wales? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbhj (talk • contribs) 13:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So we have two phrases, one "Prince of Wales motto" and one "Heir Apparent" badge. Why should we take them as contradicting each other and then seek to resolve that contradiction by speculating that the Heir Apparent, upon being created Prince of Wales, adds the motto to the badge? Isn't it easier to say that "Prince of Wales" does not contradict "Heir Apparent" in the first place? To contradict "Heir Apparent" the reference to "Prince of Wales motto" would need to be "motto of Princes of Wales, and only of Princes of Wales, and for each Prince of Wales only after that Prince of Wales became Prince of Wales". Absent that or similar language to exclude any Heirs Apparent during the times at which they were not yet Prince of Wales, the "Prince of Wales" language does not contradict the "Heir Apparent" idea, because every Prince of Wales must be Heir Apparent. Language that includes Princes of Wales as possessors of this badge is not the same as language that excludes Heirs Apparent who are not yet Prince of Wales.64.131.188.104 (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

OK, if the motto is the motto of the Prince of Wales (PoW) in that same capacity and not of the Heir Apparent (HA) in that same capacity then it would not appear on the badge of the HA. Therefore, if the motto DOES appear on the badge of the HA in that capacity (as you assert) then the motto too is that of the HA. It cannot be the motto of the PoW, as otherwise before investiture he would not [presumably] be at will to use it.

We have then 4 possibilities (it might be 5):

1. The badge [of coronet and feathers with scroll and motto] is that of the HA and so too is the motto.
2. The badge is that of the HA, but the motto is not. [The motto would be the HA's in some other capacity, eg as merely a child of the monarch rather than as first male child]
3. The badge is not that of the HA, but the motto is.
4. The badge with motto is that of the HA but the motto is also that of the PoW in that capacity and hence can be correctly termed the Prince of Wales motto or equally correctly the Heir Apparent's motto.
5. The badge is that of the PoW [in that capacity], and not of the HA, and so too is the motto.

The Prince of Wales language does contradict the Heir Apparent language because if an attribute exist because of that persons position then it should be acknowledged as such. If the badge is the badge of the Heir Apparent, ie it is his by virtue of his position as Heir Apparent it is of secondary importance if he too happens to be Duke of Cornwall, Earl of Carrick, etc.. We do not see the badge referred to as the badge of the High Steward of Scotland, why not? Because the badge is not given in that capacity. We do not see it as the badge of the Duke of Cornwall, why not? Because he, the man Prince Charles, has a badge in his capacity as Duke of Cornwall. We do not see the badge referred to as the badge of the Heir Apparent, why not? I proffer that is because it is the badge of the Prince of Wales given in his capacity as Prince of Wales. If the badge were not given in that capacity, and were for use outside his position as PoW then it would properly be called the badge of the Heir Apparent and the mention of the fact that the Heir Apparent is PoW would be secondary and of no greater importance than mentioning his other investitures. Moreover if this symbol is the badge of the HA then it is absurd to rename it upon the investiture of the HA as PoW and then give it a name which no longer refers to it's true nature - in which case to be consistent it would seem that in 1952 in Scotland this same badge became known as the badge of the Duke of Rothesay? He is, as you rightly note, still HA. Pbhj (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The text "Prince of Wales" does not mean "Prince of Wales in his capacity as Prince of Wales". That fact clarifies all this confusion. One of your sources referred to the badge as belonging to the Heir Apparent, and to the motto as "the Prince of Wales [sic] motto". As long as we simply recognize that the text does not say "the Prince of Wales motto in his capacity as Prince of Wales" there is no confusion. It is perfectly clear. The badge AND the motto belong to the Heir Apparent, and so the motto must belong to every Prince of Wales, and that is why people refer to the motto, and the entire device, as the "Prince of Wales's". But none of those people who do thus refer to it are referring it to as "the Prince of Wales's in his capacity as Prince of Wales".

I believe that it was not until the 20th century that a Prince of Wales bore an Inescutcheon of Wales (the checkerboard quartering with four counterchanged lions) upon his difference-labeled shield as HA. There does not seem to be a BADGE that the Prince of Wales is awarded as a Badge. Given that tradition, the badge most likely to be used by and associated with any PofW is that which he used before he was PofW, when he was HA and not PofW, and which he, for want of any Wales-associated badge to supersede it, will continue to use when he is both HA and PofW. For want of an equivalent emblem for Wales (and with even the four-lion-inescutcheon being rather new) the PofW is known by his HA badge. As to why he would not prefer to be known by the UK-HA badge (the red dragon with label-of-difference), I can speculate that perhaps the Sovereign makes use of the red dragon WITHOUT the label-of-difference, while the Sovereign has NOTHING (that I know of) that closely resembles the three feathers. So the three feathers, being more visually distinct from anything the Sovereign has while the red-dragon-badge is a close duplicate with one difference, might have been favored by Princes of Wales for that reason.

If as you suggest the question is raised as to whether the badge is more properly referred to as "the badge of the Heir Apparent", that raises the question as to whether the writers whom you cite as referring to it as the Prince of Wales's are being if not incorrect then not as specific as they might be. If the question is raised, then, is it logical to refer to the same sources whose specificity we are calling into question in order to settle the matter? Your logic seems to be "Well, it MIGHT have been the Heir Apparent's badge, incorrectly referred to, except that it's the Prince of Wales's badge. And we know that it's the Prince of Wales's badge because that's how it's referred to". The references are used to prove that it's the Prince of Wales's badge, and the "fact" that it is the Prince of Wales's badge is used to prove that the references are not incorrect. That is circular reasoning.

I am not even saying that references to it as "a" badge of the Prince of Wales (which it is and must be), or references to is as "the badge employed by King XYZ when he was Prince of Wales" are incorrect. They are VERY correct. It is only incorrect to deny that the three-feather badge that is employed by every Prince of Wales was not employed by any of them before they became Princes of Wales, or that it was also employed by any Heir Apparent who died before becoming Prince of Wales, in contradiction to the herald whom I quoted and the text "The Prince of Wales's Feathers is the popular name given to the badge of the heir apparent, whether or not they hold the title of Prince of Wales." from www.royal.gov.uk

Apparently the Prince of Wales has a Standard for use in Scotland, upon which are the arms of the Duke of Rothesay quartered with Lord of the Isles under an escutcheon of the Royal Arms of Scotland differenced for heir apparency (with a black label instead of white, probably because of the golden background). I think it quite reasonable and correct if some write that this is a Standard for the Prince of Wales's (or all Princes of Wales's) use in Scotland. But I do not think that because some writers might say such a thing that their words imply that this Standard is "the" Standard of each Prince of Wales in his capacity as Prince of Wales. Just because they are saying the Standard is used by Princes of Wales does not bind them to the position that the Standard can never be used by anyone who is is not Prince of Wales. Nor do I think that they are obligated to refer to this Standard as a possession of the Heir Apparent instead of a possession of the Prince of Wales if they want to use the better-known title that the Heir Apparent acquires later than the moment that he becomes Heir Apparent. They should be free to say "Prince of Wales" without being interpreted as having said "Prince of Wales in his capacity as Prince of Wales" because in fact their words are strictly true: this Standard is for use by each and every Prince of Wales. (It just also happens to be used as well by Heirs Apparent who are not yet Prince of Wales.)64.131.188.104 (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Sorry, could you repeat that? JF42 (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Where the feathers came from

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/John_Of_Bohemia 217.205.224.155 (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Why German

How did an English heir apparent end up with a German language motto? Is it somehow Hanovarian? Tibetologist (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the Hanoverians, as it was in use some 250 years before George I (first Hanoverian monarch) came to the British throne. The two "traditional" explanations are (a) that it had previously been used by King John of Bohemia; or (b) that it is a deliberate reworking of the Welsh "Eich Dyn". Both explanations are now pretty much rejected by historians (see article), but nothing has taken their place. GrindtXX (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, it sounds colloquial, comparable to English I'm servin'. The standard form is Ich diene. But the elision of a final -e, so widespread today, was permissible after n in Middle High (Medieval) German already. Curryfranke (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Prince of Wales' Own: deleted paragraph

I have just deleted the following short paragraph from the section on modern military uses of the badge, as I couldn't work out what it referred to. There is no current military unit called The Prince of Wales' Own, so the present tense is certainly wrong. It could refer to the Prince of Wales's Own Civil Service Rifles (extant 1798–1921), but that already gets a mention; or the Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire (extant 1958-2006), or that regiment's predecessor, the West Yorkshire Regiment (Prince of Wales's Own) (1685–1958); or something else entirely. If anyone knows, please restore and make the necessary adjustments.

The Prince of Wales' Own displays the ensign with three feathers on a royal blue background and carries the standard during all of its activities as well as a flag on top of its premises. It has been doing so for the last 100 years.

GrindtXX (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Origins

Just wanted to point out that saying the feathers didn't come from John of Bohemia while admitting they could come from the house of Luxembourg, to which Philippa of Hainault was related, is disingenuous as it ignores the fact that John of Bohemia WAS the count of Luxembourg. (Littleangelicrose (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prince of Wales's feathers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090426110720/http://www.wales.com/en/content/cms/English/About_Wales/Wales_Fact_File/National_Emblems/National_Emblems.aspx to http://www.wales.com/en/content/cms/english/about_wales/wales_fact_file/national_emblems/national_emblems.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Popular Accounts of Origins

I think this should be changed to 14th century origin. It clearly originated in one of these two theories; instead of using the word "popular" which connotes the writer knows the true origin; it should be clarified that one theory and reason the motto may have endured is its proximity to eich dyn; the other theory was by a chronicler of 30 years after the battle when the nation was still in the throes of war against France. To call the latter a "popular account" is exaggeration; it acknowledges it was taken from a German motto and attributes it to one particular ally of France, namely Bavaria.

Researchers resolve this tentativeness altogether as they should find out who (Bavarian, Austrian or of another principality) was slain in battle in France and had that motto.- Adam37 Talk 11:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Here we go again with the misinformation

As of the date of this posting, this article contains the text "The heraldic badge is the badge of the Duke of Cornwall, or heir apparent to the British throne.[2]" The article thus footnoted does support the statement made in THIS article, but that article is wrong. I do not know why Wikipedia would put some jock-oriented tabloid newspaper's account above the Royal Family's own webpage or a statement which the College of Heralds (or Arms, or whatever) would be only too glad to supply. The Ostrich Feathers are NOT a badge of the Prince of Wales. The Ostrich Feathers are NOT a badge of the Duke of Cornwall. The Ostrich Feathers are NOT a badge of the Heir Apparent to the U.K. Monarchy (which is the red-dragon-badge of the U.K. monarch marked for difference). The Ostrich Feathers are NOT a badge of the Heir Apparent to the Scots Monarchy (or Monarchy of any Kingdom which includes Scotland). The Ostrich Feathers are a badge of one thing and one thing only: Heir Apparent to the Monarchy of England (and/or any Kingdom (for instance the U.K.) which includes England).

If Wales becomes an independent country, there will never again be an Heir Apparent to the Monarchy of the U.K. who is created Prince of Wales, and the four-lion red/gold shield will be removed. But since the Ostrich Feathers have nothing to do with being Prince of Wales, they will remain the armorial bearing of any Heir Apparent to the Monarchy of England or a United Kingdom that includes England.

If the Queen dies before any of her descendants, Prince William (Duke of Cambridge) will instantly become U.K. Heir Apparent and Duke of Cornwall. But he will NOT instantly become Prince of Wales (and Earl of Chester, and so forth) until his father says so. HOWEVER, as Heir Apparent to a Kingdom which includes England, HE WILL posses the Ostrich Feathers at the very instant the Queen dies. He will NOT have to wait until his father creates him Prince of Wales, which will rather show this issue up once and for all and expose those who insist that the Ostrich Feathers are a badge of the Prince of Wales. It's just not true. It's a lying lie told by lying liars who love lying by the telling of lies.

If Northern Ireland and Scotland each become separate countries or parts of countries that do not include England, and England reverts to being a separate country with or without Wales, the red-dragon-badge will no longer be used (because the U.K. will no longer exist and the rouge-dragon badge belongs to the U.K. Monarchy, not English Monarchy, and the differenced version of the red-dragon-badge belongs to the Heir Apparent of the U.K., not the Heir Apparent of England). But the Ostrich Feathers will STILL be used as they are an armorial bearing of the Heir Apparent of England (or any Kingdom which includes England). The Ostrich Feathers will still be used if Wales leaves too. They have nothing to do with the titles "Prince of Wales" or "U.K. Heir Apparent".

The Heir Apparent may be a person who has more than one title, duh. For instance there may well come a time when the Duke of Cornwall is the same person as the Duke of Cambridge. To allow people to then argue that this means that the Duchy of Cornwall IS THE SAME THING as the Dukedom of Cambridge is to commit treason against the ideals of truth and scholarship.

The footnoted article contains text implying that "Duke of Cornwall" and "Heir Apparent" are the same thing. Well, I hope that journalist had a fun little laugh at us as the paycheck went into the bank for telling that lie while the newspaper paying the salary believed they were paying for the truth. "Oh, I've fooled everyone." Well, they can't fool me and they can't fool the College of Heralds. "Duke of Cornwall" and "Heir Apparent" are NOT the same thing. Suppose that Prince Charles (under whatever name) becomes King, and that his eldest child Prince William is Heir Apparent, Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge, and Prince of wales. Then suppose that Prince William dies while his father is still alive. At that immediate instant, Prince George (Prince William's eldest child) becomes Heir Apparent. At that instant, the titles "Prince of Wales" and "Duke of Cornwall" are extinct. At some point later, the then-King (husband of Camilla) will create Prince George as Prince of Wales (and Earl of Chester, and the other things). But Prince George will NEVER (in this hypothetical scenario) be Duke of Cornwall. Never ever ever. The Heir Apparent is never Duke of Cornwall if the Heir Apparent is not a child of the Monarch. Prince George would be the GRANDCHILD (in this hypothetical) of the King to whom he is Heir Apparent, and this means that in this scenario he will never be Duke of Cornwall.

If I am wrong you must tell me the date upon which the Prince of Wales who would later become King George III of Great Britain started his tenure as Duke of Cornwall. He never did, because he was never the Heir Apparent to a person who was his parent. George II was George III's GRANDPA, not father. If you can't state the date on which the Heir Apparent and Prince of Wales who was later King George III became Duke of Cornwall, then for goodness sake shut your tiresome ignorant maws. I'm tired of this article being wrong, and finding NEW ways to be wrong, every time I look at it. And Wikipedia will DO this and then have the gall to ask me for donations. I'm going to donate my2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Name of page technically incorrect

There are citations showing that the feathers are in fact the badge of office of the heir apparent and not the Prince of Wales (although used by the Prince of Wales of course). There is also an association with the title.

The badge is also commonly referred to as the "three feathers". This would be a better title as per common name and for accuracy as well.

Titus Gold (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

You need evidence for commonname and primary topic, which isn't borne out by google searches. Only 2 out of the first 50 ghits relate to the Prince of Wales. DrKay (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough Titus Gold (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

This is POV-driven WP:TENDENTIOUS nonsense. The COMMOMNAME symbol is clearly "Prince of Wales feathers". "Three feathers" isn't even a COMMONNAME contender - it fails WP:CRITERIA Recognizability. DeCausa (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I accept that I should have started a RM for this, apologies. Titus Gold (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Or even better acknowledge that WP:COMMONNAME is "Prince of Wales's feathers" as was illustrated in the document highlighted to you by Girth Summit on your talk page here. DeCausa (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I acknowledge that both "Prince of Wales feathers" and "the three feathers" have been used as common names in e.g news articles and other sources. An assessment of the more frequently used term would have been useful. Titus Gold (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Origin oft the motto

If the Crécy story isn‘t True, why is the motto in German? Is it connected to the feathers from the beginning or does it appear only later? Oudeístalk 07:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It's also Flemish which goes with the Philippa Hainault origins per this. I've also seen it argued elsewhere it's Old English so I'm not sure about adding to the article. DeCausa (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, not that I would want to argue with sources... but it's certainly not modern Flemish. That would be ik dien. It could be [Old|Middle] Low Franconian, of course, given its antiquity, or some other low German. As for Old English, that is a no. There are quite a lot of verbs meaning "to serve" in the corpus (I suppose service was important to them), but I think the one that is cognate here is þegnian, so in Old English that would be ic þegnige. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Modern Flemish didn't exist in the 14th century of course. The spelling of any language in the 14th century was fluid. I suspect "Ich dien", if it was 14th century Flemish, compared to ik dien is as close it gets (especially when compared to the modern German Ich diene). With regard to Old English, it couldn't actually be Old English as of course it had long evolved into ME by the 14th century. The theory I saw (but can't now trace) was that it was some sort of anachronistic attempt at a recreation.

But the question raised by the OP is a natural one given the debunking of the John of Bohemia story and there should be some answer in the article. DeCausa (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Middle Flemish is middle Dutch, which used "ic" as the pronoun,[1] although Germanic languages are a classic dialect continuum, and you don't have to travel far in the continuum to find a dialect using ich or similar (Limburgish, for instance). It is plausible - indeed, all but certain - that some Low Franconian dialects used ich, but I don't think such a dialect would be identified as Flemish. Pronouns tend to be quite conservative in a language. In any case, that is moot, as you say. There is another theory, which may be the one you are recalling, that the wording is actually Welsh - an unusual spelling of Eich Dyn. Plausible sounding as this is, I confess I am unconvinced. It can, however, be found - speculatively - in some sources.[2] Personally I wouldn't discount the Battle of Crécy theory. It may not be right, and we should - and do - hedge the wording appropriately, but any alternative explanations appear to be very speculative. Incidentally that theory gives the Luxembourg link too, and Luxembourgish has the aspirated personal pronoun. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Eich Dyn is pretty well established as folk etymology. I don't think the Crécy theory is much supported these days (too many holes in it). Some Philippa of Hainault (broadly) "Flemish" linkage is considered the most credible explanation. The article currently has it right. It probably just needs to link "Ich dien" to Philippa of Hainault's low countries origins per the source I gave earlier to tie it off. DeCausa (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Added a broad attribution to Philippa per the source. DeCausa (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Mrs Fitzherbert

PHEW - what a read!! Anyway:

I think there should be a reference to the very common use of (whatever you want to call it) in contemporary satirical engravings to denote Mrs Fitzherbert, the never officially recognised morganatic wife of the Prince of Wales afterward King George IV. Presumably to avoid libel or even treason proceedings. Clearly it was a universally understood meme to identify her thus. I can't cite any particular bit of text, but any one of the many Gilray engravings should be sufficient reference. 87.115.177.145 (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)