Talk:Coronet of Charles, Prince of Wales/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mary Tudor, Princess of Wales?

See the Wiki article Mary Tudor:

"Henry gave the Princess Mary her own court at Ludlow Castle and many of the prerogatives normally only given to a Prince of Wales, sometimes leading to false assertions that she was created Princess of Wales, even though he was deeply disappointed that he (or, as he believed, his wife) had again failed to produce a healthy son; Catherine's sixth and last child was a stillborn daughter."

Can some one prove which is right?

1902 Crown

"When the former King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom went into exile as the Duke of Windsor in 1936, he took with him the Crown of George, Prince of Wales, a highly controversial – and illegal – act. This coronet had, since 1902, been used by successive Princes of Wales at their investitures, including his own investiture of 1911."

Since 1902 there have only been two investitures - 1911 and 1969, so the "used by sucessive Princes of Wales" seems to be an overstatement to say the least. Ghughesarch 01:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Is there anyway to get a picture of the crown? Missjessica254 17:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC) A quick google search does the trick. Though sadly they are all copyrighted. --Cameron* 20:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Charles investiture.jpg

The image Image:Charles investiture.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Coronet

To we have any sources to assert that it is "technically a coronet"? --Cameron* 20:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

per the page at Coronet, a coronet doesn't have arches--this does. But it then goes on to say that the Welsh rulers wore coronets; could that be the reason it's used here? My understanding has always been that crowns have arches, coronets do not. I suspect that on this page, the confusion comes from a clash between 'coronet' as used for a physical object, and 'coronet' as used in heraldry. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 20:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Royal.gov.uk use coronet so I'm moving it and keeping crown as a redirect. --Cameron* 12:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is wrong. A coronet never has arches, any headgear with arches automatically becomes a crown. Since the design of the headgear for both the Heir Apparent and the Prince of Wales has two arches, this should be described as a crownDs1994 (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no such law or statue--ancient or otherwise--which makes it illegal to take the crowns, regalia, jewels, etc from England, the British Isles, the United Kingdom, or etc.

When James II was deposed there was some fear that he might leave and take the regalia with him. He didn't, although he did take the Great Seal.

When the question of what crown George V would wear at his durbar in Delhi [there was no question of a 'coronation'] his Private Secretary, Sir Arthur Bigge, assumed that the custom of not allowing the crown regalia to leave England was in force, and he advised the King to have a new crown made [at a cost of } by Garrard, the Crown Jewellers.

Bigge seems to have misapplied or misunderstood the "custom", which was strictly designed to prevent the regalia from being taken away by an angry and disposed monarch, to the monarch taking the regalia away for a perfectly legitimate use. Thus the myth arose about some ancient law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.20.176 (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Duke of Windsor did not break any law, thus was his action wasn't illegal. It might have been controversial, but it seems no one made any fuss about it then or later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.20.176 (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a coronet, not a crown

The difference between a coronet and a crown isn't design, it's sovereignty. If headgear lacks arches but is the headgear of a monarch, it's a crown. (As were many archless crowns on early royal English seals.) Headgear that has arches but is not the headgear of a monarch, but an honor bestowed by a monarch, is a coronet. Arches have nothing to do with it.

It's right here: http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/theprinceofwales/abouttheprince/coatofarms/ QUOTE: This shield is surmounted by the coronet of the Heir Apparent. In heraldry this is depicted in the same way as the crown of the Sovereign except that it has one arch instead of two. UNQUOTE

It's a coronet. If you're going to say that adding arches to a coronet turns it into a crown please cite a source that has some chance of knowing what they're talking about; someone who works for the Royal Family or for the Duke of Norfolk or the College of Arms; or someone who has researched a book. Someone with some concrete measure of CREDIBILITY. I've seen MANY writings that any arched headgear of a non-monarch is a crown, but there has never been any REASON to believe any of those writings might be correct instead of the mere half-baked uninformed snap judgment of the writer. Yes, coronets with arches DO LOOK different, a different class of headgear entirely, a different visual impact, than coronets without arches. The evidence of the senses of any reasonable person who doesn't know any better would be that this -- what they LOOK like -- is the basis of distinction between "crown" and "coronet". That's an innocent conclusion, and reasonable, but it turns out that, in this case, when you check the FACTS, such conclusion, though innocent and reasonable, is wrong. 10:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.131.64 (talk)