The Crown and the Presence of Absence
Cardiff City Hall as a Royal Palace? Well, now you come to mention it...
PERHAPS it’s bad form to return to the subject of last month’s column, but it’s hard to resist a little reference. The motive is not to get back at critics. After all, if you write a pungent piece you must expect an acerbic response from some.
However, Cardiff deserves a long debate about its future as our capital city. So I will add this: City Hall remains ‘a building looking for a function’ according to the historian John Davies. Why not make it the official seat of the Monarch in Wales?
Cardiff is the only capital city in Britain without a Royal presence of this kind. Perhaps militant nationalists welcome this; and republicans have little desire for regal recognition. But they are not my audience. What does it say about us and our capital city that we lack a visible connection to the British Crown?
Granting City Hall Royal status would be the architectural equivalent of the Order of Merit. It need not be expensive. The cost of upkeep would be little more than at present. But the monarch at last would be able to hold Court in Wales. We could even be highfalutin and rename City Hall Cathays House, following the example of Holyrood and Clarence House. For much of the year City Hall would be used as it is now: seminars, dinners and conferences hosted by a range of organisations. There would be no attempt to keep the public out but rather gather them in. That is why I think Cathays House could also serve as a Royal Gallery.
Current arrangements for the exercise of the ‘dignified’ or Royal part of the British constitution have not caught up with the practice of devolution. This can be comic at time, as when Carwyn Jones was appointed First Minister by fax. No kissing of hands, it seems, in Wales. But Welsh invisibility from Royal protocol is much wider. There is no distinct Welsh honour; no Welsh presence on either the Union Jack or Royal Standard; and nowhere in Wales where the monarch can hold Court, receive ambassadors and ministers, and conduct investitures. Wales scores big with the title ‘the Prince of Wales’ but even this grates with romantic nationalists who recall the noble failure of Owain Glyndwr. The polite finery of the Prince of Wales’ Feathers (French with a German motto) don’t quite match the earthy roar of the lions of Gwynedd.
One has to go back to the Tudors to find the deepest affinity between Wales and the Crown. But the Dragon has long since been usurped by the Scottish Unicorn on the armorial crest. The Tudors claim of a distinct if distant Welsh ancestry is long forgotten in the popular imagination. The Union of Crowns between England and Scotland has always served as a secure basis for the Royal Family’s relationship with Scotland, and one not quite matched by the title ‘Prince of Wales’. As an ardent royalist, this troubles me. And it troubles me more now Britain is devolved and more conspicuously multi-national.
I can hear the critics now… At a time of economic hardship, what relevance does this have to the people of Wales? Well, I think we can tackle more than one challenge at once and I am a firm believer that a stronger Royal presence would bring Wales economic benefit. It would certainly attract more tourists to the capital. But we should not overlook the need to modernise the monarchy. The Victorians did it when also coping with the ramifications of democracy. Devolution has created a new set of challenges.
None of this is to criticise the Royal Family. They are not at liberty to take the initiative. In Queen Victoria’s reign, it was politicians, and commentators like Walter Bagehot, who took the lead. Today’s debate has already started with some big historical ghosts being considered fit for exorcism. Is it not time to allow the Monarch’s eldest child, whether male or female, to succeed? And what about the nasty Reformation whiff that hangs around the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the Throne? Yet little has been said about Wales and its relationship with the Crown.
Let’s start with the most prominent and problematic link – the title ‘Prince of Wales’. Already some are asking whether the title should lapse once Prince Charles becomes King. This would not serve Wales well. As a unique marketing device the title could hardly be better for Wales. Many people abroad know nothing about Wales other than that it has this link to the Crown. I have a hunch that within ten years or so the dual monarchy between Scotland and England will be revived. If so, in Scotland the monarch would revert to the pre-1707 style King or Queen of Scotland. Why not style the sovereign ‘Prince of Wales’ when in Wales? What better way to recognise and honour the new national realities brought about by devolution?
And I would welcome the Prince of Wales, as sovereign, bestowing a Welsh order of chivalry when investing honours at Cathays House. Is not the Order of the British Empire now faintly Ruritarian? Forget the long dead British Empire and recognise the reality of modern Britain. An Order of Wales, perhaps. Or we could go for something more redolent: say the Order of St David or even the magnificently gothic Urdd y Ddraig Fflamgoch. We really can be creative when building a new devolved Britain. Radical too. Should a Welsh Order contain a knighthood? Or should we be more egalitarian and abolish all hierarchy within honours? Now that would be a Celtic twist to a fine British tradition! When in good time Carwyn is invested with the Urdd y Ddraig Fflamgoch he would stand in line with the Community Centre caretaker who for 40 years has given selfless service, and receive the same honour. No knights, commanders or officers; just members of equal rank.
Other symbols could be artfully adapted. Some green piping on the Union Jack (or dare I suggest the dragon at its heart?) The English might be persuaded to give up one of their two quarters on the Royal Standard so that we could insert the Dragon! Never forget: all traditions are invented. It is their durability and relevance that establishes authenticity.
And I am not done yet. Nowhere is the absence of Royal patronage more obvious than in higher education. Regius professorships (a Tudor innovation) are plentiful in England (15) in greater profusion in Scotland (25) and even present in the Republic of Ireland (four). And Wales? You guessed it: the big zilch. Is it not time to recognise Welsh scholarship? Welsh historiography, for example, has advanced at astonishing speed and now surely deserves a Regius chair. I doubt we could persuade the splendid John Davies to take the honour, but there would be other worthy candidates. And why not create the first ever Regius chair in technology or business studies?
If only we had the imagination of the Victorians. Then we could reform the British state in style. Part of this confident rejuvenation would see a full Royal presence in Wales. Cardiff would be truly established as one of the capital cities of the new devolved state. And it would do much to secure Britain’s most noble tradition: the Crown.
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flickr
If you look at the 1978 Intepretation Act:
Wales means the combined area of the counties which were created by section 20 of the Local Government Act 1972, as originally enacted, but subject to any alteration made under section 73 of that Act (consequential alteration of boundary following alteration of watercourse).
England means, subject to any alteration of boundaries under Part IV of the Local Government Act 1972, the area consisting of the counties established by section 1 of that Act, Greater London and the Isles of Scilly.
I don’t think it gets more elevated than that – we (and England) are a bunch of counties.
Actually I think I’ve found one that’s suitable:
“Etholaeth Cymru”, “The Electorate of Wales”
Actually, as far as I know no-one ever dissolved Brittania Prima, so as far as I’m concerned that’s my “county”. But that’s another argument entirely… :p
@Simon, it’s tricky. In international law, a “Country” is defined as as nation-state, with the following definitions:
A State is a self-governing political entity.
A nation, however, is a tightly-knit group of people which share a common culture. A nation-state is a nation which has the same borders as a State.
So Wales WAS a nation-state, until we were annexed to England (bloody Harri) then we were relegated to just a “nation”. And we (and Scotland) will continue to enjoy that dubious pleasure until we have full state control within our recognised borders, at which point we will be nation-states again, ie full countries.
However, there is a caveat, in that a country must have borders that are recognised by other countries ie you are a country if everyone else says you are. So Wales and Scotland, having internationally recognised borders, are countries. And nations. Just not nation-states (yet)
Or something….
But under that system, Poland wasn’t a country in WWII because it was annexed. However, didn’t stop the Poles people fighting for their “country”, or the allies from fighting to liberate the country of Poland. (excuse me, my grasp of history falters around 1000ad, but that’s how I understand it). Basically, it still existed because its people, and the outside world, recognised it.
I tend to agree with Sanders Lewis : “The only proof that the Welsh nation exists is that there are some who act as if it did exist”. As long as there are Welsh people, Wales will be a country. And that’s good enough for me.
Al wrote…I tend to agree with Saunders Lewis : “The only proof that the Welsh nation exists is that there are some who act as if it did exist”. As long as there are Welsh people, Wales will be a country. And that’s good enough for me.
Da iawn.
So maybe we can now start to explore Wales and Welshness as a virtual state of mind or group consciousness with no boundaries or borders and no LCOs to hinder us. Anyone for Second Life?
already been there, not all it’s cracked up to be
to extrapolate the Lewis statement, as long as there exist “a tightly-knit group of people which share a common culture” then Wales will exist as a nation. We (I believe) are well on the road to Nation-Statehood again (maybe not in my lifetime, but its coming). But I believe there is a country called Wales. The signposts say “Welcome to Wales”. My Atlas lists “Wales” as a country. We have a flag. A National Anthem. What more does a country need to do to justify its legitimate existence?
What about Tibet? Would you say Tibet was a country? (Assuming you’re not Chinese). If not, why not? And if yes, why?
It’s interesting how the English and Welsh names for the Assembly infer opposing views on Wales’ status. The English name “National Assembly for Wales” does not infer that Wales is a nation, whereas “Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru” does. Then we have “Welsh Assembly Government” which rather than infer anything on the matter only refers us back to the Assembly.
Back to David’s article, one has to question the logic of transferring the title of Prince of Wales to the Monarch. After all, the Principality of Wales does not exist in any constitutional or legal sense any more, so nobody bearing that title is actually a Prince of Wales at all.
the title exists now for the same reason it existed in Edward I’s time. Maybe without teeth, but the basic premise is the same.
hmm.. about your “official title of Wales” question. Look to the Nation definition. How about “Nation of Fellow Countrymen”. Hmmm.. what would be a good word for that… oh yeah, we already have one – Cymru
Re: Monarchy and religion:
Clearly there is a spiritual element with monarchy, and a measure of faith is required. But spiritual faith does not mean advocating any one spiritual faith while discriminating against others.
However, in the Western tradition, and specifically the Welsh tradition, there has long been a separation of powers, as it were, between the mystical tribal monarchy that Cambria describes and the hereditary monarchy which was evident by the 6th and 7th century in Wales. The Prince was monarch, and God was represented through ecclesial officials. It is the latter I would suggest for Wales. Herbert Lewis wrote in his definitive 1889 work “The Ancient Laws of Wales”, that though not explicitly codified as such, the edling, or heir apparent, was by convention, custom, and practice the eldest son of the lord and entitled to inherit the position and title as “head of the family” from the father. Effectively primogeniture with local variations. However, all sons were provided for out of the lands of the father and in certain circumstances so too were daughters. Additionally, sons could claim maternal patrimony through their mother in certain circumstances. In their writtings prior to the Edwardian Conquest, The Council of Wales was adamant that the Aberffraw family owed its position as hereditary Princes of Wales to native Welsh law and practice, and they could not abrogate that responsibility. Many hold that even after the Statute of Rhuddlan was enacted, the decendent family to this day is heir to the Aberffraw legacy.
Re: Elective Monarchy verses Hereditary Monarchy
As Al pointed out, the difference between an elective monarch and elective presidency is one of semantics, and as I made note above an elective head of state, weather termed monarch or president, could not and does not have the mandate representing the whole of a nation. An elective head-of-state would owe his position to only a segment of the population which voted him into office. With four political factions in Wales, an elective head-of-state would not and could not represent the entire nation. A hereditary head of state could, however, embody and personify the nation above factional and divisive politics by providing a living symbol of nationhood. Especially if this head-of-state has a familial connection to the office and is resident within the nation. With his family, past generations and future, the monarch represents the longevity of the nation of peoples for which he or she represents.
There is no surprise that hereditary primogeniture has evolved in determine the head-of-state for so many nations over that of elections. Hereditary primogeniture demonstrates a clear, transparent, and predictable line of succession for the office of monarch. Hereditary primogeniture reassures the nation by providing a smooth transition from one head of state to another, without divisive elections and campaigning. Hereditary monarchy allows the nation to witness and participate in the growth and maturity of members of the royal family. Hereditary primogeniture has been practiced in Wales since the 6th and 7th centuries, if not earlier, well until the Edwardian Conquest in the late 13th century.
It is under this native Welsh law and tradition for which I would advocate restoring a descendent of the Aberffraw family to their historic office representing Wales to the nation and to the world family of nations. Trivial matters such as minutia of “courtly protocol” and residency could be discussed after the restoration.
It should be noted that in Scandanivia, Netherlands, and Spain, a progressive, egalatarian, mature society is positively in favor of their monarchy, and there is no threat to their constitutional arangement. Their monarchs remain highly popular with the people, and the people are greatly interested in their royal families. I want a simular relationship for a Welsh Prince and Princess of Wales and a Welsh Royal Family resident in Wales year round, prehaps in the ‘Villa Cardiff’ .
Re: Cambria and Al: Second Life:
Me too! Though I may buy a sim in Blue Mars soonish.
Re: Wales as a Nation:
Wales as a defined nation has its origins even earlier then 926. According to historian Dr. John Davies, the Welsh nation has its origins firmly rooted with the abandonment of Britain by the Roman Empire in the 5th century. Successive nations of the Welsh emerged in this land, and Wales as defined west of the Severn was defined as early as 6th and early 7th centuries, for Offa’s Dyke was built in consultation- rather then in confrontation- with the Princes of Powys and Gwent, according to Davies. The relationship between Hwyel Dda and Athelstan was more of allies, rather then overlord and vassal. Wales was not formally mediatized until after the Norman Invasions.
Re: the Constitutional status of Wales
I had once written a letter to the Assembly to ask this question, and they returned a well written letter that essentially they did not know. They said certainly Wales was a principality in the historic sense, but there is clearly no relationship between the current prince of Wales and the Assembly of Wales. Historically, Llywelyn the Great and his Council of Wales did have a more formal relationship, so too later after the Edwardian Conquest when the English monarch bestowed the stolen title onto his heir, he gave him more authority in ruling Wales through the Council of Wales and the Marches.
I refer back to Hendre’s statement as offering more clarity on the status did the Assembly’s answer to my letter.
Re: “Etholaeth Cymru”,
I like that.. By the people for the people and with a Welsh monarchy.
Re: “The only proof that the Welsh nation exists is that thee are those who act as if it did exist”.
I agree.
David, thanks for your insight and corrections. Nice to know I’m not making this up as I go *cough* lol
The post-conquest title Prince of Wales wasn’t hereditary and there have been lengthy periods when no-one has held the title so I’m a little surprised at the Assembly’s reference even to a historic principality.
Edward I’s Statute of Rhuddlan didn’t create an all-Wales polity; it only applied to the territory of the Princes of Gwynedd. That statute was superseded by the 1536 Laws in Wales Act, which refers to this country/domain/principality of Wales, but similarly does not create an all-Wales polity. The 1536 Act has since been repealed, as has the 1746 Wales and Berwick Act. As far as I can make out there has never been anything substantive which defines the entire territory of Wales as a principality. People just got into the habit of referring to Wales as a principality. If we must have another investiture (and the Prince William PR machine is being cranked up as we speak) at least it should be pointed out to the boy that the title as it stands doesn’t actually come with anything (to any avoid disappointment).
I agree with your precise narration Hendre, and in the letter the Assembly sent me, they quoted Jan Morris (whom I absolutely adore!) when she said that the title became more or less a life-peerage of the English Crown.
The Principality of Wales, that of Llywelyn I the Great and his grandson Llywelyn II the Last was of a larger geographic dimension then that solely of Gwynedd (both upper and lower Gwynedd), encompassing two-thirds of modern Wales and over half of the estimated Welsh population. Only the lowlands in Glamorgan, Gwent, and Pembroke (and a few other locations) were really excluded. However, you are correct; the territory for which the English crown directly ruled was primarily Gwynedd.
In no way do I wish for any other English prince, William or any other, be proclaimed Prince of Wales
I also meant to make clear that in no way do I wish for any other English prince, William or any other, be proclaimed Prince of Wales.
((I wish there was an edit option for our posts!))
Hendre, we both stand corrected! I went back to my notes, and it appears that according to Professor John Davies, on the eve of 1536 Laws of Wales act, the the Principality of Wales Council directly administered not only Gwynedd and Ynys Mon, but also Flintshire, Ceredigion, and half of Carmarthenshire… specificially that portion known as Cantraf Mawr.
City Hall is a fine building and too much of it is closed to the public most of the time… however installing the UK monarchy there will not do anything to improve that. It should be used as gallery space as part of our federal Museum of Wales. I tend to think that Tredegar House or Dyffryn House would have made a good residence for the President of Wales. A Welsh honour? We have election to the Gorsedd of Bards… that’s a democratic honour… The UK monarchy has ignored Wales for centuries – long may it continue!
David Llewellyn wrote … ‘in no way do I wish for any other English prince, William or any other, be proclaimed Prince of Wales.’
Well, I think we can all agree on that and it comes back to my point that a Royal bloodline gets weaker over successive generations, hence the need for an elective system. By all means let the existing members of a monarchy apply for and compete for the position and if they fit the criteria and receive sufficient votes then they can be King or Queen. However, the key here is ‘fitting the criteria’ and those must include a condition that …’ you are not and have not been an heir to the throne of any other country.’ No doubt then the whole process would be accused of not being ‘inclusive’ in this politically correct world.
Fascinating and informative dialogue on this post and am learning a whole heap of Welsh history!
Both Tredegar House and Dyffryn House are inspired options that certainly should play a role in state occasions for Wales. One can easily envision the Welsh Head-of-State hosting many events at both locations, and others too. Perhaps a meeting of EU leaders in 2025 at Dyffryn House? The G20 in 2026 at Penrhyn Castle? And the British Irish Council may be held at either location in 2027. Later, when it is deemed less divisive, the Welsh Head of State could host England’s King George VII at Tredegar House on his state visit to Cardiff in 2028.
However, I believe that the head of state for Wales should be more visible in the capital, and City Hall offers the stately presence that such an office would command. Additionally, it is large enough to house the staff necessary to support and facilitate the Welsh head of state in performing their office. Even if the head of state resides daily at Tredegar or Dyffryn House, many state events would occur at Villa Cardiff and would necessitate his commuting to Cathay’s Park or Cardiff Bay.
We may disagree as to whether a Welsh Head-of-State should be a hereditary monarch or elective president, and we both have made our views known within the life of the discussion. Nevertheless, we can agree that we want a Welsh Head-of-State resident within Wales year round and fully engaged in the affairs of Wales.
David, as an ardent monarchist you should know that the Three Feathers are the emblem of the Heir Apparent and not the Prince of Wales: the two are not necessarily synonymous.