Isn’t the red dragon of Wales used at times? I forgot where I saw it, I think either in British military colours or in a royal badge of some sort. I know the leek is used as the floral emblem of Wales when combined with the English rose and Scottish thistle.
Cheers,
Donnchadh wrote:
Wow. I did not realize the Welsh hated their monarchy so much. I mean some of those people including the civil servant and professor were clearly republicans of one form or another and did not care for their monarchy at all.
Well, for starters I suppose there are a lot of Welsh who don’t see it as their monarchy. Beyond that, I’m not sure it’s fair to generalize from two people that "the Welsh hate their monarchy."
Quote:
Why would the Welsh a symbol that speaks "Welsh" but is based out of France and decorated in German motto? Wouldn’t you want a more "Welsh" badge or emblem to use anyway? I wouldn’t want to use the feathers anyway. Seems illogical to me to want to identify this three feather symbol with Wales when it clearly has nothing "Welsh" about it ….. very queer indeed.
There are other Welsh symbols that are more popular with the Welsh themselves, I’m sure—the red dragon, St. David’s cross, the daffodil and the leek, to name a few. But the three feathers are widely associated with the Prince of Wales, and a lot of non-Welsh people hear Wales and think only of the Prince, and so for commercial reasons it probably makes a lot of business sense for people to try to play off the popular association of the ideas.
I think Charles is either getting some really bad advice, or is going off the deep end. His little tirade about McDonald’s in the UAE the other day was quite silly, and he’s not so popular that he can afford to be alienating people at home, either. And the timing of the story couldn’t be worse, coming out the day after St. David’s Day.
The red dragon "Y Ddraig Goch" in Welsh is used as the flag of Wales on a background parted per fess White and Green and is also used as a royal badge for Wales within a circlet and crowned.
I have also seen (most recently at a rugby match) the St David’s Cross flag used. That flag was flying from the stadium so it must have been due to a Welsh Rugby Union decision. The St David’s Cross flag is Sable a cross Or
The leek and the daffodil are both used as plant emblems.
The Prince of Wales feathers with the motto Ich Dein have a traditional origin in an emblem used by King John I of Bohemia who was killed at the battle of Crecy and against whom the Black Prince fought. Presumably the feathers were a panache crest and John of Bohemia’s use of a German motto makes sense.
The emblem has never been associated with the native Welsh (unlike the dragon or other emblems).
I’d say a slow news day.
James
Donnchadh wrote:
Fair enough Joe. I shouldn’t assume the Welsh hate their monarchy, but the one was a civil servant ...
Not a civil servant, but a Welsh Nationalist (Plaid Cymru) member of the Welsh Assembly (regional parliament). A politician.
But as to the bigger point, let’s put it in another perspective: how do you suppose such Irishmen as Roger Casement (British diplomat and knight), Thomas MacDonagh (university lecturer), and Patrick Pearse (schoolteacher and barrister) felt about their monarchy? Do you find it troubling that they spoke ill of their own system despite the warts of it?
But let’s not go on with the politics…back to heraldry!
I can still remember my late grandfather cursing the English even though he had never been to Wales. It would seem that a dislike for the English and their monarchy had been perpetuated in my family since at least 1860 when the last of the family made the move to New York from Wales.
While the three feathers badge is certainly the property of the Heir Apparent, Charles could have been much more tactful in the protection of his rights. I suspect that this may simply be another chapter in the eventual demise of the monarchy at the hands of King Charles the Last.
Daffydd ap Richard
David Pritchard wrote:
... Charles could have been much more tactful in the protection of his rights. I suspect that this may simply be another chapter in the eventual demise of the monarchy at the hands of King Charles the Last.
Dunno about that; isn’t one to aggressively persue copyright violations of one’s property, else give the appearance of not owning the protected item—and it then falling into "public domain"? Isn’t that why lawyers send out so many "cease & desist" letters? [...at least here in the USA.]
Sounds like Prince Charles’ watchdogs are doing their job. I suppose if Lyon Court’s Procurator Fiscal levied similar notices, he’d be applauded for upholding "heraldic law."
I agree with James .... "slow news day."
Regards,
—Guy
Guy Power wrote:
Dunno about that; isn’t one to aggressively persue copyright violations of one’s property, else give the appearance of not owning the protected item—and it then falling into "public domain"? Isn’t that why lawyers send out so many "cease & desist" letters? [...at least here in the USA.]
Sounds like Prince Charles’ watchdogs are doing their job. I suppose if Lyon Court’s Procurator Fiscal levied similar notices, he’d be applauded for upholding "heraldic law."
You bring up an interesting legal point that is if the three feathers badge has not already fallen into the public domain. It has after all been used freely for decades. Are specific images of the various royal badges actually copyrighted? On a different thread it was pointed out that until 1906 badges were not granted, merely recorded in the College of Arms. What is the legal basis for the granting of badges by the College of Arms? Is there a legal basis at all or was this right simply assumed by the Garter King of Arms, Sir Alfred Scott-Gatty, with the permission of the Earl Marshall as a way to produce more fees for the staff of the College? As far as I know the Court of Chivalry has never ruled on the enforcement of rights to a badge. An actual court challenge by Charles might not be in his favour. On a separate point, Charles’ future public employment is dependent upon the good will of the British people, he would be best advised not to antagonise them.
Unless the badge was specifically granted to His Royal Highness, I have to agree with David that a court case would seem dangerous grounds for him. Though I doubt it would ever come to it, it’s been decades since the English Court of Chivalry was called to order.
On a side note, I don’t think Charles will ever sit on the throne. I think Her Majesty will out live him, and the next King will be William. If anyone can breath new life into the monarchy and help preserve it, I think it will be him.
First of all, I’m not saying the Prince of Wales’s staff don’t have the right to enforce his exclusive claim to the three feathers device. Whether they went about it in the most deft of fashions is another matter.
On the other hand, the notion that the badge is Charles’s "personal" property is a little bit ridiculous. It’s no more his personal property than the royal arms are his mother’s personal property. Both belong to their "owners" in their public roles. Charles bears the three feathers by virtue of being heir apparent to the throne, not because he’s Mr. Charles Windsor. He—or his staff—seem to be remarkably tone-deaf about this kind of thing.
Now as to Wales, England, and respect for the monarchy: I tried to hint once before that the political commentary needs to be dropped. As a moderator, I find myself with two options: to straighten out the historical facts and provoke another round of argument, or to insist that we stick to heraldry. I’m choosing the second. I will delete any further off-topic material.
Denny, allow me to answer for Joe in this instance (and Joe, my apologies if you are offended by my speaking for you): discussing whether or not the badge belongs to Charles Windsor is appropriate to this thread. Talking about whether the Brits (or anyone else) like their monarchy, how the United States formed, whether our founding fathers should have gone to Mexico instead, whether Charles will succeed to the throne, or "monarchy-love it or leave it", etc., is not appropriate to the subject matter. If you don’t want to step over the line, then keep all comments directly pointed to the subject of the use of the "three feathers badge" by the Welsh people.
Donnchadh wrote:
Joe, I don’t mean to be a JA and please don’t take it that way. But, in this case, this particular thread, is not politics, as in the politics of the Welsh, or of Britain, not part and parcel with the topic of heraldry?
The whole point of the article was that he (or his people) did this and his foes, political if not cultural foes, see this as absurd. Aren’t these people going after him for political reasons and the heraldry issue is really a red herring?
I for one am not sure how to divorce the politics of the story form the heraldry of the story. If you can advise me and everyone else of how to do that I’d very much appreciate it, as I do not want to be the one crossing the line…I just don’t know how we can divorce them in this thread’s case. I’m sorry.
Now as to the matter of his badge or not his badge, how is this so? Is not the seal of the president of the United States the seal of the president ... whoever that is at the time? Isn’t this device in the same league as that?
I understand that it does not belong to Charles the person anymore than the arms belong to him or his mom. However, they do belong to him as the person who IS the prince and in her case the queen. So, in this regard are they not the property of the person?
To me this would be like saying to the queen, “Ms., these crowns, jewls and the houses, really belong to the monarchy but not you.” I just don’t see how in a monarchy one can divorce the person, Charles, from the position, prince. In a monarchy like this with no elections (to the office or station I guess of prince etc not elections in the normal sense of the word) they are one and the same.
Where am I going wrong on this? Admittedly things monarchical are not my particular expertise.
This is copied directly from Wikipedia and should be taken for what it’s worth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Wales’s_feathers
Note: emphasis mine.
Quote:
The Prince of Wales’s feathers is the heraldic badge of the Prince of Wales. It consists of three white feathers behind a gold coronet. A ribbon below the coronet bears the motto Ich dien (German for "I serve", a contraction of ich diene) ...
... The badge is thought to have originated with Edward, the Black Prince, Ruler of Wales. According to legend, the Black Prince obtained the arms from John I of Bohemia, against whom he fought in the Battle of Crécy in 1346. After the battle, the prince went to the body of the dead king (whom he admired for his bravery) and took his helmet, lined with ostrich feathers. The feathers and the dead king’s motto made up the prince’s new badge and came to be used by subsequent Princes of Wales.
The origin of both the feathers and the motto may have a less romantic history, with indications that the arms were inherited by the prince from his father.
Technically the badge should be described as the Duke of Cornwall’s feathers, as the badge is that of the eldest son of the sovereign, whether or not he has been invested as Prince of Wales.
So, there you have it. Originally the three feathers badge was either:
a) a war trophy taken by Edward the Black Prince or
b) an inheritance from his father Edward III.
Technically, then, it is not a Welsh symbol at all, but a Bohemian one passed down to the Duke of Cornwall, the eldest son, or heir apparent, of the King of England.
Technicalities aside, it is a symbol which (obviously, from the article) has become closely associated by the Welsh people with their principality. It would be interesting to see this go to court, if for no other reason than to see if years of unrestricted usage have actually moved the ‘ownership’ of the badge to Wales herself.
Patrick Williams wrote:
Denny, allow me to answer for Joe in this instance (and Joe, my apologies if you are offended by my speaking for you)
Not offended, and what you said is exactly what I meant.
On the substance, I’m not sure the three-feathers badge has really been so closely embraced by the Welsh people as it has by commercial vendors selling "Welsh" souvenirs, at least judging from the newspaper story. I think the staff at Clarence House could have gotten their message across more cleverly by pointing out the feathers’ lack of connection to Wales, making clear that the Prince nevertheless had no objection to Welsh subjects’ use of the badge as an expression of loyalty and affection (!), and only then bringing up the issue of its commercial reproduction (and the fact that its display by shops, etc., did in fact create the misleading impression that the business held a Prince of Wales warrant as one of his purveyors).
That would have been a better plan, indeed.
joe wrote:
On the other hand, the notion that the badge is Charles’s "personal" property is a little bit ridiculous. It’s no more his personal property than the royal arms are his mother’s personal property. Both belong to their "owners" in their public roles.
Much like the Presidential Seal—unauthorized use is prohibited.
—Guy