Talk:Charles III

WikiProject Current Events - London Bridge Task Force

I wanted to let editors know and invite editors to the WikiProject of Current Events new task force The London Bridge Task Force, which will be working on improving all the articles around the death of Elizabeth II. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Titles and styles

The purpose of the titles and styles section is to list the sequence of titles and styles under which HM was known at each period, not to list all titles and styles with their complete holding period.

The period for the second bullet point should thus end in 1958, when the title of Prince of Wales took precedence over the title of Duke of Cornwall.

I propose to change the last three bullet points to this:

• 6 February 1952 – 26 July 1958: His Royal Highness The Duke of Cornwall
  • in Scotland: His Royal Highness The Duke of Rothesay
• 26 July 1958 – 8 September 2022: His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales
  • in Scotland: His Royal Highness The Duke of Rothesay
• 8 September 2022 – present: His Majesty The King

Concisepleonasm (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The titles Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay ran concurrently with that of Prince of Wales and all ended on his succession. Reverting to how it was should be done as he used the various titles depending on where he was in the country. Otherwise, there is just unnecessary repetition. GandalfXLD (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose See above reasoning. EmilySarah99 (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Andrew

No mention of his pretty famous brother anywhere in the page. Even the Alec Baldwin’s page mentions all of his (much less relevant and much less controversial) brothers. Is this really the “free encyclopedia”? Does “free” only mean that people don’t need to pay to read it, or is it also free from the interference of politics and power? Cicalinarrot (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

His brother Nicholas is mentioned in the page, albeit briefly. Which brother are you talking about? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Prince Andrew's controversies belong to – and are already well covered in – his own article. They are not relevant to Charles' article just because they are brothers.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  19:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

That’s not what I said. I said they are brothers and siblings are almost always at least mentioned in the biography, and they surely are if they’re famous. I found this out because it wasn’t clear to me and I want this information to be on the page. It’s supposed to be there, no doubt about it. The controversy, of course, belongs to Andrew’s page, but they’re still brothers. Cicalinarrot (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think I agree; normally there's a brief "personal life" section, and (in)famous sibs are mentioned and linked there, and even obscure ones will often at least be enumerated. This article has huge chunks on his personal life -- it's practically all "personal life", frankly, given that the royals are the world's biggest soap opera, and he's never had a real jobs or accomplishment in his life -- but this has fallen between those various stools. I'd like to suggest that the "Early life, family and education" section, mentioning as it already does his sis, at least passingly refers to Andy and Ned. As for the controversial angle, there may be a case to mention his reported role in "forcing out" his brother from his various official roles, and to settle the legal case against him, but I don't know if that'd be Due Weight or not. (For example, the Guardian: "After an intervention by his mother, the Queen, and his older brother, Prince Charles, Andrew last week announced he would “step back from public duties for the foreseeable future”.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes. If two first-degree relatives are each notable, their respective articles should mention each other. This is true even if the notability is for different reasons, such as the commander of Operation Entebbe and the former Prime Minister of Israel. Animal lover |666| 07:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles has three living siblings, not one. Dimadick (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Some infoboxes have a "relatives" entry but the Royalty infobox doesn't (guess because they usually have a few dozens relevant relatives). It's also already a pretty crowded infobox so I wouldn't touch that even if it was possible.

I agree any sort of mention in the early life section would be enough. Otherwise, "he has three siblings, ...".

Andrew's page mentions Charles quickly (to me, "brother to the King of England" doesn't seem like information you would avoid saying explicitly, but at least the information is there, even if in an indirect way). Cicalinarrot (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The Queen's article mentions her sister a dozen times, in a range of contexts. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Among other reasons, that is because a) they were the only siblings, b) much closer in age, c) Queen Elizabeth's accession at a young age placed her in a position of having to approve her sister's marriage, d) Charles had not been in the same position regarding Andrew, and e) Margaret's death was worthy of mention in Elizabeth's article as one of a series of unfortunate events that happened around that time. Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Few times or once would still be ok, not even once is definitely weird. There’s a considerable age gap and for what I seem to get, Andrew has never been a prominent element and the rest of the family has obviously distanced themselves from him (which, as Charle’s decision, may also be featured in here) so there’s probably no reason for a dozen mentions. Not once is not ok though. Cicalinarrot (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd say the difference lies in wether the sibling is relevant to the topic or impacted the persons personal life in any way. The late Queen and Princess Margaret's relatiionship was a topic of interest. I'm interested in waiting to see if the King adresses anything regarded Andrew. Charles and Camilla don't have the greatest approval rating but dealing with the royal nonce (accused) would certianly be noteworthy and boost the couple's image. EmilySarah99 (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It's a bit odd Early Life doesn't mention all his siblings. It's not like there's ten of them. Immediate relatives are important: at least worth a few lines. TheSavageNorwegian 14:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Added mention in early life section. Natg 19 (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Great, seems good, thanks.

...now, I was really surprised when I couldn't find the information so I started suspecting it was removed after Andrew's controversy but, crawling the page's history, there seem to be no mention of Andrew ever.

So maybe I was just paranoid. Or maybe I wasn't paranoid enough and someone has the power to even edit the page's history. Ok, it's probably too much but I'll still keep an eye on the page. Regards 93.43.142.2 (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Someone does have that power -- stewards, IIRC (or obviously by DB coup de main) -- but I suspect this is a good case to apply the rubric of "never ascribe to malice that which can be satisfactorily explained by a document having been written by a committee of squabbling rats in a sack". However good-intentioned and individually sagacious said figurative "rats" may be. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The opening/lead

When she was alive, we used "Queen of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms". For Charles, we should use "King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms". This is per WP:WEIGHT, WP:COMMONNAME & whatever else you got. We don't need to go through all this -list all the realms- arguments again. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear that all the commonwealth realms allow for a King; some are very specific in that the Queen is their constitutional monarch. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Perth Agreement and previous constitutional convention makes it pretty clear, I'm not sure which country's constitution requires the monarch to be a queen. —WildComet ^talk 20:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Jamaica likely requires amendment. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Probably not, but the queen's death may hasten their desire to become a republic. BilCat (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

For the moment they're still realms. They didn't become republics upon Charles III's accession. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that. Jamaica has been slowly working it's way toward republichood for over 10 years, and more so since Barbados became a republic last year. This may hasten the process. BilCat (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I know. By the time William becomes king, there'll likely be only four realms left. That's not a knock against Charles, but rather a nod to the mid-to-late 21st century. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Even so, they belong to the commonwealth now. Let's not make changes based on something that may or may not happen in the futre. EmilySarah99 (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The Commonwealth is much more inclusive than the Commonwealth realms -- for example the aforementioned remains a member of the former, despite no longer being one of the latter. But I very much agree, as far as I can see this doesn't at all relate to any even proposed edit. We can worry about the tweak style concerns implied by a shorter lists as and when it happens. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, @Red-tailed hawk cited an order-in-council, not the constitution of Jamaica itself as currently in force. Either way, it would be a matter of Jamaican law to determine whether a textual reference to a specific or generic queen or king could be treated as a generic reference to the present sovereign—and then a separate matter whether the text is self-amending by implication, or if there needs to be a formal process. Is this seriously at issue in that jurisdiction, and what do the relevant authorities say? TheFeds 21:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The document you're linking to is a high-level summary of their constitution, not the constitution itself. Did you mean to link a different pdf? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The full Jamaican constitution itself does seem to have a half-dozen references to "the Queen", and dozens to "Her Majesty". I don't know if there's an official, definitive, consolidated version anywhere, and I certainly don't amendment is automatic, or needs to be put to a vote. Certainly there seems to be no suggestion that "oops, we became a republic or fell into a lawless void by accident". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Both the Interpretation Act (UK) 1889, sec. 30 and the Interpretation Act (Jamaica) 1968 sec. 3 say that any reference in legislation to the sovereign for the time being includes their heirs and successors, whatever their respective genders. The 1889 UK act would have governed how the Jamaica Independence Act (UK) 1962 was read, although it may have been superceeded by the 1968 Jamaican act. TFD (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I highly doubt Charles III is being called Queen, in Jamaica. GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

He's being referred to as King, specifically King Charles, here in New Zealand, despite the Royal Titles Act 1974 stating "The royal style and titles of Her Majesty, for use in relation to New Zealand and all other territories for whose foreign relations Her Government in New Zealand is responsible, shall be—

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith—

instead of the style and titles at present appertaining to the Crown."

I'm going to guess that in the fullness of time there will be a replacement law. You're welcome to guess when that might be in those Commonwealth Realms with similar laws, I choose not to. Meanwhile let's just call him King of his 15 Realms Kiore (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The current lead is fine & accurate. GoodDay (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Presumably an amending Act would just get nodded through the NZ House of Commons on a few slow days, as and when it's deemed necessary. In the case of Jamaica, it apparently would require a constitutional amendment, which is remarkably hard to do in a low-profile manner. So presumably it either gets 'bundled' with some other proposed amendment to the text, or else it languishes there indefinitely, somewhat hilariously misgendering the next three generations of a notoriously long-lived family. Assuming they're all spared. (Including from the Republic of Jamaica.) But unless and until this receives significant coverage in reliable sources sufficient that mentioning it would be due weight, especially in an already long article, this is very much a moot point. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

See this tweet. [1]--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"Queen of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms" was never the common name for the Queen. TFD (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

TFD: It was the consensus reached for her intro, when she was alive. GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment - the footnote fails to mention he is also monarch of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, Bailiwick of Jersey and the Isle of Man, as was his mother before him. Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Those are British dependencies (as are the Overseas Territories), rather than Commonwealth realms/entities. So more accurately, the footnote correctly omits would would be a misleading tangent in this context. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

"King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms" is fine. Leave it alone. GoodDay (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• The Statute of Westminster provides that the same human being is monarch of all the Commonwealth realms. There is no way that the death of a monarch could result in more than one person becoming monarch, or in fewer than 100% of the realms having a monarch at all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Nobody's claiming that someone other then Charles III is King of the UK & the 14 other Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  The Statute of Westminster -- or at least the 1931 one, you've linked to a dab page is only law in three of the realms (by my count), and was never law in most of them. So that's quite a bit less than 100% of fifteen. And in Jamaica (for example), even if it were, it would be void if found to be incompatible with the constitution -- the one that mentions "the Queen" several times and "Her Majesty" several dozen. Even where it does remain in effect, it's in no way any sort of Imperial Act of Settlement: rather, it's three now-effectively pieces of legislation, whose (legally inoperative) preamble has wording that "it would be in accord with the established constitutional position" for the parties to agree on any changes to their respective laws. Bear in mind all the then-domination had to pass separate acts to provide for the removal of Ed-8, which wouldn't be the case if it were as straightforward as suggested above, which several of them, notably Ireland, kicked up a fair bit of fuss about the specifics of.

  So that the same person is fifteen different monarchs depends on fifteen separate laws, which just happen to agree on the procedure. Or are deemed to agree, even if they textually appear to suggest otherwise. And they're certainly all deeming that at present, according to every available reliable source. And almost all the unreliable ones! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Per the Perth agreement, only the UK, Australia and NZ have succession laws. In all the other realms, the sovereign is whoever happens to be sovereign of the UK. TFD (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  They necessarily have succession law -- just not post-independence statutes. Presumably -- free non-legal opinion warning! -- all pre-independence common and statue law scopes to included them applies, unless rendered void by their local constitution, primary law, or local legal precedent. So that'd generally have the effect you describe -- it duplicates UK domestic law. The change to primogeniture complicates that, it seems that some deemed it necessary to pass amending legislation, and others didn't, already having "ditto" provisions somewhere. For example, there was a Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 passed in Barbados... now rendered very moot. The Perth Agreement was just that, not a treaty, so wouldn't itself have had legal force. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

infobox picture

the info box picture has been changed over and over again. and there's no consensus for it so this is a talk section just for it, I'm taking a page out of the book of The Talk sections of Olivia Newton-John and Mikhail Gorbachev and doing a !vote section.

Cast your !vote

• 
  Option 1
• 
  Option 2 (current)
• 
  Option 3
• 
  Option 4

I have compiled a gallery of all the candidate images, Just sign under your choice(s) 4me689 21:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Addition of option 3 per section below, and personal addition of option 4 (the current infobox image). U-Mos (talk) 05:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Option 1

1. Shwcz (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
2. I agree option 1 so his majesty isn’t grinning insanely. JaySDEA (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
3.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  13:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
4. Surprised that Option 2, with such an inane grin, is even in the running. Moonraker (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
5. I agree with Moonraker. Dougie8va (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
6. The image looks good. HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
7. blue background on previous image is overpowering imo Benica11 (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
8. just think he looks better in this picture Thinker21 (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
9. per Benica11 and Thinker21. Leiho7 (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
10. though all these choices will be temporary until he gets an official picture as King, this is much better for the incoming millions of page views in the interim. El Dubs (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
11. better angle and colors. Yeeno (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
12. ibid above InvadingInvader (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
13. has authority and gravitas that the other lacks. Jheald (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
14. A much better picture than the side-on grin, at least until we have a non-copyright photograph of him as King. El Dubs (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
15. I agree with option 1 Ralexander4220 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
16. Option 1, a more neutral facial expression, however, it should be changed once coronated. Maranello10 (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
17. The better of the two until an official portrait post-coronation. Yeoutie (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
18. This image is more suitable as a placeholder portrait than the other options. Lord Stephenson (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Option 2

1. --Marbe166 (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
2. much clearer and better photo, can use until an official royal photo of some sort comes out  — Amakuru (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
3. --Ladderstuff2 (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
4. much more official looking in my opinion —Cooluncle55 (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
5. AlanTheScientist (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
6. The best of the two. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
7. Both are good, but this one is the better. As noted above, there will probably be an official (public domain) image released shortly anyway. 23skidoo (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
8. I guess it's an attempt to correct where he was leaning in towards Biden in the original, but it looks absolutely bizarre to have the curtains crooked behind him. --B (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
9. As above, useful as≈ interim prior to official image Epsilon.Prota (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
10. Definitely the better of the 2, a lot clearer than the first one
11. Although an outdoor portrait would be nice, 2 is definitely the better portrait, it wouldn't look out of place on a postage stamp ;) Samatarou (talk)
12. More recent, good quality. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
13. Better Picture. --Lucthedog2 (talk)
14. --Llwyld (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
15. His cheeks aren’t so red here Someonefromohio (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
16. Until a coronation picture is obtained, at which point that may be better. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:511C:AF18:1F68:CFEB (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
17. It's simply better. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
18. The second image is brighter, better quality. @JaySDEA: please could you self-revert your change (if this hasn't already been done). I tried to undo but inadvertently only removed the caption. Please participate in the discussion here. -- Hazhk (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
19. He looks better in option 1, but there are people in the background so it looks unprofesssional. This one is barely better though, he looks like he's posing for a school photo. Can't wait until we get some official portraits. EmilySarah99 (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
20. Ebbedlila (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Option "more options required"

1. Neither. This poll gives the false assumption to we must pick either of the above pictures. That's not true. I'm sure there are many other alternatives. I'm not supportive of either of the presented options. Option 1 just lacks overall clarity and the prominence of the blue background in option 2 is just too much.Tvx1 15:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

   @Tvx1: if you have another option for us to consider, please transclude it above and we'll consider it. Simply saying "I don't like either of these" doesn't really help much... we have to put something there!  — Amakuru (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

   There is no policy making the inclusion of a picture mandatory. If there is no decent picture, having none is most certainly an option. Anyway, having just looked at commons for a minute, I found a much better picture from 2019. Clean portrait, not a bright background.Tvx1 19:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

   Sure, we don't have to have a picture, but it would be unusual not to, particularly when the commons category is full of them. To be honest I still prefer #2 over #3 or #1, I don't know why but to me #2 just looks a lot crisper and clearer on my screens, particularly at the resolution we're using here. The others look slightly out of focus and the contrast is less pronounced. People say he has an "inane grin" above, but I don't see that. He's just smiling, which isn't a show-stopper on an encyclopedia article even if it might be rejected as a passport photo....  — Amakuru (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Option No Change

1. Suggesting no change for now. Current picture is perfectly sufficient; what would be an appropriate change is to a picture of Charles during his reign, taken after the mourning period for Elizabeth II concludes. No rush for that. U-Mos (talk) 05:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Other

All of the options listed are of Charles Prince of Wales, I suggest using a picture of King Charles III, which by definition must be after 2022-09-08 24.130.100.108 (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

To add a footnote to Charles III's intro and infobox to clarify his succession of the throne was on BST

I would like to ask on a consensus of adding a footnote to Charles III's intro and infobox to clarify that his succession of the throne on 8 September 2022 was in British Summer Time. Why? Well, the commonwealth realms of Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu, and the Solomon Islands were all in the early morning hours of 9 September 2022 when the succession happened. Even Monarchy New Zealand issued a press release dated 9 September 2022 stating "The Queen died earlier today...", which could cause even more confusion, as Charles ascended the throne right after his mother's passing. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Right now we're in a situation where on Oceanic pages we'll have references to 9 September, and on other pages it'll reference 8 September. Just sticking with 8 September (as that's where it happened) is wrong because the "Accession of the King of New Zealand" did not happen on 8 September.

I do prefer just formatting dates as "8 September 2022 (UTC)" on general pages, and "9 September 2022 (NZST)" on NZ pages. This clarifies why there's a difference, however I'd still support a footnote instead. It surprises me that there is not a general feature on Wikipedia for handling events and time zones. Surely some template and view feature could work together for such things to make it specific to the reader's location (if they so choose) El Dubs (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

In New Zealand, the Accession of the King of New Zealand, did happen on 8 September, BST. On the other realm's monarchy pages, I'm all for having the local time in brackets. EmilySarah99 (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm in favour of 9 September for four countries - excepting Australia. Happy to have a footnote clarifying, or just the timezone in brackets. It has just occurred to me that in Western Australia it was, in fact, still the 8th, which is a complicating factor. StAnselm (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@StAnselm: This consensus is to put a footnote to clarify Charles III's succession of the throne at 8 September 2022 at 4:30 P.M. British Summer Time in his intro and infobox due to the above countries times when he ascended the throne there. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It might be a bit early to say that we have a consensus. I'm still confused about whether you're saying Monarchy of New Zealand should have 8 September (with a footnote) or 9 September (with a footnote) in the infobox. StAnselm (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@StAnselm: I know it's to early, my bad. I was talking about Charles III's infobox and intro. Something along the lines of "Charles ascended the throne on 8 September 2022 at 16:30 British Summer Time, which was 9 September 2022 in the monarchies of New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and most of Australia." If someone has a better way of wording it if consensus is reached I feel like we could work with it. Regarding your above comment, I feel like there really isn't a consensus needed for the individual monarchy pages, as those only concern that country so it eases the situation there. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that wording. StAnselm (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

We don't actually know the time, do we? He spoke to the PM at 16.30. He became King some time in the afternoon. Don't know how long he spent privately before the call to Downing Street. The Land (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@StAnselm: It was not 8 September in Western Australia, the proclaimation was made at Buckingham Palace and Twitter at 1:30am in Western Australia, which is the earliest time you can go by barring any official information to the contrary, in any case, you would take the timezone of Canberra (3:30am) as it is not only the capital of Australia but also the location of Government House, which is the Australian Monarch's official residence. Maranello10 (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Official proclamations all use the United Kingdom date in the text. That should be sufficient and clear; it fixes the date and time for everybody. 91.125.135.116 (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

It really doesn't. Firstly, Wikipedia:Use official proclamations does not figure in our verification policy -- just the reverse. Secondly, you're putting an interpretation on them that they won't bear. Where do any of them say he became King of Australia -- say -- on the 8th, not the 9th? Australia doesn't use BST for any purpose, so how can one speak of him acceding that was already over there when it happened? And depending on the exact time, and one's interpretation of the Speed of Monarchy, you might find that difficult to reconcile that with the law, physics, and causality. We don't have an exact time, and it would be in poor taste to insist on having one at this point, perhaps. But it's pretty clearly well before 18:30, the time of the announcement, as that specified the afternoon, and indeed it's been widely reported that the UK PM was informed at _16_:30. That still leave a window of conceivably over four hours, which would be different days in different realms. But rather than developing our own "convention" on the hoof, or inappropriately using primary sources or OR, we should apply a maxim "wherefore it is not possible to speak of it". State that it occurred sometime in the afternoon BST, and nothing more until we have more in RS. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Support footnote for this article. StAnselm (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't have strong evidence one way or the other (and would be grateful if anyone does have some) but this notion of giving a different date for the accession in different realms seems a little bit like WP:OR. The date of accession to the thrones of NZ and Australia is presumably a well-defined official concept, and the basis on which subsequent events like jubilees are calculated. Absent explicit sourcing stating that his accession date was 9 September in those places, I think it would be preferable to stick with the 8th throughout. Note that Monarchy of New Zealand had always said 20 January for the transfer from George V to Edward VIII, but in the past 24 hours it has been changed to 21st (he died at 23.55 London time I believe). Using dates related to US presidents doesn't seem like a lot of clear evidence anyway... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Amakuru: Hello. This statement from Monarchy New Zealand, the organization responsible for the NZ monarchy I think strongly supports putting it in. Dated 9 September 2022, it states “Earlier today the Queen died…”. I do agree though that it should be all one date, but what gets me is that the monarchy of New Zealand has little to do with the UK as a country. Charles III is the King of New Zealand, and saying he ascended that throne on 8 September 2022 isn’t correct. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Hmm, interesting... A counterpoint to that is that the official page of the NZ governor General states the Queen's death as 8 September. It may be one of those things that doesn't become clear until later, as lot of websites haven't updated yet and they aren't really listing accession dates. I can't see a lot of evidence on NZ govt pages for when George V and Edward VIII took the throne (both similar cases, their predecessors died late at night). Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Amakuru: That is interesting. However, she said “8 September 2022 in Balmoral” which IMHO means in Balmoral time she dies 8 September 2022. However, I do agree that it is too confusing with the two different dates. However, to say the King of New Zealand ascended the throne on 8 September 2022 when the press release was released in 9 September 2022 NZ time seems off to me IMHO. That’s why I think we should put the following, or something close to the following footnote in Charles III’s intro and infobox: "Charles ascended the throne on 8 September 2022 at 16:30 British Summer Time, which was 9 September 2022 in the monarchies of New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and most of Australia." Again, it doesn’t have to be that but something to note the date was 9 September 2022 in those commonwealths. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's unfortunate a little over-specific, as indeed we don't know the exact time. Just when the UK PM was informed, and most sources are fairly coy even about that, preferring to say when it was "announced", about two hours later. They may be more explicit about this after a certain amount of time has passed, as it is supposedly a matter of state, not just of personal and medical privacy. Or maybe they'll try to go with some fuzzy fiction of a Unified Monarchy Time and avoid saying at all. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Another question is that did Charles become the Head of State of Cook Islands on 8 September? PRIME MINISTER’S STATEMENT--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, worth clarifying the timezone. The Land (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Rohsopht and The Land: Same. It seems that it just uses the New Zealand monarchy infobox. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• No, with qualification - I don't think this article needs a clarification. Although he is the monarch of 15 realms in total, I think it is fair to accept that the Monarchy of the UK is the "first among equals", similar to the Patriarch of Constantinople in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The opening line of the article supports this by singling out the UK: Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948) is King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms.. His reign did start on 8 September 2022 BST in the Oceanic realms, and I think it is self evident that it is BST on this page. I do respect the problem is the Monarch pages of the Oceanic countries may ultimately have to put 9 September if those governments' ultimately state that this is when the transition occurred, which may then require clarification here. I think this first requires determining where the sovereignty of the Monarch actually lies, whether in Australia's case for example, if Buckingham Palace supersedes Government House in Canberra, in terms of being the seat of the Monarchy of Australia. Maranello10 (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's Sept 9 for five of the realms, because they were already past midnight, at the moment Elizabeth II died & Charles III became monarch. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes obviously, this is not in dispute... I am saying right now there is nothing to clarify until the Oceanic governments determine when Charles became King for them, as I am not quite sure the seat of the Monarch is actually in their countries. Maranello10 (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Not sure I'm quite following you. Charles III became King of the United Kingdom on Sept 8, because that's what time it was in the UK, when he succeeded to the British throne. He became King of New Zealand (for example) on Sept 9, because that what time it was in New Zealand, when he succeeded to New Zealand throne. GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  I will attempt to be clearer, using your example, I am not sure if the New Zealand throne is situated in New Zealand at all for legal purposes. Government House in Wellington as shown here is only the Governor General's residence. The Prime Minister has to ask the Monarch to appoint the Governor General. It doesn't seem to be the seat of the throne. The seat of the throne and the head of state is definently not in parliament. The New Zealand throne itself, what actually changed, is probably located at Buckingham Palace, which probably means it makes absolutely no difference what the actual time was in the location for which that throne has jurisdiction. Maranello10 (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  (ec*umpteen)I don't think the 'first among equals' analogy is helpful here. He's "king of the UK and fourteen others" (Aside, does anyone else think that "14" looks very strange in this context? Granting that it's permissible either way in the MoS.) because the UK is where he lives (in four dozen palaces and castles and so on), and because of the historical background to this state of affairs. They're still separate monarchies, regardless of order of billing. And the issue is, if it's 12.01am Jan 9 on some eastern-hemisphere, and you're gripped by the urge to wonder who your monarch is there and then -- or more likely, wonder that in hindsight -- Having said that, that doesn't mean it's necessarily 'due' to get into the weeds of that, especially in the most prominent portions of this article. But the second sentence is IMO poorly worded on several grounds. It's essentially an inconsistency in grammatical number -- we went from fifteen monarchies to one "throne" in the space of a full stop, threw less-than-helpful term 'acceded' at the problem (then did it again the very next sentence, which is stylistically terrible, unless one is someone that just really likes using the word 'accede' for the sake of it), and having just raised this multiplicity of separate domains, insists on a single date without qualification or qualification that appears to be flat out wrong for several of them.

  I'd like to suggest something along the following lines as an alternative:

  • "He inherited the British throne on 8 September 2022 upon the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II."

  or else:

  • "He came to the throne on the afternoon of 8 September 2022, BST [...]" (or just "local time", which is a bit more roundabout but clear enough in practice I think).

  Does that seems like any sort of an improvement to anyone? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  I like the second option, mabye 'local time' better but maybe that's just me having to google what BST stood for. EmilySarah99 (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's a fair point about BST. We don't need need to make the lede any more niche than already is, with its determination to make people look up "accede", etc. Or maybe just adding the qualifier "locally"? The footnote we now have covers the same ground, which is a help. It's unfortunate in that rather than having an infobox with four needlessly, awkward, and stylistically terrible and contraindicated, we now have five of 'em. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I've added the footnote for Sept 9, 2022, concerning Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu. GoodDay (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Prince Charles (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this is an error, that move discussion doesn't appear to have anything to do with this page, and there is already a very lengthy move discussion here? The Land (talk) 10:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The move effects a redirect to this page (Prince Charles -- which will become a disambiguation page) and so the bot has correctly notified the target of the redirect proposed for deletion. DrKay (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Archived Requested Move (8 September)

Apologies if anything important was removed. I have tried to parse through the comments here and archive anything non-important or finished to try and limit the size of this talk page, which has been growing considerably. Noah^Talk 13:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I archived the closed page move just for the sake of navigation on this page. If you need to see the discussion or the result, check either Talk:Charles_III/Archive 6 or the permalink in the template at the top of the page. Noah^Talk 00:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

'Step Issues'?

This might be a new precedent that the Monarch married someone who was previously married and has children from that previous marriage. I have no idea about the term for a King, but Charles as a person does have step-children, namely Mr. Tom Parker Bowles and Mrs. Laura Lopes. Should they not be included in the King's article as it usually would for any other person? Jusfiq (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit dubious since they were adults by the time of the marriage. Had Charles and Camilla married whilst the children were minors, it might be worth including. Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure there is any legal link between them though. Their biological and legal father is still alive and as far as I'm aware Charles has not adopted them in any way and they were indeed legal adults already at the time of the marriage.Tvx1 15:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

If there is no evidence of custody for the children, they are no legal ties. So, in my view there is little value mentioning them Critical Hippo (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

They're adults so I don't understand why custody would be considered. Charles and Camilla only married in 2005, so it's not like he had any impact on their upbringing or personal lives (to the public's knowledge. EmilySarah99 (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Relevance of Alba Party's Republicanism?

At the very end of the overview, it reads, "The commencement of his reign was met with calls for a republic from minority parties in Scotland..."

The minority party in Scotland in question is Alba, which has no MSPs, 2 MPs (neither elected as Alba MPs) and no councillors. They are so niche, I don't really think they are worth mentioning in the overview. EcheveriaJ (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Concur. Republican groups in England are more notable for example! 2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:E960:A530:34DA:C224 (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the whole sentence is undue and have removed it from the article. QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Alba are fairly high-profile (for reasons we needn't dwell on here), they're just rather spectacularly electorally unsuccessful. So it's not impossible such "calls" are worth a mention, if they're robustly secondarily sourced. Leaving the Alba angle aside for the moment, a recent time article ("What King Charles III Means for Scotland’s Future in the U.K.") has this: "In a 2020 poll, 70% of Scots aged 16 to 34 supported breaking away from the United Kingdom. And a separate poll by the think tank British Future in May found that more than a third of Scots overall said the end of Queen Elizabeth II’s reign would be the right time to abolish the monarchy and become a republic, higher than the quarter of Brits overall who said the same." 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

References to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon should be amended from 'Queen Elizabeth' to 'Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother'

To avoid confusion between Queen Elizabeth II and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, references to Queen Elizabeth (insofar as they are references to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon) should be amended to Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.

Please tell me what you think? Critical Hippo (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Queen Mother would refer to the mother of the soverign. Meaning Elizabeth II would be the queen mother, but a Queen Mother is usually the widow of a king, which Elizabeth was not. I am also unsure of the use of the term posthumously. Upon the death of Her Majesty this is even more confusing. I would wait to see what other media refers to these women as, and follow their example. Let me know what you think. EmilySarah99 (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

That's really a debate for a different venue, as at present the ship's sailed off to Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. As far as this article's concerned, it depends on the context. For example, "King George VI and his consort, Queen Elizabeth": I think that's already pretty clear, but you could copper-bottom it with "the former Liz B-L" or "the then QE". Changing it to " King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother" would be... strange. So I'm afraid we're likely to have to deal with them case-by-case. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Prince and princess

Harry's children are now Prince and Princess of Sussex since their grandfather is now King. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It needs to be confirmed, they are not obliged to use the title. It may be it chosen for them not to use the titles. Critical Hippo (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

https://www.royal.uk/succession lists them without the title "Prince"

... 5. The Duke of Sussex

... 6. Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor

... 7. Miss Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor

Unless there's a definitive statement that the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge want them to use the title during their minority it's probably best not to especially as While Prince Andrew's daughter is listed as a Princess, Prince Edward's & Princess Anne's respective children don't. Kiore (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

It definitely needs to be confirmed. It's been well known for decades that Charles wants to reduce the size of the royal family. In addition, even if the Sussex children do get to be prince and princess they certainly won't be prince and princess of Sussex, because no such titles exist. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Not quite. The style would be "Prince Archie of Sussex". DeCausa (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

HM Charles III confirmed in his inaugural address that they will be Prince and Princess. Propork3455 (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I listened to that speech and don't recall him mentioning any of his grandchildren.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I have the text of that address in front of me and no, he didn't. The only new prince he created was William, the Prince of Wales. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I quite agree, the only titles mentioned was that of the Prince of Wales. Critical Hippo (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Billy-boy was of course already a ("courtesy") prince, so this doesn't create a new prince as such if we're just counting styles. (The difference that PoW is a "substantive" prince, not just a "titular" one, but now that princes and dukes aren't in charge of cutting off heads and defending the Marches, that just means "posher title".) But Archibald and Elizabeth W-M is now legally a prince and a HRH -- and wasn't before, one of the many things Megs can loudly complained about in their version of 'stepping back' from being Royals -- by existing Letters Patent. Doesn't mean they're being using them -- I assume not, as it'd be even more nonsensical than the current strange situation. A. would also normally entitled to a pseudo-substantive courtesy title as the first son a duke (and L. would be a courtesy Lady, IIRC), but that's been ad-hoc bodged too, even before the 'stepping back'.

So short version, as ever go with what the appropriate sources say, rather than trying to play barrack-room heralds. The sources might not get the 'rules' right, but since the royals merrily ignore them as they wish, it's the only workable approach. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Please do not spread misinformation. Nowhere in his first address did the King say that. Jusfiq (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The king never mentioned is grandchildren. GoodDay (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

2nd sentence contains the word “acceded” whereas it should be ascended. Eh?!

2nd sentence contains the word “acceded” whereas it should be ascended. Eh?! 76.84.164.80 (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Acceded means to assume a position or office. Noah^Talk 18:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Whereas ascended means taking things a step further. DeCausa (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Either is correct here, which is better is arguable. "Acceded" is the narrower, royalist-wonk word, so some will feel it's more "correct", but it's also a much more obscure one, so may less helpful to general readers. "Ascended" is a perfectly feasible and idiomatic construction, but (even more) peacockish if anything. Arguably, with NPOV hat on, neither is ideal in that respect. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The correct word is 'ascended'. Oxford Languages has a special entry under 'ascend the throne'. Critical Hippo (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

As I said, "ascended" would (also) be entirely idiomatic. By no stretch of the imagination is it the correct, somehow mandatory usage. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Someone better tell the Accession Council meeting this morning to change their name then. And Buckingham Palace obviously doesn't know what it's talking about either. What was Parliament thinking when it passed the Accession Declaration Act 1910? DeCausa (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

My impression is that Charles ascended to King at the moment of his mother's death. The role of the Accession Council is for the government (parliament/privy council) to acknowledge the new monarch has acceded to the throne and declared it's loyalty to the King. A constitutional monarchy only "works" if the monarch and the parliament recognise the legitimacy of each other. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Don’t thinks so. If you look at the mainstream sources he acceded to the throne and he did so at her death. “Ascended” is just a more flowery version and isn’t much used for the British crown. DeCausa (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd say it's used quite a lot for it; just try googling it as a set phrase -- "ascended to the crown" -- and see how many pages until the first non-Commonwealth hit is. (Even granting that's hugely polluted by recency too.) I'd agree that it's generally used by it, as self-describing jargon. And it's definitely more peacockish, if much of a muchness on floweriness for me. Strongly agree this isn't a distinct event or phase -- the Accession Council is just the supposedly instantaneous speed of monarchy being reduced to the pace of cod-medieval ceremony. (It includes the death of QE2 being "announced" -- that's not exactly hot news either, in the time of Twitter.) Obviously in some bizarre hypothetical case, where the monarch refused to take the oath, or the privy council boycotted it and conspired to install someone else, there'd be a small problem, but no lack of accession as such. Also, the privy council isn't the same as either the government (i.e. the cabinet and junior ministers) or the parliament (i.e. the body of MPs, some of whom are PCs, some are ministers, some both, most neither). If either of the latter wished to contest the succession, they'd have to do it via another venue. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Royal house

While Charles III is officially of the House of Windsor, if one uses patrilineal succession (the historical method of counting royal houses), he would either be a member of the Houses of Hesse, Mountbatten, Glucksburg, or Oldenburg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.145.28 (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It was originally the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, before it was changed to the House of Windsor on 17 July 1917. Critical Hippo (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That was the Queen's ancestral House. Philip's House was Glücksburg so in the normal patrilineal way, Charles would be Glücksburg too. However, the Queen by proclamation in 1960 changed the House name of her successor so it wouldn't be Glücksburg and retained Windsor. Over the year's there's been a campaign by IP's on various articles to emphasise the Queen's descendants as Glücksburgs. Not saying that the OP is part of that though. Just mentioning it for info. DeCausa (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

You would be right normally, but in Charles' case there was a royal proclamation specifically making exception to that. "Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor" https://web.archive.org/web/20160423165659/http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#1960 WanukeX (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

That was the Queen's will though. I have no doubt that the King will follow (especially considering the roles his uncles and aunts had in WWII), but there is a possibility he may choose otherwise. EmilySarah99 (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice though, that on the one hand, "name" is different from "House", and on the other, that in practice they haven't. Rather it's been largely Mountbatten-Windsor, with side-trips to Wales. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

He could change the name of the royal house, but likely won't. Given that due to the change to the succession (effective 2015), there'll be more queen regnants in the UK's future, then there would've been under the male-preference system. GoodDay (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

In theory clearly yes, but that's presupposing there's not a British republic (or breakup, or disappearance into a climate-change-induced sinkhole, etc) by 2126 when the then George IX (having usurped that article as "primary topic because British") dies and then or sometime thereafter a female descendent inherits. That's quite an extreme case of crystal-balling, so not plausibly relevant to feasible content for the article. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

George VII surely, not the ninth? Carcharoth (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. Stoking a runaway circle of rampant Georgian inflation, or getting my Georges, Edwards and Henries the wrong away around. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Archie and Lilibet as prince and princess

A discussion regarding Archie and Lilibet as prince and princess has been started here. Thank you. cookie monster 755 21:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Regnal Title succession boxes

Can the succession boxes for regnal titles be put in alphabetical order? All the realms are constitutionally equal and Charles became King of all of them simultaneously. 208.98.222.68 (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Critical Hippo (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2022 (4)

There are navigation boxes at the bottom of the article, under External links. (when you are in edit mode search for s-reg ) Please change the list of boxes indicating which countries Charles is king of so that the countries listed are in alphabetical order as the current order makes no sense. All the countries are supposed to be equal so the UK shouldn't have precedence (and the order of the rest of the countries doesn't make sense either). 208.98.222.3 (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Critical Hippo (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. Critical Hippo (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Critical Hippo (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I think The Bahamas is usually alphabetized under B instead of T though. 208.98.222.3 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Homoeopathy not homeopathy

Homoeopathy is the most commonly used British variant. Critical Hippo (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Dubious. Top search result for "Homoeopathy uk" is the NHS, which says "Homeopathy is a "treatment" based on the use of highly diluted substances, which practitioners claim can cause the body to heal itself." and uses that spelling in the title and throughout. In any case, as "homeopathy" is entirely acceptable in British English and extremely common (whether or not the most common or the Telegraph's style guide or whatever), and the only spelling in use in AmEng, using that spelling is the sensible choice for an international site, per MOS:COMMONALITY. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance. Critical Hippo (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Reverted to homeopathy per above.

Critical Hippo (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

You're very welcome, and thanks for the speedy action and reply. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

S-reg issue

I've undone the S-reg edit on the basis that it should be in a list set out in case one of the countries ends ties. In my view it also looks neater. Critical Hippo (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Sentence in lead

What is the reasoning for removing the sentence stating that charles is the oldest monarch to take the the throne. I understand the problem before was tenses, but with the addition of 'At the time of his accession', I don't understand the reason to take it out. Hi3d 2 (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why others reverted you. If I'd seen it I would have reverted it as trivia unnecessary for the lead. DeCausa (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

If you state that as trivia, then the sentence in Elizabeth II's page stating 'Her reign of 70 years and 214 days is the longest of any British monarch and the longest recorded of any female head of state in history.' in the lead should be taken down. As the facts are both similarly inter-twined. Hi3d 2 (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

What's in another article is irrelevant. DeCausa (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you expand on why that in particular you find trivial? I would argue it is a notable fact simply because he beat the previous record by roughly a decade. El Dubs (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hi3d 2, there appears to be a difference in opinion relating to the inclusion of your edit. It is therefore appropriate for it to undergo discussion. Critical Hippo (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

It may wise to await Aoi and DrKay sharing their views. I believe the general consensus is that it is trivia. I would agree with that consensus. Critical Hippo (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

It was repeated. Either remove the footnote or remove the sentence from the lead. Retaining both immediately next to each other is absurd. DrKay (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

There still remains the issue of tense. May I suggest the following: "Charles is the oldest person to assume the British throne, at 73 years of age he surpassed the record previously held by William IV." Critical Hippo (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I believe that the footnote should be removed. If I remove the fn would you agree in adding the sentence DrKay? Also Hippo I agree with the sentence structure though shouldn’t we add “William IV, aged 63?” at the end Hi3d 2 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

64 sorry Hi3d 2 (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

No we don't need trivia like that in the lead. Footnote is fine. DeCausa (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

How about we take the issue to a vote? I think that would be the best cause of action to avoid any further issues. Critical Hippo (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I think adding 64 creates an overly complex sentence structure that may be difficult to follow. Critical Hippo (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright Hippo. Also Decausa you have ignored the mention that Elizabeth, George VI and other monarch have trivia in lead, so I would like to see those shortened into a fn or removed before removing this. Hi3d 2 (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Shall we keep this discussion to the scope of this article? Critical Hippo (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not a question that needs to be asked. The discussion can only be in relation to this article. Hi3d 2, stopping dragging irrelevancies from other articles into this. Each article has separate consensuses. DeCausa (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Even in the scope of this article, the addition of the sentence would add a useful piece of information right in display. As well as numerous other reasons. Hi3d 2 (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm on the fence with this issue personally, though in applying my thinking cap I shall stick to the scope of this article. I shall approach the issue like this. The lead contains the following sentence:

'he was the oldest and the longest-serving heir apparent in British history, and the longest-serving Prince of Wales, having held the title from 26 July 1958 until his accession.'

This information could be viewed as conveying the same point. If Charles was the oldest heir apparent in British history, then consequently he would be the oldest person to become the Monarch. It would therefore be unnecessary to make the same point twice.

For this reason I would suggest this edit is NOT made. Critical Hippo (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems undue for the lede, certainly. Shouldn't it suffice to mention this in a later section? Also, I dislike the proposed wording as it adds to the already uses the different parts of speech of the word "accede" so often as to cause semantic satiation. I don't wish to suggest we go to the opposite extreme of "elegant variation" and throw in every possible synonym, but it reads very oddly at present. If our single goal is to ensure that if someone didn't know the meaning of the word and couldn't work it out from context they'd be forced to look it up before they got to the first section heading, then great job. Otherwise, a terrible one. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2022

The infobox says his active service was 1971–1977, whereas it is stated in the main body of the page that it lasted until 1976. The infobox needs correcting to say active service 1971–1976, not 1971–1977. 213.205.196.171 (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Consistency in reference to Charles III as Charles

Reign -> Accession -> Para 4

The King gave his first speech to the nation on 9 September at 6 p.m. BST, in which he mourned his late mother and proclaimed his son William the Prince of Wales.

Suggestion: Change "The King" to "Charles" to retain uniformity, consistency and relevancy. Kyran (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Minor tweak relating to relevance

Media Image -> Charity Donations -> Para 2 -> Sent 2

 The funds were said to be in the form of €500 notes, handed over in person in three tranches, in a suitcase, holdall and Fortnum & Mason carrier bags.

How is the brand of bag relevant?

Suggestion: Remove "Fortnum & Mason" Kyran (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)