Talk:Prince of Wales's feathers

message: Shouldn't the article's title be Prince of Wales' feathers? I'm ESL, but I'm pretty sure in situations such as this the second s is dropped.--Caranorn 21:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending in s, z, or x — Matt Eason (Talk •  Contribs) 13:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: I have just read through this article and noticed that the following sentence unnecessarily uses the word "been" twice.
"The badge has been traditionally been worn on the jerseys of players in the Welsh rugby union team and as the logo of the Welsh Rugby Union".
This article doesn’t allow me to edit it personally so I thought I would mention something here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.sutton88 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea why you weren't allowed to click "edit this page". I've addressed it now, anyway. -- Jao (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar

message: :Image:Wru logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Wru logo.jpg

message: I assume that your discussion of the Earldom of Chester is merely a lead-in to your discussion of Cornwall and York. If not, let me know. Unfortunately, your intention is not always clear.
:No, I was not making a paralell of Wales/Chester and Cornwall/York. I wrote about Wales/Chester to contrast those two things with the three things "Prince of Wales", "Duke of Cornwall", and "Heir Apparent". In some ways "the Prince of Wales" and the "Earl of Chester" are different things, and in some ways they are the same thing, but, in contrast, there are no ways in which "Prince of Wales", "Duke of Cornwall", and "Heir Apparent" are the same thing, and it's wrong to confuse any one of the latter three with any one of the other two of the latter three.64.131.188.104 (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Chester

message: Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not an appropriate source for a Wikipedia article. If you want to present this argument, use verifiable sources. I think you will have trouble making the argument, though. References to the Prince of Wales's Feathers can be found here, here, and here. One of these is about a book from 1953 called The Prince of Wales's Feathers. It is clearly not a "fallacy" created by this article or talk page.
Also, there is no reason to link to the same article more than once or to separate links from the paragraph. By the way, You can create hyper links by typing Example.
:As far as typography, I wanted URLs and some words on their own lines single-spaced but if I didn't double-space I couldn't get that. As far as using Wikipedia as a source in Wikpedia, no, you can't cite an article that states "~p" to refute an article that states "p", but you can cite both of them to show that Wikpedia is logically inconsistent and internally self-contradictory (and, therefore, needs some work). Sources for the idea that the Feathers are attached not to the Prince of Wales but to the Heir Apparent abound if you google as I specified above.64.131.188.104 (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was that edits need to be verified by reliable sources. It appeared to me that you were arguing for a change to the article without a source other than Wikipedia. If an article contradicts another, look to the one that actually has a verified source. If neither does, then neither has any meaning with respect to the other. In that case, the information should either be marked with a  tag or deleted. -Rrius (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: The Prince is strongly identified with his badge The Prince of Wales’s Feathers, the use of which dates back to the 14th Century and the time of Edward, The Black Prince, who was the first Prince of Wales. 
Christopher L. Simpson states that "The Ostrich Feathers are not a badge of PrinceS [sic] of Wales (in general)." this seems to directly contradict the above statement. I hear what you're saying that, paraphrasing, it just happens that he's PoW and this is his badge. However it's clear that the basis of the badge (in the quote) is that Edward was the first Prince of Wales. If it were the badge of the Heir Apparent the quote would say something like "dates back to ... Edward, ..., the first Heir Apparent to use this emblem." - it does not.  Hence you should contact the Prince of Wales and tell him his highly paid royal historians are wrong. Once that page is corrected then I'd be happy to see a similar correction made here. I think we can assume that the PoW's own website is canonical unless a completely unambiguous authoritative print citation can be provided (something under crown copyright for example). My ha'penn'th. A bonus for you; you may like to study the investiture medallion of Edward Prince of Wales (1910) and note the prominence of the Feathers, a strange prominence if these are not the badge of the Prince of Wales. Pbhj (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider two statements: "Every Prince of Wales has been strongly identified with a badge which has been borne by every Price of Wales" and "The badge borne by every Prince of Wales and strongly identified with each of them during their respective lifetimes is NOT the badge of the Prince of Wales but is, rather, the badge of the Heir Apparent, a status also necessarily occupied by every single one of them." I do not believe that those two statements are contradictory. As to the 1910 Investiture ceremony: Consider why the symbols of CORNWALL would NOT be prominent: it would back the heralds into a corner of undoing it later when in some future century there occurs an Investiture of a Prince of Wales who is not and can never become Duke of Cornwall. But no such undo would ever be forced if the symbols of the Heir Apparent are allowed to drift onto the Prince of Wales, because every single Prince of Wales who is ever Invested will also be an Heir Apparent, and so those symbols will never have to be withdrawn from that ceremony.64.131.188.104 (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "why the symbols of CORNWALL would NOT be prominent" the medallion is only to celebrate that specific event in 1910, everything about it is Prince-of-Wales-y. It's got Ed at Carnarfon, it's got Prince of Wales in welsh, it's got the welsh dragon and you're saying it has the symbol of the heir apparent ... wouldn't it be a bit out of place; Welsh people would no doubt find it antagonistic as their appears to be a presumption that Wales isn't just part of England (contrary to the truth from what I can tell). Meh. Pbhj (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Black Prince was not the first Prince of Wales, his grandfather King Edward II was. (Littleangelicrose (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

text: The coronet quote "Beneath them in the centre is the shield of arms of the Duchy of Cornwall surmounted by his coronet." is a separate paragraph. The only reasonable antecedent to "his" is Duchy of Cornwall, but it may just be poorly written. The point was that military sites mentioned the Duke of Cornwall's symbol as being a coronet and this page appeared to confirm it. This being a minor evidenciary element to demonstrate that their is a coronet which is a symbol of 'Cornwall (I use an apostrophy to indicate that I wasn't writing out the full title of Duke/Duchy of Cornwall). As the coronet is used for 'Cornwall it seems unlikely that the Feathers would be too. Pbhj (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I used the word "unifies" in the sense of combining elements together in a single body. The "Coat of Arms" combine the different elements which represent the different positions of Charles Windsor (PoW, DoC, Royal Arms ...) as you rightly say it is distinctly his. Pbhj (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The mention of the White Rose of Yorkshire, which I suspect is the emblem/badge of the Duke of York was simply because in the context of the previous edit - which claimed the Feathers for the Duke of Cornwall - I found a couple of citations (again military history) which used a phrase like "the White Rose of York, the personal emblem of the Duke of Cornwall and York". The citations were ambiguous and so I referenced them - I can only 'assume' that the Duke of Cornwall at the time chose to use the white rose as his personal emblem because of his superior capacity as Duke of York. At no time did I imply that the 'rosa alba' was a symbol of 'Cornwall. Pbhj (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But IS "Duke of York" a superior capacity to "Duke of Cornwall", given that the latter is always an Heir Apparent and, barring his own early demise, a future King? Is there a List of Precedence for Royal Dukes showing that if a Duke of Cornwall has not yet been created Prince of Wales then a Duke of York will walk in front of him? I don't know, but I doubt it. I can think of another reason why someone who is both Duke of Cornwall and Duke of York simultaneously might employ the White Rose: because he has been Duke of York for longer, long enough to already establish the White Rose as a kind of trademark with the public, and so might be reluctant to abandon it. He'd have been Duke of York first, becoming Duke of Cornwall only later after the death or disqualification of an elder brother who was the previous Duke of Cornwall.64.131.188.104 (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop making long arguments like this without thinking about whether you and the other person are saying the same thing. It may be that Pbhj is saying that the Dukedom of York was superior in time, not in precedence. It would be polite to ask rather than to assume. -Rrius (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought I made it clear I was speculating, I think it would be down to the Duke to decide which emblem to use - perhaps he prefers cricket to pasties? Perhaps he'd just had new bosses fitted with white roses? York has certainly been of more importance to the crown, IMHO. The Duchy of Cornwall is added to the Heir Apparent to make money, it's like giving him an alotment (no disrespect to Cornwall). Pbhj (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, I totally agree the feathers have nothing to do with Cornwall. I just think they have nothing to do with Wales either.64.131.188.104 (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Response by pbhj to Christopher L. Simpson based on [http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/theprinceofwales/abouttheprince/ Prince of Wales website page]

message: As an additional quanta of information there's an image here from Trinity Chapel, Canterbury Catherdral (see eg Encarta) of the bronze effigy of Edward "the Black Prince" of Woodstock at Canterbury. You can clearly see the three "Ostrich" feathers or on a field of sable. These "shields" are alternating with the quartered shield showing the leopards with fleur-de-llys ([Plantagenat]). Before anyone starts this only shows a use in the memorial for that shield, it doesn't even prove that this Edward used it nevermind if mimicry of his use was intended to be a badge for Prince of Wales or Heir Apparent. Pbhj (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feathers around tomb of [[Edward the Black Prince]], [[Canterbury Cathedral]]

message: I'm back, with some citations. One of them is within royal.gov.uk and so in terms of being authoritative I would hope would rank as highly as princeofwales.gov.uk. Or higher, since the text I'm citing speaks far more specifally to this issue than princeofwales.gov.uk. The latter says 'his badge The Prince of Wales's Feathers' without ever really nailing it down that the badge is his badge AS Prince of Wales. But the material at royal.gov.uk states very specifically that this badge is his badge as HEIR APPARENT.
And, actually, people HAVE written to the Royal Family (as suggested above) and snitched on the various high-paid web-masters. The sites used to be littered with heraldic insignia that were defaced by smudgy photo-effects as if the sites sold mineral-water. I noticed after that was changed that you could no longer find an emblem presented in less than its complete visual form. So they DO admit that their sites get stuff wrong.
:I think that princeofwales.gov.uk errs more than esthetically when it says at PrOfWGovUk that Edward The Black Prince was the First Prince of Wales. This assertion is used above to support the link between the Feathers and Wales, since The Black Prince was the first to use the Feathers. But elsewhere PrOfWGovUkList in the same site of princeofwales.gov.uk they say that the first Prince of Wales (of the English conquest) was the future Edward II, grandfather of The Black Prince. Sites that agree are EngMonarchs and Wales. Assenting too is the common folk-tale that Edward I facetiously told the Welsh that his candidate for Prince was born in Wales and could not speak a word of English, duplicitously referring to the newborn future Edward II, who had been born in Wales.64.131.188.104 (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To give consideration to all sides, I concede that an (English) Prince of Wales preceding the first (English) Prince of Wales to use the Feathers proves nothing -- the badge could have been created (and linked to Wales) later than the first Prince of Wales. I'm just saying that princeofwales.gov.uk can't be correct all the time if on one page they say the Black Prince was first and on another page they say that his grandfather the future Edward II was first.64.131.188.104 (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To give further consideration to all sides, I concede that it is not possible to state that picking any (English or U.K.) Prince of Wales and asserting that they were the First Prince of Wales is unequivocally wrong. Since the title is a new creation every time, there is a sense in which every post-conquest Prince of Wales who ever existed was the first Prince of Wales. By the operation of chance every Duke of York for many centuries now has been the first Duke of York. However, there has always been a possibility of a 2nd Duke of York (if a Duke of York doesn't become King and leaves a son) but there is no possibility of a 2nd Prince of Wales. Hence, it is not customary to refer to every Prince of Wales as the "first", and so "first Prince of Wales" USUALLY refers to the future Edward II.64.131.188.104 (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry to return AGAIN but I erred by stating Heiress Apparent is impossible. If a Prince of Wales dies leaving daughters and no sons, the oldest daughter is Heiress Apparent, not Presumptive, to the Thrones. Since her father is dead there is no possible future birth that could displace her.64.131.188.104 (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've erred again :0) a King could die leaving a daughter as the heiress, the Queen could then have a son in utero and so then yes the daughter would be presumptive; long shot. I think you've read too much into the choice of pronoun in this informal FAQ response. However, that is a pretty clear citation Pbhj (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, true. Even supposing that the powers that be will not rule out an indefinitely long gestation for the widow of the male Heir Apparent, should she die without first giving birth to a legitimate son of the male Heir Apparent then her daughter would become a female Heir Apparent. Or is there some other wrinkle or convolution that I have missed?64.131.188.104 (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Your link says they are atop the pulpit a "crown and array of feathers". I couldn't find a closeup image but "The pulpit is surmounted by a coronet and six feathers, and fourteen original cut-glass chandeliers hang in the nave and the galleries." says http://www.nyc-architecture.com/LM/LM065.htm NYC Architecture] website. It appears that this is a different symbol entirely to the one under discussion. If that is the badge of the "heir apparent" ... Pbhj (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it likely that "six" is just a mistake for "three". It could be that three feathers going through a golden loop look like three above and three below. I am going downtown later this month and may have a chance to peek into this church and check on this.64.131.188.104 (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

text: He goes on to say "As heir apparent to the throne of the United Kingdom, the Prince of Wales has his own badge, the Welsh dragon." - so if this guy is right, we're all wrong. Quoting now from the princeofwales.gov.uk coat of arms page "On the left is the badge of The Prince of Wales, the three ostrich feathers encircled by a gold coronet, and on the right is the royal badge of the Red Dragon of Wales.". Pbhj (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that the red Welsh dragon, without difference, is a UK Monarch's badge, and so Prince Charles's version of it as UK Heir Apparent has the white-label-of-difference on the dragon's neck. I thought the www.princeofwales.gov.uk site said as much.64.131.188.104 (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Well he's wrong on the origin of the feathers and doesn't cite any source in the claim for them being for the heir apparent. As for "popularly called" this could be a literary device to show that the author doesn't know the proper name but is aware of the colloquial name. I claim they are one and the same. Incidentally, ich dien was part of Edward of Woodstock's signature it seems. Pbhj (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Two quotes from the article (one in turn quoting NY Times) "The New York Times account of the event describes the house as being decked with pink roses and says that 'The attendants were in white faille silk frocks trimmed with lace and silver, and wore tulle veils attached to white Prince of Wales ostrich feathers, tipped with silver, and carried large bouquets of pink roses.'" and "Edward VIII, whose emblem it had been when he was Prince of Wales". This conflicts with the image blurb in that article - if if there was weight of will behind that blurb they would also say whose emblem it had been when he was Heir Apparent.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbhj (talk • contribs) 05:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no conflict. Once again I say the language meaning "when Prince of Wales" should not be misinterpreted to mean "when Prince of Wales but not before that". It is correct to refer to the image as the badge of the English Heir Apparent, and it is also correct to refer to is as the emblem of Edward VIII when he was Prince of Wales, since for every millisecond that Edward VIII was Prince of Wales he was also Heir Apparent. Nobody stops being Heir Apparent just because they start being Prince of Wales, and nobody turns in any insignia they had as Heir Apparent when they become Prince of Wales. See below as to why writers should be permitted to refer to a badge which someone possessed as Heir Apparent as a badge which he possesed as Prince of Wales, and why that results in no misrepresentation. Error arises not if writers assert that this badge is possessed by Princes of Wales, but, rather, only if they assert that it's never possessed by anyone who is NOT Prince of Wales, or assert that this badge is "the" badge of "the" Prince of Wales.64.131.188.104 (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

text: As to the Times's reference to bridal attendants wearing white "Prince of Wales ostrich feathers": referring to all trios of ostrich-feathers on maids at American weddings as allusions to the badge we are discussing is like referring to all of their garters as references to the Order of the Garter. Edward VII was King at this time (1905) and had been famous as Prince of Wales just a few years earlier, and consequently the Times might have been disposed to refer (without the least justification or accuracy) to ANY three white ostrich feathers in terms of this badge, absent even a tenuous connection to the real Prince of Wales/Heir Apparent of the time.64.131.188.104 (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: stating that badge belongs not to Prince of Wales but, rather to Heir Apparent (and in some sources not U.K. Heir Apparent but England Heir Apparent)

message: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/John_Of_Bohemia  217.205.224.155 (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Where the feathers came from

message: How did an English heir apparent end up with a German language motto? Is it somehow Hanovarian? Tibetologist (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing to do with the Hanoverians, as it was in use some 250 years before George I (first Hanoverian monarch) came to the British throne. The two "traditional" explanations are (a) that it had previously been used by King John of Bohemia; or (b) that it is a deliberate reworking of the Welsh "Eich Dyn". Both explanations are now pretty much rejected by historians (see article), but nothing has taken their place. GrindtXX (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Moreover, it sounds colloquial, comparable to English I'm servin'. The standard form is Ich diene. But the elision of a final -e, so widespread today, was permissible after n in Middle High (Medieval) German already. Curryfranke (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Why German

message: I have just deleted the following short paragraph from the section on modern military uses of the badge, as I couldn't work out what it referred to. There is no current military unit called The Prince of Wales' Own, so the present tense is certainly wrong. It could refer to the Prince of Wales's Own Civil Service Rifles (extant 1798–1921), but that already gets a mention; or the Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire (extant 1958-2006), or that regiment's predecessor, the West Yorkshire Regiment (Prince of Wales's Own) (1685–1958); or something else entirely. If anyone knows, please restore and make the necessary adjustments.
:The Prince of Wales' Own displays the ensign with three feathers on a royal blue background and carries the standard during all of its activities as well as a flag on top of its premises. It has been doing so for the last 100 years.
GrindtXX (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince of Wales' Own: deleted paragraph 

message: Just wanted to point out that saying the feathers didn't come from John of Bohemia while admitting they could come from the house of Luxembourg, to which Philippa of Hainault was related, is disingenuous as it ignores the fact that John of Bohemia WAS the count of Luxembourg. (Littleangelicrose (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Prince of Wales's feathers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090426110720/http://www.wales.com/en/content/cms/English/About_Wales/Wales_Fact_File/National_Emblems/National_Emblems.aspx to http://www.wales.com/en/content/cms/english/about_wales/wales_fact_file/national_emblems/national_emblems.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think this should be changed to 14th century origin.   It clearly originated in one of these two theories; instead of using the word "popular" which connotes the writer knows the true origin; it should be clarified that one theory and reason the motto may have endured is its proximity to eich dyn; the other theory was by a chronicler of 30 years after the battle when the nation was still in the throes of war against France.  To call the latter a "popular account" is exaggeration; it acknowledges it was taken from a German motto and attributes it to one particular ally of France, namely Bavaria. 
Researchers resolve this tentativeness altogether as they should find out who (Bavarian, Austrian or of another principality) was slain in battle in France and had that motto.- Adam37 Talk 11:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular Accounts of Origins

message: As of the date of this posting, this article contains the text "The heraldic badge is the badge of the Duke of Cornwall, or heir apparent to the British throne.[2]" The article thus footnoted does support the statement made in THIS article, but that article is wrong. I do not know why Wikipedia would put some jock-oriented tabloid newspaper's account above the Royal Family's own webpage or a statement which the College of Heralds (or Arms, or whatever) would be only too glad to supply.
The Ostrich Feathers are NOT a badge of the Prince of Wales.
The Ostrich Feathers are NOT a badge of the Duke of Cornwall.
The Ostrich Feathers are NOT a badge of the Heir Apparent to the U.K. Monarchy (which is the red-dragon-badge of the U.K. monarch marked for difference).
The Ostrich Feathers are NOT a badge of the Heir Apparent to the Scots Monarchy (or Monarchy of any Kingdom which includes Scotland).
The Ostrich Feathers are a badge of one thing and one thing only: Heir Apparent to the Monarchy of England (and/or any Kingdom (for instance the U.K.) which includes England).
If Wales becomes an independent country, there will never again be an Heir Apparent to the Monarchy of the U.K. who is created Prince of Wales, and the four-lion red/gold shield will be removed. But since the Ostrich Feathers have nothing to do with being Prince of Wales, they will remain the armorial bearing of any Heir Apparent to the Monarchy of England or a United Kingdom that includes England.
If the Queen dies before any of her descendants, Prince William (Duke of Cambridge) will instantly become U.K. Heir Apparent and Duke of Cornwall. But he will NOT instantly become Prince of Wales (and Earl of Chester, and so forth) until his father says so. HOWEVER, as Heir Apparent to a Kingdom which includes England, HE WILL posses the Ostrich Feathers at the very instant the Queen dies. He will NOT have to wait until his father creates him Prince of Wales, which will rather show this issue up once and for all and expose those who insist that the Ostrich Feathers are a badge of the Prince of Wales. It's just not true. It's a lying lie told by lying liars who love lying by the telling of lies.
If Northern Ireland and Scotland each become separate countries or parts of countries that do not include England, and England reverts to being a separate country with or without Wales, the red-dragon-badge will no longer be used (because the U.K. will no longer exist and the rouge-dragon badge belongs to the U.K. Monarchy, not English Monarchy, and the differenced version of the red-dragon-badge belongs to the Heir Apparent of the U.K., not the Heir Apparent of England). But the Ostrich Feathers will STILL be used as they are an armorial bearing of the Heir Apparent of England (or any Kingdom which includes England). The Ostrich Feathers will still be used if Wales leaves too. They have nothing to do with the titles "Prince of Wales" or "U.K. Heir Apparent".
The Heir Apparent may be a person who has more than one title, duh. For instance there may well come a time when the Duke of Cornwall is the same person as the Duke of Cambridge. To allow people to then argue that this means that the Duchy of Cornwall IS THE SAME THING as the Dukedom of Cambridge is to commit treason against the ideals of truth and scholarship.
The footnoted article contains text implying that "Duke of Cornwall" and "Heir Apparent" are the same thing. Well, I hope that journalist had a fun little laugh at us as the paycheck went into the bank for telling that lie while the newspaper paying the salary believed they were paying for the truth. "Oh, I've fooled everyone." Well, they can't fool me and they can't fool the College of Heralds. "Duke of Cornwall" and "Heir Apparent" are NOT the same thing. Suppose that Prince Charles (under whatever name) becomes King, and that his eldest child Prince William is Heir Apparent, Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge, and Prince of wales. Then suppose that Prince William dies while his father is still alive. At that immediate instant, Prince George (Prince William's eldest child) becomes Heir Apparent. At that instant, the titles "Prince of Wales" and "Duke of Cornwall" are extinct. At some point later, the then-King (husband of Camilla) will create Prince George as Prince of Wales (and Earl of Chester, and the other things). But Prince George will NEVER (in this hypothetical scenario) be Duke of Cornwall. Never ever ever. The Heir Apparent is never Duke of Cornwall if the Heir Apparent is not a child of the Monarch. Prince George would be the GRANDCHILD (in this hypothetical) of the King to whom he is Heir Apparent, and this means that in this scenario he will never be Duke of Cornwall.
If I am wrong you must tell me the date upon which the Prince of Wales who would later become King George III of Great Britain started his tenure as Duke of Cornwall. He never did, because he was never the Heir Apparent to a person who was his parent. George II was George III's GRANDPA, not father. If you can't state the date on which the Heir Apparent and Prince of Wales who was later King George III became Duke of Cornwall, then for goodness sake shut your tiresome ignorant maws. I'm tired of this article being wrong, and finding NEW ways to be wrong, every time I look at it. And Wikipedia will DO this and then have the gall to ask me for donations. I'm going to donate my2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Here we go again with the misinformation

message: There are citations showing that the feathers are in fact the badge of office of the heir apparent and not the Prince of Wales (although used by the Prince of Wales of course). There is also an association with the title.
The badge is also commonly referred to as the "three feathers". This would be a better title as per common name and for accuracy as well.
Titus Gold (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You need evidence for commonname and primary topic, which isn't borne out by google searches. Only 2 out of the first 50 ghits relate to the Prince of Wales. DrKay (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough Titus Gold (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is POV-driven WP:TENDENTIOUS nonsense. The COMMOMNAME symbol is clearly "Prince of Wales feathers". "Three feathers" isn't even a COMMONNAME contender - it fails WP:CRITERIA Recognizability. DeCausa (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I accept that I should have started a RM for this, apologies. Titus Gold (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Or even better acknowledge that WP:COMMONNAME is "Prince of Wales's feathers" as was illustrated in the document highlighted to you by Girth Summit on your talk page here. DeCausa (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I acknowledge that both "Prince of Wales feathers" and "the three feathers" have been used as common names in e.g news articles and other sources. An assessment of the more frequently used term would have been useful. Titus Gold (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of page technically incorrect