[rewboss]

Oh, it gets awfully complicated.

The word "prince" used in relation to Wales is a deliberately incorrect translation of the Welsh word "tywysog", which simply means "leader". The official translation was supposed to imply that Wales -- merely a "principality" -- was subject to England, which was a kingdom.

Originally Wales was made up of several "principalities", but these joined up when England started asserting its power over Wales. The leader of the united Wales took the title "Tywysog Cymru", or "Leader of Wales" (or possibly "Leader of the compatriots", but that point is debated).

In 1301, the English king Edward I finally conquered Wales and appointed his first son as Prince of Wales.

The last Welsh Prince of Wales, though, was Owain Glyndŵr, who in 1400 led a revolt against the English king Henry IV. Glyndŵr's revolt was initially successful, but was eventually quashed.

Depending on who you ask, Owain Glyndŵr was either a pretender or the rightful Prince of Wales; similarly, some people would claim that Prince Charles is a pretender to the title of Tywysog Cymru.

Of course, here we're dealing with two completely different meanings of the word "prince": the "prince" in "Prince Charles" indicates that he is the son of a monarch; the "prince" in "Prince of Wales" means that he is -- sort of -- the ruler of a principality.

As for what it means in statutory terms, the answer to that is: exactly nothing. The title is just that -- a title -- and the Prince of Wales has no formal responsibilities.