User talk:Stephen2nd/Royal Labels of England

Stephen2nd (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• 1. What is the difference between a ‘blue’ and ‘white’ label?
  2. What is the difference between ‘Heir apparent &/or presumptive’ –and- ‘Prince of Wales.’
  3. What is the (genealogical) difference between the arms of Mowbray (as Thomas’s heir) -with- the arms of Richard II?
  4. Were Thomas and his descendants Princes of Wales (Mowbray was descended from the earls of Chester &c) ?

Brotherton label. (Ref 3)

• 
  Thomas of Brotherton
• 
  Arms granted by Richard II to Thomas de Mowbray
• 
  arms of King Richard II

royal successions

• Henry III: Henry’s son Edmund Earl of Lancaster was the father of Henry Plantagenet, his daughter Joan of Lancaster was the mother of John de Mowbray, 4th Baron Mowbray, who was the father of Thomas de Mowbray
• Edward I: Edward’s son Thomas of Brotherton, was the father of Margaret, Duchess of Norfolk, Margaret’s daughter Elizabeth Segrave, was mother of Thomas de Mowbray.

PoV (1)

It is significant Mowbray was descended from the two kings, through his father via Henry III, and through his mother via Edward I, [NB: Edward I’s son (later Edward II) was 1st English Prince of Wales 1301]. The significance of this royal descent, can be seen in Mowbray's coat of arms, which shows the Royal arms of Richard II, and especially the Royal Arms (three lions) with “Label of three points argent”, being the definitive symbol of a Prince of Wales. This Label was issued to Mowbray by Royal Warrant of Richard II, who relinquished his own title of Prince of Wales, and Label, in 1377 when he succeeded as king. As such, was Mowbray the Prince of Wales from 1377/99? Stephen2nd (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"Royal Arms (three lions) with “Label of three points argent”, being the definitive symbol of a Prince of Wales."

-No, it isn't. It's the heraldic cadency label denoting the heir apparent to a title or to the position of head of the house. It has nothing to do with the title 'Prince of Wales', which is a Peerage title that could in theory be granted to anyone (though it has mostly been granted to first-born sons of the Kings of England/Great Britain?United Kingdom) -as indeed, it has been granted to members of the royal house who were not the eldest son of the monarch: Henry III granted it to Lllywelyn the Last, Edward III granted it to his grandson, the future Richard II and George II likewise granted it to his grandson, the future George IV. By the way, Mowbray was most definately NOT the Prince of Wales in any way.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Princes of Wales references

Previous holders of title of: The dignity of Prince of Wales, though exclusive since 1301 (when it was instituted) to the Heir Apparent of the Sovereign, is not automatically conferred. Moreover, its possessor by no means always inherits the Crown.

The first such, EDWARD of Caernarvon, later EDWARD II, was so created 7 Feb 1301, just under three months before his 17th birthday. On succeeding his father as King in 1307, the title merged with the Crown. This has been the pattern ever since where the title is extant at all. But the next holder was not EDWARD II's own first-born son, the future EDWARD III, even though he was at least 16 at the time of his father's deposition, but EDWARD III's own eldest boy, EDWARD of Woodstock, better known as the Black Prince, created PRINCE OF WALES in 1343, when he was not quite 13. EDWARD II's failure to create his own successor PRINCE OF WALES is perhaps due to the turbulence of his reign in its closing stages, perhaps also to the novelty of the title.

The Black Prince predeceased his father, dying a year before him in June 1376. For his son, however, the future RICHARD II, the title had to be created anew, not inherited. The creation in question occurred in November 1376, eight months before RICHARD succeeded his grandfather as King. RICHARD II died childless, so for the time being the question of whether to create his first-born male PRINCE OF WALES did not arise.

HENRY IV's first-born son, the future HENRY V, was made at the age of 12 PRINCE OF WALES. This was in 1399, some two weeks after his father's usurping the throne from RICHARD II. HENRY V died when his own son, the future HENRY VI, was only nine months old, so the failure to create him PRINCE OF WALES is perhaps understandable. On the other hand HENRY VI's son, EDWARD of Westminster, who predeceased his father in 1471, was made PRINCE OF WALES in March 1454, when at the most not even 18 months old. And EDWARD IV's elder son, another EDWARD of Westminster (better known as one of the two Princes in the Tower) was made PRINCE OF WALES when not quite nine months old. Perhaps the uncertainty of dynastic survival during the Wars of the Roses prompted Kings to confer the princely title on their heirs as early as possible. If so, it would seem that in earlier generations the succession appeared too secure for the matter to be seen as urgent. [BURKE'S PEERAGE] Stephen2nd (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Label

The colour or tincture of label is not used to distinguish between heirs apparent and presumptive. It is not children of the monarch who get a label; it is the first son of an armiger - and his first son gets the 5 pointed label - and his gets a 7 point label. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Kitty not quite true (or at least depending on the time period) 3 point labels for all children of the monarch has been the predominant form - the plain label normally but not always has been reserved for the eldest son. But other colours and marks have been used . The answer Stephen is I'm afraid probably only from a specialist candency source. Though I'd caution so early on in heraldry as reading too much in departures from the expected form as the rules were very much in development and very much the King's whim. Garlicplanting (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kitty, and thanks for your imput. I agree with all of your points, (which will be included) however in these specific cases the monarchs are the armigers. You are most welcome to collaborate on this article, if this is of interest to you? Ta Steve.Stephen2nd (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thomas of Brotherton was never heir-apparent. He was heir-presumptive to his brother, Edward II, for a few years at the beginning of his reign. He was never prince of Wales, nor were his descendants. john k (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

However this conflicts with the fact that Brotherton & Mowbray had 3 point label argent, ie the symbols of heir-apparants & princes of Wales?? Also, Mowbray also had two and three feathers (PoW & D Lancs) attributed to him (Refs: Fox-Davis & Foster)Stephen2nd (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't know much about history ..... In general arms are supposed to be SIMPLE but Royals go for quartered arms. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I intend to make this article simple, compact and concise, mostly visual. The User:Stephen2nd/Royal Labels will be the main-text-encyclopedic version, which is just a copy-edited precis of all the references. Stephen2nd (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)