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.

((I wish there was an edit option for our posts!))

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

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 That statute was superseded by the 1536 Laws in Wales Act, which refers to this country/domain/principality of Wales, but similarly does not create an all-Wales polity. The 1536 Act has since been repealed, as has the 1746 Wales and Berwick Act.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).

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.