Princes ruled Wales – so it is a Principality

I MUST disagree with Carolyn Hitt’s diatribe (Western Mail, April 7) against calling Wales a Principality.

Firstly, none of the constituent nations of the UK has a formal, written constitutional status – only a legal one.

Secondly, historically ie precolonisation, Wales was ruled by princes, or occasionally, as a unified nation, by one prince (note, never by a king). This, quite correctly, made Wales a Principality, just as today there are the principalities of Monaco and Liechtenstein (and, note, the Duchy of Luxembourg): all independent, sovereign countries.

There is no inherent implication of an oppressive imperialist fiefdom in the term. I am proud to be Welsh, and – incidentally – would even like our country to become an independent, sovereign Principality, like the aforementioned countries.

I believe Ms Hitt may be confusing the term Principality with Province eg Northern Ireland, for which the term does accurately fit the criticism which she wrongly attributes to a Principality. I actually thought the renaming of the stadium to reflect its new sponsors was, at the same time, a clever, apt reference to Wales’ national identity.

Regarding the issue of the renaming of the bridge, however, I agree with Ms Hitt fully. And, I feel, also, that choosing an easily pronounced Welsh word for the bridge’s name would signal that one was entering another – a different, distinct – country and culture. Gareth W Thomas Mayals, Swansea