Jump to content

Talk:Charles III: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 125: Line 125:
# Best of the options. Option 2 makes him look like an end-of-the-pier comedian - 3 and 4 are just dire. [[User:Ghmyrtle|Ghmyrtle]] ([[User talk:Ghmyrtle|talk]]) 09:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
# Best of the options. Option 2 makes him look like an end-of-the-pier comedian - 3 and 4 are just dire. [[User:Ghmyrtle|Ghmyrtle]] ([[User talk:Ghmyrtle|talk]]) 09:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
# While none of the options are really ideal, option 1 appears to be the best here. Option 2 isn't the worst, but the misaligned background and the fact that his shoulders are positioned awkwardly doesn't make it that great. – <font color="green"><strong><i>Handoto</i></strong></font> (<small>[[User talk:Handoto|talk]]</small>)
# While none of the options are really ideal, option 1 appears to be the best here. Option 2 isn't the worst, but the misaligned background and the fact that his shoulders are positioned awkwardly doesn't make it that great. – <font color="green"><strong><i>Handoto</i></strong></font> (<small>[[User talk:Handoto|talk]]</small>)

I pick no 1 as that is the only picture that he is not grinning like the Joker in an old Batman movie.


===Option 2===
===Option 2===

Revision as of 16:13, 19 September 2022

Template:Vital article


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 1
  • Option 2
    Option 2
  • Option 3
    Option 3
  • Option 4
    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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Option 1

  1. Shwcz (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree option 1 so his majesty isn’t grinning insanely. JaySDEA (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  13:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Surprised that Option 2, with such an inane grin, is even in the running. Moonraker (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I agree with Moonraker. Dougie8va (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The image looks good. HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. blue background on previous image is overpowering imo Benica11 (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. just think he looks better in this picture Thinker21 (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. per Benica11 and Thinker21. Leiho7 (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  11. better angle and colors. Yeeno (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. ibid above InvadingInvader (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. has authority and gravitas that the other lacks. Jheald (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  15. I agree with option 1 Ralexander4220 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Option 1, a more neutral facial expression, however, it should be changed once coronated. Maranello10 (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  17. The better of the two until an official portrait post-coronation. Yeoutie (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  18. This image is more suitable as a placeholder portrait than the other options. Lord Stephenson (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I think this is the best out of the available, the rest just dont portray the regality necessary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragsonragoon (talk • contribs) 03:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  20. 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)[reply]
    As there is clearly no stable current version, expressing my preference for option 1 for the time being. U-Mos (talk) 07:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  21. IMO none of the options are ideal, but I’d pick Option One as the best of a bad lot. Hopefully we can use this one until a better image comes along of Charles as King. TheScrubby (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  22. This is the best by far, though none of the options are good. It's far better because this one shows him facing the camera, as opposed to looking like someone walked by and took a picture. Also, it avoid having a picture of him with a blue tie, blue jacket, and blue background. DFlhb (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Best of these four. Doops | talk 10:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Appears more statesman-like. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  25. This is the best of the four options, but like others I think should be changed upon coronation. AlloDoon (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Coronation might be nine months away. I assume we'll have one before then, but until then, we're stuck with the constraints of acceptable quality, and acceptable licensing. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Looks the best to my eye, and also the most idiomatically Wikipedian. Don't feel any urgent need to replace with a 'kingly' one -- don't expect a free image to be available anytime soon with a crown, a visible monarchical aura, etc. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Image 1 is not idiomatically Wikipedian at all. It has all the traits we usually reject, including being blurry, having a lot of distraction in the background with trees and people and suchlike, and is also several years old. I don't love the blue background and facial expression in image two, but it's many times better than he trainwreck that is image one.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  27. This option (1) represents Charles III the best of all the options. Compusolus (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Looks more regal than the other options. The blue in Option 2 is too distracting, as are the diagonal curtains resulting from the image rotation. — Goszei (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  29. This one. The other ones are taken in some rooms and in some of them either the angle or his face expression is a little bit odd. Ентусиастъ/Entusiast (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Option 1 looks better than others. Blazin777 (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Best of the options. Option 2 makes him look like an end-of-the-pier comedian - 3 and 4 are just dire. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  32. While none of the options are really ideal, option 1 appears to be the best here. Option 2 isn't the worst, but the misaligned background and the fact that his shoulders are positioned awkwardly doesn't make it that great. – Handoto (talk)

I pick no 1 as that is the only picture that he is not grinning like the Joker in an old Batman movie.

Option 2

  1. --Marbe166 (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. --Ladderstuff2 (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. much more official looking in my opinion —Cooluncle55 (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. AlanTheScientist (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The best of the two. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  9. As above, useful as≈ interim prior to official image Epsilon.Prota (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  13. Better Picture. --Lucthedog2 (talk)
  14. --Llwyld (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  15. His cheeks aren’t so red here Someonefromohio (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  17. It's simply better. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  20. Ebbedlila (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  21. More professional photo, plus sharper than Option 1. Also, taking into account this is supposed to be only temporary until a valid photo comes along taken as King, it would only make more sense to keep the status quo and keep this photo as it is. --WR 19:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  22. He looks distinctly different from option 1 now. This is the most recent of the 4 choices. Uhooep (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  23. This is better than the rest of them and much clearer than the rest. D Eaketts (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  24. HIghest quality option of them all.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk?

Option 3

  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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  2. Not bad, but the bottom should be cropped a bit, especially for the infobox. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Decent enough.Mwinog2777 (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4

  1. I seem to be the only one going for this one. This seems to be the best quality in terms of crispness of image. But mainly this one "looks like him" (at least the image I have in my mind's eye). People have been talking about the "inane grin" in no.2, but the main thing it seems to have caught him with an expression on his face which makes it just not look like him. If I'd seen that pic out of context I'd have do a double take to identify him. Nos.1 and 3 look a bit "florid"...like he's had a heavy claret session at lunch...DeCausa (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. By far the best option. It’s serious, but not trying to be official-looking. It’s front on and there’s no issue with a weird smile or an awful blue background. The suit reflects his character and (imo) the sort of king I expect he’ll be. It reads like something that would be published by a reputable newspaper, rather than a blog. — HTGS (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I like this one , since the background is plain and doesn't distract from the the subject of the photo , and he is facing forwards with an unposed expression on his face that appears natural. Washuchan73 (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Picture is clean, the framing is nice, the background is clean, it's front on, his face, though speaking, is relaxed, and it's him in his official (albeit pre-accession) duties. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree. Beshogur (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely going to be the ultimate plan, but I don't think any public domain or copyleft images of him are available since his accession...  — Amakuru (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's been out-and-about since talking to the public since, so maybe some royalist snapper will come by and donate their work. Or his office could helpfully send one in, with the correct rights. Or a really bad one of the former, to motivate the latter! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think as of now the photo doesn’t matter to much as it should be replaced by either a coronation picture or the first official portrait as king when it’s released around the coronation. Max3218 (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this photo (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:King_Charles_III_of_the_UK,_then_Prince_of_Wales,_in_full_dres_uniform.jpg) of Charles III for the Infobox, as his face is fully visible and he's wearing a formal attire fit for his role, from 2018 Mattia332 (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above, all currently proposed images are before his kingship. Suggest something from commons:Category:Charles III of the United Kingdom in 2022. There I prefer File:Procession to Lying-in-State of Elizabeth II at Westminster Hall - 54 - Charles III (cropped).jpg or File:Prince of Wales (enthroned) 2022.jpg. Brandmeistertalk 20:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Issue" section

What is happening with the second-to-final section "Issue"? It is very unclear (to myself) what it is supposed to mean to the reader. Kyran (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this usage, "issue" is a formal term for one's biological children, often used in royal/aristocratic contexts. Marquisate (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a standard enough word, though whether we should be using in an attempt to sound like the College of Heraldry is more questionable. Perhaps subtly gloss it by use of a synonym in the body of the section (or vice versa). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we get the sense that a few people aren't sure on the meaning of Issue, we could just add a sentence to that section that uses the word "Issue" with a link to Issue (genealogy). El Dubs (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HM’s Royal Sign Manual

The RSM the article has now is obsolete. Surely there’s a facsimile of ‘Charles R’ on the record by now. Can we get that updated? 2603:9000:AE04:B300:1A4:C723:F7D3:FF3E (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

where is this what are you refering to by 'hm's royal sign manual'?
is this on the page or are you talking about a royal manual that has symbols related to the british royals? 180.95.31.141 (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only image of Charles's new signature that I am aware of is a blow up from the TV coverage of him signing the proclamation (or some similar document at the proclamation meeting on Saturday). It is not of good quality. I suggest patience. A good facsimile will come alons sooner or later. 86.181.0.154 (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect they are holding off on releasing the Accession Council document to let everyone who was there sign and we will see it in due course.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article shows King Charles III royal signature on the ascension proclamation ChefBear01 (talk) https://news.sky.com/story/amp/king-charles-reveals-new-signature-and-appears-to-show-his-royal-cypher-12694675

Camilla’s Titles & Name

I propose to change “Camilla Parker Bowles” underneath ‘Spouse’ to either Camilla Shand as her birth name, the same way Lady Diana Spencer is written or Camilla, Queen Consort. It doesn’t make sense to have Parker Bowles when it’s neither her maiden or married name. Also not her current title. 2A00:23C4:2520:4B01:54BD:E1EE:6814:FF33 (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's the common name at the time of marriage - hence in the Edward VIII infobox it's "wallis Simpson". DeCausa (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Already discussed, already found not to be the consensus; see the most recent archive. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The names are written as they were when they got married. Critical Hippo (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid further confusion i've added Do NOT change to "Camila, Queen Consort in Infobox Royal. Critical Hippo (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out, in the Aristotle Onassis article, his wife is listed as "Kennedy", not "Bouvier".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As said above, the Edward VIII infobox uses "Wallis Simpson" and so the consensus is that we are following this naming method. It makes sense, as Charles did not marry Camila, Queen Consort he married Camila Parker Bowles. Critical Hippo (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Royal house amendment

While the King's royal house is, by all accounts, still Windsor, I think it's worth adding that he belongs agnatically to the house of Glücksburg as well. King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands has the same, but with Orange-Nassau and Amsberg instead. Ryanisvibing (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This would also be consistent with the article for the House of Glücksburg, which includes the King of the United Kingdom under "Current." Ryanisvibing (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Mountbatten would be the more appropriate choice instead? Anyway, just an observation. Ryanisvibing (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realise this already had a topic open, my apologies. Ryanisvibing (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless or until King Charles III proclaims otherwise? The royal house is still Windsor. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

King Charles' surname

I would like to request that this article also include his surname of Mountbatten-Windsor. I realize that his surname is almost never mentioned but for the sake of historical completeness and people's interest I think the first paragraph, at least should include is complete name. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 2600:8803:7F11:D00:80A9:55C8:C4D8:A28E (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's already in the article: as footnote 1 (to the name section in the Infobox). Given that the House name is far more of significance to a monarch, that seems about right to me. DeCausa (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not common for members of the royal family to use their last name. Critical Hippo (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(ec*2) It's plausibly arguable that as he never uses a surname, he doesn't actually have one. If-he-did-ever-use-one-what-would-it-be is an angels on the head of a pin sort of question. His kids, when they did, most frequently used "Wales". This is also more-or-less the same discussion as the "name of his house" matter, which we also keep discussing here. We might want to consolidate or cross-link these to avoid duplication. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, we should avoid making any significant reference to his surname as it will only serve to confuse. As Charles is styled 'His Majesty, King Charles III' that is therefore his legal name. Consequently, he does not have a surname. Critical Hippo (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Largely agree. If we mention it at all, it might be in the context of, as Charles Mountbatten-Windsor does indeed redirect here, giving some suitably qualified gloss, on the principle of WP:R#ASTONISH. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Conceptually, is his name what he believes it is, what other people say it is, or what the law allows it to be? Wikipedia policy is to prefer reliable secondary sources, but we need to be careful to observe whether the source is actually addressing the question of nomenclature head-on, versus simply repeating a convenient conventional form of his name. TheFeds 20:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, his name is what the law says it is, or rather what he has selected within the scope permitted by law. But this is going somewhat off-topic. Critical Hippo (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Common law (more or less) says that your legal name is the one -- or potentially the more than one -- that you actually use and are known by others. The letters patent also have the force of law, but they're not necessarily the sole determinant. Also, they could be read as determining the surname of those not entitled to a substantive or courtesy title. Doesn't stop those who are as slumming it as "Wales" or "Mountbatten-Windsor". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never in a thousand years has English Common Law ever referred to a reigning monarch by their surname. The courts have only ever refer to a monarch as His Majesty The King or by their regnal name - in this case His Majesty King Charles III (and common law is derived from court decisions and practice). I would be very interested in seeing any British court document that refers to a monarch as Elizabeth or George Windsor. 208.98.222.97 (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. The High Court had a lot to say about one Charles Stuart in 1648. DeCausa (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Reigning monarch". If and when the current incumbent is deposed and put on trial we can change the lede to refer to him as Charles Windsor or Charles Mountbatten-Windsor. Until then, his legal name is Charles III.
Wrong again. If you look at the the Court's death warrant it begins "Whereas Charles Stuart, king of England, is, and standeth, convicted". Parliament didn't depose him - he was executed as king and the monarchy was abolished after his death. DeCausa (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deposing a king and abolition of the monarchy are not necessarily the same thing. William II, Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI, and Richard III are all kings who were deposed without the monarchy being abolished. If you want to argue that a King being tried and executed by what is ostensibly "his" own court is not being deposed, go ahead. But until Charles is brought to trial in a British court and tried for treason or otherwise removed from office his legal name remains Charles III and not Charles Windsor. A king cannot be tried in his own court- in the UK civil or criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the monarch - because the monarch is the fount of the law.[1] The act of a court putting the king on trial is in and of itself the act of deposing the king. The fact that the court is no longer his court is evidence of the fact he has lost power and has been deposed. 208.98.222.97 (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. Charles was never deposed by Parliament and was executed as king. It's as simple as that. You're just making things up now. I think the point is here one should not make overblown statements like "never in a thousand years has English Common Law ever referred to a reigning monarch by their surname" without a better understanding or sourcing. There are reasons why Charles may not have an attributable surname. Court practise is not one of them. DeCausa (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The House of Commons indicted him for treason and created a court to have him tried and executed, so yes, he was deposed. 208.98.222.97 (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't deposed prior to being referred to as "Charles Stuart". So very much a counterexample to your assertion. Which it's not at all clear was ever material to the contents of the article, anyway. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The death warrant signed for his execution, after his conviction, refers to him as Charles Stuart King of England FrederalBacon (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should have pardoned himself. But of course he couldn't because as of his arrest he no longer was able to exercise any of a king's powers because functionally he was no longer king regardless of what he was being called. 208.98.222.97 (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM. What edit to the article is this lengthy tangent being introduced in favour of, or in opposition to? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Putting a surname in the lead sentence of the article. 208.98.222.97 (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough then, and on that I agree. But we don't need to demonstrate that it's impossible for him to have a surname, or legally defective to call him by one to establish that. Just that it's not in any sort of prevalent use as such, and thus WP:UNDUE to mention it there. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About two months ago, an RFC was held with the result being don't show Windsor in the intro or the infobox as a surname, in the royal family bios. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my lack of clarification. The result was basically "no surnames", in the intros or infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2022

Add 4:30 pm B.S.T to 8 September 2022 Add Queen before Elizabeth II.

Source sentence: He acceded to the throne on 8 September 2022 upon the death of his mother, Elizabeth II.

Edited sentence: He acceded to the throne on 8 September 2022 at 4:30pm B.S.T upon the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. Code.space.sohan.sunkari (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have a source that establishes that with such precision. Just that it was that afternoon, and had occurred by 4:30 local time. Something on this would be helpful, given the issue of what day it was in each of his realms, which we discussed at length but without any real clarity or resolution. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I have asked a question here, please take a look and answer.-2405:204:570C:D779:0:0:1770:A8B1 (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unrelated to this article. Please review WP:APPNOTE. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2022

Change University of Cambridge to Trinity College, Cambridge 116.15.147.155 (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Blazin777 (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. The fact is already in the article and cited, and having checked other Oxford and Cambridge grads Liz Truss, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher and Rowan Atkinson, I found all use college name rather than university. Please don't automatically reject edit requests without checking their merit.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies among religion of the royal family (should Church of England be listed as a religion)

There is an inconsistency among the religion of members of the royal family, between Elizabeth, Charles and William. The religion of Charles III and Elizabeth II is listed as protestantism. However the religion of William is listed as Church of England.

Should Charles and Elizabeth be amended to Church of England or should William be amended to Protestant? 2A00:23C8:2F9C:7501:65AA:8996:F645:918D (talk) 10:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would presume that this inconsistency is because each new monarch, as well as being the titular head of the Church of England, also takes an oath to "maintain and preserve" the Church of Scotland. William, not having taken this oath, is C of E only. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest the religion filed is removed, it doesn’t appear in Queen Elizabeth II and so, in my view, it shouldn’t appear here. Critical Hippo (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Rosbif73. We could make this clearly by saying CoE/CoS, if the sources support that, or we can provide a note glossing it in a way that we can. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The religion field should be removed from the infoboxes as there’s hardly any benefit or reason to include them. 2605:B100:339:CE20:D909:7FCC:6367:63A4 (talk)
The UK has an established religion. Or at least sorta-established, with a formal such role in England for the CoE, a special status for the CoS, and religious provisions relating to the monarchy. So they're a good deal more significant here than they are for most people. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, there was no religion in the infobox of Elizabeth II during her reign. I do agree its unnecessary to include and should be removed. As noted above too, that fact that there are multiple options that could be used are going to complicate things. – Handoto (talk)
An odd omission, but WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:NOTSOURCE. And for her entire reign? Or appearing and disappearing at editorial whim, in the wonderful (sic) Wikipedia way of such things? The multiple options are hardly a dazzling array, and come down to how to sum up the various oaths he takes regarding two different Protestant denominations during the accession process. We just have to make an editorial decision between them: which is what we get paid the big wikipedia bucks for. Now, as to whether it's at all WP:DUE to mention it for Wills, as his only actual religious obligation for the time being is "don't become a Catholic if you want to inherit", is another matter... but one better left for for that article. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Succession boxes, concerning regnal titles

I wonder if it would be best to adopt the setup at the Elizabeth II page's succession boxes, at the bottom, concerning the realms. At the moment we've got a top-to-bottom list of "King of...". GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2022

The second paragraph of the lede states "When Charles was four years old, his grandfather died and his mother ascended the throne..." Charles was only three years old at the time. This should be fixed. 64.63.153.162 (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks for spotting this.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

House of Windsor

How is King Charles III a member of the House of Windsor? Prince Philip was Mountbatten. So wouldn't King Charles be of the House of Mountbatten? 2405:204:828C:8287:0:0:1B7B:F0B0 (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Explained in 2nd para of Elizabeth II#Accession and coronation. DeCausa (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Easily explained. The king has (so far) chosen not to change the name of the Royal House (i.e dynasty). Given the fact that there'll be 'more' queen regnants in the UK's future (thanks to the 2013 Act of succession) then there have been in the past? it's likely Windsor will remain as the name. Otherwise, the House name would be changed, everytime a king succeeded a queen regnant. BTW - Philip adopted his mother's (english version) family name. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caption of the picture

In the example of the Edward VIII article it's worth mentioning that the picture was taken before he ascended the throne. RaphaelQS (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because it was taken 17 years before he became king. Surtsicna (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

possible mistake under "relationships and marriages"

quote: "He was the companion of her elder sister, Sarah, and did not consider Diana romantically until mid-1980." Diana and Charles got married in 1981. Therefore, the statement above is false. 84.73.124.48 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it is. Diana was only 19 when they got married, they did have something of a whirlwind romance, maybe one reason why it went off the rails relatively quickly. PatGallacher (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should check, but at memory I remember that Charles and Diana only dated for a few months before they got engaged and married.Sira Aspera (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Cornwall, tenure

Why do we have Charles' tenure as "Duke of Cornwall", being 1952 to 1958? Shouldn't it be "1952 to 2022"? Anyways, I've opened an RFC on this matter, to deal with these titles/styles inconsistency, across many of the royal bios. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of second straight monarch to take their birth name as monarch

InvadingInvader added, and then reverted me here wanting to add that Charles is the second straight monarch to take their birth name as monarch. This seems to me fairly trivial and unnecessary. Do people have thoughts on this? Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could I suggest this being a footnote? I think it's necessary, but if it doesn't belong at this level, why not a footnote? I was involved in a discussion on Zombies (2018 film) about something like this. InvadingInvader (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wehwalt that this is relatively trivial and doesn't merit a mention. If it is included, a footnote would be OK, but I don't think it merits inclusion at all. Since the crowns of England and Scotland were merged, only three of the thirteen monarchs have not used their first baptismal name as their regnal name (and I believe, but have not checked to confirm, that the practice was even rarer before the Acts of Union), so makes more sense to point out the exceptions instead of the monarchs who followed the common convention. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was very common for the English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish & British monarchs to use their 'first' name as their regnal name. The rarity was those who didn't. A footnote at best, nothing more. GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Health status

Hi, where should the article reflect Charles III's health status? There are a couple of sources [2] talking about his red and swollen fingers. --Mhhossein talk 03:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there? --Mhhossein talk 10:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we avoid such speculation.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, again

Around the 5th of September, I started a thread here about how prince Andrew, pretty suspiciously to me, was never (ever) mentioned in the article. He's 8th in succession, he's brother to the King, he's pretty famous, all people who commented agreed he had to be mentioned at least once (him, not his story or his controversy, of course), like all relevant brothers on wikipedia, and a line mentioning all Charle's siblings, with hyperlinks to their pages, was added to the Early life and Education, as they all shared the same upbringing. Now the line was removed. No debate about it on the Talk section, just removed.

Here's the moment it was removed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1110315161&oldid=1110297021&title=Charles_III

Even assuming good faith, I believe the information has to be put back and protected by something more than me checking every once in a while if someone removed it in complete disregard of the community's debate. Cicalinarrot (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what's suspicious about it? That's a rather bizarre take. What dastardly conspiracy do you see?None of his siblings are mentioned, not just Andrew. Is Charles trying to convince the world he's an only child? (I wouldn't blame him)DeCausa (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All siblings were mentioned, that's the point. Siblings are always mentioned, especially famous or relevant ones and there was a debate about it, all people who took part agreed.
No need for conspiracies, tell me why the information shouldn't be there or take your sarcasm somewhere else. Cicalinarrot (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care because I don't think it's important one way or other. My sarcasm is staying right here until you explain what's "suspicious" about it. DeCausa (talk) 09:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think it's important, you shouldn't take part to this conversation, maybe.
I thought it was weird that siblings weren't mentioned, considering they're also important people. I was sincerely looking for the information because I'm pretty ignorant about the royal family and even thought that I was wrong when I remembered they were brothers the first time i looked for "andrew" in the page and couldn't find it. Andrew's page mentions his siblings, of course.
The reasons why I want the information to be there are very simple: it's true (as undeniable as it gets), relevant, useful (it would have been useful to me) and there's already been a unanimous debate about why it should be there.
My suspicion is just a personal feeling about it, as I clearly stated. As you mentioned, there are reasons why someone who likes Charles could want to hide the information so... you know very well why I'm suspicious. But that's just me, I wanted to disclose it even if it's not really relevant and the reasons I've listed are all good and perfectly compliant with the site's rules. Unlike what the user who edited the line out did. Cicalinarrot (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's "suspicious" that the siblings aren't mentioned, but I do think they should be, probably in the "Early life" section after mentioning who his parents are. It's general practice if someone has notable siblings to mention them.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't that weird that they weren't mentioned, it is (again, to me) that after about a week it was removed, ignoring what had already been debated and ruled.
But, again, I'd love us to ignore what I feel about it and state the information should be there and, considering it was removed, it could happen again (for whatever reason, the author gave none, that's why I can only assume it's a delicate matter to even mention that relationship). Cicalinarrot (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there's consensus for it, it could be mentioned fairly naturally after the first sentence of "Early life": "His parents would have three additional children, Anne (born 1950), Andrew (born 1960) and Edward (born 1964)".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what we had decided ten days ago and what a user ultimately wrote, before it was removed with no notice or debate by another.
Where it says "Catherine Peebles, was appointed to be responsible for early education at Buckingham Palace for him and his younger siblings." it went on "... , Anne, Andrew and Edward", with names linking to their pages that's it. Cicalinarrot (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added the previous lines that Cicalinarrot is concerned about after finding the discussion on the talk page. Cicalinarrot also pinged me on my talk page to notify me of this "issue".
I don't see any suspicious activity going on. It's very likely that the "removing" user (User:Rutsq) was not aware of the previous discussion here at the talk page and was just doing general editing. From the user's edit summary, they removed the text as "c/e and cn", which is for "copyediting and citation needed" reasons. It is fair that the governess text was unsourced and possibly unverified. I will add in the quote that Wehwalt suggested His parents would have three additional children, Anne (born 1950), Andrew (born 1960) and Edward (born 1964).
I also disagree that this information needs to be "protected". I don't know if there is a way to protect this bit of information, besides protecting the entire article. But I also don't think this is so valuable that it cannot be changed, or removed, or altered by usual editing processes. Natg 19 (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. Absent this concern about Andrew being mentioned, and even considering it, it's an odd place to name the trio..... as equal recipients of the nanny's services. Rutsq (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly do you want Anne, Andrew & Edward mentioned? GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find it pretty suspicious that Cicalinarrot is only interested in mentioning Andrew and not Anne and Edward. IlkkaP (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, definitely something suspicious here. In my opinion, Andrew shouldn't be mentioned here unless he's mentioned alongside Charles' other siblings, as the scandals relating to Andrew have no relevance to Charles at all. --88.108.44.8 (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The early life section of the article has the sentence "His parents would have three additional children, Anne (born 1950), Andrew (born 1960) and Edward (born 1964)". I think this is satisfactory enough, this article is about Charles, not Andrew. --88.108.44.8 (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subtle civil POV pushing

Just like I predicted, it didn’t take long for multiple negative sentences in the lead section to be removed. These being the criticism of his support for homeopathy (which had been there for an exceptionally long time) and the cash-for-honours allegations. There was absolutely no discussion of this on this talk page.

The fact about his extramarital affair was not expunged presumably because it is so significant to Charles’s character. His ‘calling for action’ against almost universally-agreed-upon bad things, however, remains in the lead. One instance of praise, with other more negative coverage deleted.

This is clear civil POV pushing and I’m requesting these both be reintroduced to the lead section. 2A00:23C7:DA0B:3901:B13B:52A5:B166:FE95 (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All the removed sentences have since been re-added, thank you to whichever editor re-added them. A Metropolitan Police investigation is notable enough to mention in the lead. --88.108.44.8 (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms

In the coat of arms section we have, at the moment of writing, the coat of arms of His Majesty in the UK (both inside & outside of Scotland) and his coat of arms as Prince of Wales. But I have noticed that the coat of arms of the Canadian sovereign is there, should this stay? No other sovereign uses the Canadian arms & UK arms, I would suggest that it either be just His Majesties arms within the UK or the UK and the Commonwealth Realms (UK, Canada Australia & New Zealand). GSTK WiltedXXVI (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are fifteen Commonwealth realms, so it seems wildly anomalous to list them as at present. That it then goes on to give a huge subsection on the now-merely-historical "As Prince of Wales", then basically rehash much the same information under the "standards" subsection is vastly undue. This badly needs to be completely refactored. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, for now, like with other sovereigns I would just keep it to UK coat of arms, not commonwealth WiltedXXVI (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A gallery may also be useful, as it would allow all 15 arms to be displayed in a compact format. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree to that. I would propose a format similar to other monarchs whereas the arms are put in order ie.
As Prince of Wales 1958-2022, As sovereign 2022-, As sovereign (in Scotland) 2022-
Then below those of the commonwealth realms;
Canada
Austrailia
New Zealand
etc... WiltedXXVI (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would it perhaps make more sense to include his arms as Prince of Wales separately somewhere, then for the main gallery to simply list the arms alphabetically, so:
Antigua
Australia
The Bahamas
etc.
Perhaps the date could go in the gallery title, to save repeating it? A.D.Hope (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, perhaps if we put the UK at the top (as it is his primary realm)? then we do the commonwealth (in alphabetical order), then at the bottom "As Prince of Wales" so:
UK, UK (Scotland)
Antigua
Australia
The Bahamas
etc..
Historical:-
As Prince of Wales (1958 - 2022) WiltedXXVI (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My inclination is to simply use an alphabetical list. It's fairer, ultimately. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This topic was previously discussed at Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 33 and the gallery was deleted as unsourced original research per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coats of arms of Elizabeth II. It's undue excessive detail that is not supported by sources. No other encyclopedia would publish a gallery like this in a biography of the king. DrKay (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On that regard, I suggest that the only arms to remain on this page are that of the Prince of Wales, and the UK and UK (Scotland) arms, perhaps we can look into putting the other arms on a more appropriate page in the near future. WiltedXXVI (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue seems to be with unsourced attibutions of arms rather than with a gallery per se. I don't really see an issue with having a gallery of sourced coats of arms, whichever they may be. Singling out the UK arms because they're perceived to be the 'main' ones doesn't seem fair. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Titles and Styles

Could I please gain a consensus on whether or not to implement this edit, which expands the 'Titles and Styles' section.

There is an RfC on a similar topic currently occuring at William, Prince of Wales, but that is not directly relevant to this discussion. Thank you. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously the same topic. And this is at least the third discussion on this topic opened in the last 24 hours, one of which was already shut down as a duplication.[3] DrKay (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding whether an RfC at one article prevents editing on another, my edit includes more than what is covered by the RfC. Including Charles' major titles and his titles as prince of Wales would be acceptable however the section was formatted. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arms and Standards

I think the current 'Arms' and 'Banners, flags, and standards' sections could be combined and reduced considerably. In the future it may be best to remove the sections related to Charles as Prince of Wales entirely, but since he has only just become king I think it's best to keep them for now. I'm aware of the discussion on the coats of arms above, but thought this would be best in its own section. Proposal:

Arms and Standards

As sovereign

Main articles: Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom and Royal Standard of the United Kingdom

[short section on coat of arms informed by discussion above]

The Royal Standard of the United Kingdom is a banner of arms of the royal arms. (needs source, no image necessary)

As Prince of Wales

Main articles: Coat of arms of the Prince of Wales and Royal Badge of Wales
Coat of arms used by Charles as Prince of Wales

The coat of arms devised in 1958 for Charles as Prince of Wales are based on the royal coat of arms, with a label for difference and additional badges and elements which represented the titles the prince held as heir apparent. For example, in the centre beneath the shield is the coat of arms of the Duchy of Cornwall.[1]

Charles used five standards or banners when Prince of Wales. Distinct banners were granted to him for use in Wales, Scotland, and Canada, and Cornwall also had its own standard.[2][3] His personal standard was used elsewhere in the United Kingdom and in Wales, Scotland, and Cornwall in relation to the Armed Forces.[2]

The banners each contained elements relating to the areas they represented. The personal standard for Wales, for example, was based on the Royal Badge of Wales and incorporated the arms of Llywelyn ap Gruffydd.[2]


  • Personal standard
    Personal standard
  • Standard for Wales
    Standard for Wales
  • Standard for Scotland
    Standard for Scotland
  • Standard of the Duchy of Cornwall
    Standard of the Duchy of Cornwall
  • Standard in Canada
    Standard in Canada
  1. ^ "Coat of Arms". web.archive.org. 2016-06-12. Retrieved 2022-09-18.
  2. ^ a b c "Standards". Prince of Wales. Archived from the original on 7 June 2016. Retrieved 31 August 2016.
  3. ^ "The Prince of Wales". Public Register of Arms, Flags and Badges. Office of the Governor General of Canada: Canadian Heraldic Authority. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 4 January 2016.

A.D.Hope (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew

Did I miss the bit where it's pointed out that Charles allowed Andrew to wear a uniform this week? Rutsq (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concise short description is concise 🫅🏼

To keep it short and informative, as it should be, I reworded it into "Sitting UK King". That's all it needs until further notice I think. Thank you and keep up the good work fellow Wikipedians. :) ToniTurunen (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

”Sitting king” is not an idiom used in English. IlkkaP (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional portrayals

Needs a new section on fictional portrayals. S C Cheese (talk) 08:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely needed now Charles is the current reigning monarch. He will no doubt continue to have fictional portrays and depictions now, so a section about these would be a helpful addition to the article. --88.108.44.8 (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should focus on the real Charles and farm his fictional analogues out to another article if appropriate. Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is the most logical approach. --88.108.44.8 (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cultural depictions of Charles III already exists, that would be the place to write in-depth about his fictional portrayals. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_III&oldid=1111159908"