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 436: Line 436:
::::It's a question, not a proposal, which is why it is in the discussion section. You can express your view without being rude. No, he has not metamorphosed but he is a 74 year old man who has aged in the last 5-6 years since his infobox picture was taken. Your dissent is noted. [[User:Cliffmore|Cliffmore]] ([[User talk:Cliffmore|talk]]) 04:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
::::It's a question, not a proposal, which is why it is in the discussion section. You can express your view without being rude. No, he has not metamorphosed but he is a 74 year old man who has aged in the last 5-6 years since his infobox picture was taken. Your dissent is noted. [[User:Cliffmore|Cliffmore]] ([[User talk:Cliffmore|talk]]) 04:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
:Cliffmore, I don't think now is the time for this discussion. Wait until either after the coronation or until the RfC above closes before starting a separate discussion. You could, however, enter your proposed image as a third candidate. Regards, [[User:Tim O'Doherty|Tim O'Doherty]] ([[User talk:Tim O'Doherty|talk]]) 15:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
:Cliffmore, I don't think now is the time for this discussion. Wait until either after the coronation or until the RfC above closes before starting a separate discussion. You could, however, enter your proposed image as a third candidate. Regards, [[User:Tim O'Doherty|Tim O'Doherty]] ([[User talk:Tim O'Doherty|talk]]) 15:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
::It's the eternal-discussion. Short of some sort of self-denying ordinance (an RfC to have no RfCs on this for six months? Or until we get article quality off rock-bottom? crazy, I know...) they'll just keep coming. Adding into the existing one isn't an ''ideal'' option, as then we get into the 'close of "!"voting' issue. Likely it'd involved either extending the period -- like I said, eterna- -- or perhaps slightly less morale-sappingly, {{tl|ping}}ing everyone that'd contributed in favour of either 'A' or 'B' just in case they like this one better. [[Special:Contributions/109.255.211.6|109.255.211.6]] ([[User talk:109.255.211.6|talk]]) 01:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:55, 2 March 2023

Template:Vital article

House of Windsor

Unless King Charles III chooses otherwise (and so far he hasn't), I assume the royal house name will remain Windsor. All the more so, now that the succession is no longer male-preference. Thus avoiding the constant name change, every time a king succeeds a queen-regnant, which is likely to happen more frequently in the UK's future. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sex-neutral succession surely makes no difference because titles continue to pass down in the male line. When Edward VII succeeded Victoria, he did so by virtue of his descent from Victoria; nonetheless, the House of Hanover ceased to reign because Edward belonged to his father's Royal House (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, changed to Windsor). As such, surely Charles III belongs to his father's Royal House?
That's not a straightforward answer itself, though. Prince Philip renounced his Greek and Danish titles, so I'm assuming he no longer belonged to the House of Glücksburg. So what House did he belong to? Perhaps Windsor — not by virtue of his marriage to Elizabeth II but in his own right when he was made a Prince of the United Kingdom ahead of their marriage. (I actually don't know the answer to this.) Vabadus91 (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless we have any reliable sources here, this is speculation with no bearing on the current state of the article. WP:NOTFORUM. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Royals demonstrably belong to the Royal House of their father. To suggest that somehow Charles is an exception is itself speculation. What is unclear (to me) is what House Prince Philip actually belonged to. Vabadus91 (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By birth, Philip belonged to the House of Glücksburg. More specifically the Greek royal family, which was a branch of the house. In 1947, Philip instead adopted the name of the Mountbatten family. Which was his mother's house. Dimadick (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "speculation" that Charles is of the House of Windsor, it's in all reliable sources, if you care to look. The reason is the Royal Proclamations of 1952 and 1960. The talk page isn't for chit-chat. If you have any sources on this subject then suggest them. Otherwise your speculations are irrelevant. See WP:NOTFORUM DeCausa (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Royal Proclamations of 1952 and 1960 relate to the surname that members of the family would use, not the name of the Royal House. If they did somehow include the name of the Royal House, that would mean Charles belongs to the "House of Mountbatten-Windsor" as per the 1960 revision.
It is not unreasonable to question how Charles belongs to the House of Windsor when it is a demonstrable fact that royals belong to the dynastic house of their father, not their mother, hence why Victoria was of the House of Hanover but her son, Edward, was of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Vabadus91 (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Until we hear to the contrary? Charles III is a member of the House of Windsor. But yes, this is the first time a British Isles King succeeding a Queen regnant, kept his mother's royal house name, rather then adopt his father's. Had the latter occurred? it most likely would've been Mountbatten. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But how is he a member of the House of Windsor? Membership of dynastic houses has always been determined by agnatic descent. I cannot find any evidence suggesting that these rules have changed.
Wikipedia's entry of dynasty cites, as an example, the Earl of Snowdon, who is in the line of succession to the British throne through cognatic descent, but is not a member of the House of Windsor because he lacks agnatic descent from it. This situation is identical to that of King Charles, his first cousin.
Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh is described on Wikipedia as having belonged to the "House of Mountbatten". Vabadus91 (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rules? The royal rule is "make the rules up as you go along". The "how" is straightforward: by royal proclamation. We have an adequate, though arguably suspect of being self-serving, primary source for this. Now, if there's criticism of this as being an ad hoc mess that doesn't follow the "correct" rules for traditional European(... ish) houses, we have to source that, and establish whether including such commentary is at all WP:DUE. (My guess would be, "not". It's an over-stuffed article as it is.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vabadus91: I don't make up the rules. Just pointing out that (AFAIK) the royal house/dynasty 'appears to be continuing to use the name "Windsor". GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BTW - British royal family website hasn't been updated, since Elizabeth II's passing. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's right in the 1960 proclamation from Queen Elizabeth II: "I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor [emphasis mine]." Charles is, obviously, one of Elizabeth's children. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the 1952 proclamation. The 1960 one only changed the matter of surnames (and doubled down on the House). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The king hasn't revoked either the 1952 or 1960 proclamations, so they're still in force. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough — mystery solved! Vabadus91 (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except there never was a "mystery". It was just something that you didn't know. DeCausa (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox picture

What about this image for a new infobox picture? Taken a few days after his accession as king. Cliffmore (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not too bad, but I do still prefer the current one. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made a mistake with the images, which are not actually CC compliant.Cliffmore (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, appreciate the clarification. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

  • Option A
    Option A
  • Option B
    Option B

The infobox picture (option A) was decided in September 2022 at Talk:Charles III/Archive 8#infobox picture. In the intervening months a new file has been uploaded to commons (option B). Which picture is preferred for the infobox? Celia Homeford (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AKTC3 (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Strong yes, this has been gone over ten times already. "Someone uploaded a four-year-old image" really isn't the sort of development that should trigger an eleventh. As ominously foreshadowed in several of the comments, it's not like we won't be doing this all again soon anyway. Likely repeatedly. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

King of Canada

trivial artificial controversy going nowhere. If someone thinks there’s a good reason to replace the current wording then an RfC is more appropriate. Dronebogus (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The exclusivity of this article to England smacks of arrogance. Anyone reading it would have no way to know that he is King of Canada in a real and legal sense without looking for the fine print. This should be included in the introduction and info boxes. 216.19.181.213 (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

King of around a dozen other countries, in fact. Both the royalists and the republicans in those countries think that matters. HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"No way to know"? The opening sentence: "is King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms", What do think should be changed? UK, deleted or all 14 realms listed (rather than a click through) or just UK and Canada listed? DeCausa (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List them all, in alphabetical order. The current wording say that his role as King of the United Kingdom is somehow different and more important than all his others. It's not. I know that listing them all might seem clumsy, but I cannot think of another way to avoid some sort of imbalance in our description of him. HiLo48 (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it is more important than being monarch of St Kitts and Nevis (sorry St Kitts and Nevis). That's just reality. Where do you draw the line? The current approach is a practical solution and, like it or not, his UK role is, globally, likely to be the one he is most assocaited with. It's also not a role exercised through a Governor-General, which does make it different. Someone else does what he does in the UK (whatever that is) in those countries. DeCausa (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would probably be a violation of MOS:INTRO and MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's too cumbersome to list all 15, other than in the current footnotes, which are in the introduction (on the first sentence) and (as of now) the infobox. DrKay (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
England? Could have sworn the intro says the United Kingdom. Anyhoo, clearly listing all fifteen Realms in the opening sentence would be ludicrous. It's not really justifiable to say "UK, Canada and 13 others" either. The UK is a different case from the others, invidious though that may be. (Like Harold Mount-Windy, I don't know how people will ever get over their shock that the monarchy isn't constructed on the basis of strict equality.) However, there's a case for them being listed in the introductory section at some point. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This point has been argued over and over for the better part of two decades. The same crew keeps insisting, contrary to the law and numerous statements by lawmakers and constitutional scholars, that the UK is not only different, but special. And so it is that Wikipedia gives the false impression that these monarchs have legitimacy only in Britain and continue to reign as British monarchs in the second class, non-British realms simply because parliamentarians there forgot or can't think of anything better.

I personally don't think listing all the countries is as "ridiculous" as others present it as. I also don't think it's unreasonable to just say Charles is monarch of each of the Commonwealth realms. Some editors will claim that term--"monarch of the Commonwealth realms"--doesn't exist. But, I've proven, with multiple sources, that it does. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So this is what you think the first sentence should look like:

Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948) is King of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and the United Kingdom.

Is that right? DeCausa (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be accurate and balanced. I'd be happy with it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It also has the same effect as "King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. A lot of readers will have no idea what a Commonwealth realm is, nor which places might be Commonwealth realms, and will likely ignore what they see as a piece of trivia in the text, never learning that there are major countries involved. HiLo48 (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Readers can find out more about the other Commonwealth realms, in the footnotes provided by DrKay. PS - Interesting, that the only non-UK Commonwealth realm with Charles III as monarch, that continues to use the "United Kingdom" in its style, is Canada. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I've seen it before; I know what it looks like. As I said, this debate has been going on for most of the last 20 years. And, as I also said, I don't think it's ridiculous. It's just the facts communicated in a way that lines up with other facts; which is what should be primary in Wikipedia, not aesthetics.
However, I've pretty much given up saying what I want in this regard. The American, British, and republican editors, with their own perspectives on the realms' monarchy, collectively outnumber the Australians, Canadians, and New Zealanders, and certainly those from the Caribbean and South Pacific. So, yes, I'm implying I beleive "the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms" is a WP:NPOV violation. But, again, I accept that my opinion doesn't matter. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an Australian republican. I wonder where I fit in? HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the group that eclipses the other group, I guess. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is ridiculous and verging on WP:PA is charcterising those who have a different view to you (or even those with the same view) as by being motivated by either nationality or political opinion, neither of which you can have any idea. DeCausa (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The baseless accusation that I am acting in bad faith is what borders on WP:PA. I wrote nothing about motivations. The word I specifically chose was the passive "perspectives", which people can end up with entirely by accident and entirely unconsciously. Editors have, just as one example, literally used "the monarchy is part of our everyday life here and it's not where you live" as a reason to put the UK in top place. So, I know I'm not off-base saying perspective is a factor in how people reach their conclusions. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weasel words. "Perspectives" is just another word for motivation. You may have "specifically" chosen the word to get in your defence first, but it's clear what you're saying. Not sure what the reference to "by accident and entirely unsconsciously" is supposed to convey. How else do people acquire views, opinions, biases, prejudices, bigotries and ... "perspectives"? DeCausa (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining your personal interpretation of "perspectives". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an NPOV violation. You have had people arguing listing all realms they reigned over is against NPOV here, here, here, here, here, and many others times I'm not interested in hunting for. It's not that your opinion doesn't matter, it's that consensus has consistently ruled against it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say no one said listing all the realms is a NPOV violation. I said my opinion is that "the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms" is a NPOV violation. I stand by that. But, I already quite clearly noted that I am outnumbered; so, I don't know what need there is for reminding me what the (latest) consensus is. Being in the minority does mean what I think is worthless; it's certainly not going to make any difference to the present state of affairs. But, I suppose, if someone were to start yet another RfC on this subject, my opinion might then count for something. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Commonwealth is a group of nations in "common allegiance to the British crown"; not the Antiguan and Barbudan crown, not the Canadian crown, not the Jamaican crown, not the Kiwi crown, the British crown. More than that, we acknowledge right next to "United Kingdom" that Charles is king of these places too. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Utter nonsense. The Commonwealth is NOT a group of nations in "common allegiance to the British crown". HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Readers can find info on the other Commonwealth realms, in the footnotes provided by DrKay. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious as to where that quote comes from. From what I know of the modern Commonwealth, I'd say it is the sort of description that they would actively reject - partly because of the precise question we're discussing here. Kahastok talk 16:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The monarchy's website has that quote but crucially it begins "Until 1949.." Obviously there are republics (and Mozambique!) in the Commonwealth. The Comonwealth and the Comonwealth realms are not the same thing. DeCausa (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"King of the United Kingdom and the 14th other Commonwealth realms" is the best description. Charles is best known as the British monarch, due likely to where he actually resides (the UK & thus no need for a British governor-general), where his coronation will be held (the UK) & quite likely where (the UK) he'll one day be buried. Per WP:WEIGHT, he's best known & most recognised as the British monarch. Not the (for example) "Saint Lucian monarch" or "Bahamas monarch" etc. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That argument fails to address what I posted earlier, so I will repeat it. A lot of readers will have no idea what a Commonwealth realm is, nor which places might be Commonwealth realms, and will likely ignore what they see as a piece of trivia in the text, never learning that there are major countries involved. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has been (over & over again) to go with "...of the United Kingdom and the other # Commonwealth realms". We can't always get what we want on Wikipedia, but that's life. Some RFCs have gone my way on this project, while others haven't. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So your only argument is "You lost, before you even commented here." HiLo48 (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think consensus will go your way, hold an RFC. See what happens. No one is stopping you from doing so. GoodDay is just reminding you that belief that one is right is not always sufficient to get the changes you wish to see. But who knows; write a neutrally-worded RFC proposing a concrete wording change you would like to see happen, and maybe everyone (or enough to act as a consensus) will agree with you. --Jayron32 13:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Were previous RfCs on "this" matter actually about Charles? Or Elizabeth? HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both effectively, as one succeeded the other. GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While their roles are the same, they are different people. Please answer my question. HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did answer your question. If you're refusing to accept the results? that's not my problem. GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leave as is (i.e. King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms). Compusolus (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. You didn't answer my question. Look, I know what I and some others are proposing here is a little bit radical, in an area where conservatism is a core element, and will inevitably lead to some resistance, please keep that resistance rational. Obstinately blocking discussion is simply confrontational. (I now anticipate a response saying that's not what you're doing, and that's to be expected too.)
HiLo48, if you don't like the intro to this BLP? then (as somebody else suggested) open an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that the British monarchy's website, in "The King and the Commonwealth" section, uses the wording, "The King is sovereign of 14 Commonwealth realms in addition to the UK"; obviously putting the other realms first. That perhaps treats the other realms as less of a piece of trivia, to address @HiLo48:'s (valid) concern about they way they're presented in this article (and others). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're choosing to push this argument 'again', then open up an RFC on this BLP. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you perhaps direct me to the discussion wherein you were appointed as the referee of talk pages? That would clarify a lot. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to ask the same of you, concerning refereeing. Anyways, you & I have been (figuratively) at logger-heads over this topic for well over 15-years & (as before) you & I will just go in circles again. So, best to let others pow-wow over the topic-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one telling people where to go and what to do and you're the one who responded to me when I didn't address you. So, if you don't want to engage with me, don't. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My view FWIW remains that “King of the UK and 14 other Commonwealth realms” is appropriate for the body of the article. But, the individual should list each realm separately (as it did quite successfully for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II for many years before someone changed it for no real good reason quite recently), I do like the new fn-1 pop up note there but it really is no compromise for them being listed individually in the infobox. The current arrangement doesn’t properly convey that each crown is held separately and equally and misleadingly implies that the other crowns are somehow subordinate to the crown of the UK. Listing them individually would improve the accuracy of the article Timothy N-F (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox* not individual Timothy N-F (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about a tweak to the wording to make that clearer? Like "is King of the United Kingdom and, separately, each of the fourteen other Commonwealth realms in their own right." Then (maybe as an additional paragraph at the end of the lead section) -- some wording on that listing them all. Oh, and something on his role as head of the commonwealth, clarifying the distinction between that and the CRs. Somehow, being HotC is the most important thing about him after his name and number for the infobox, but isn't worth mentioning at all in the opening text. Those can't both be right. (ProTip: they're in fact both wrong.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Best to leave things the way they are, intro & infobox. As @Dronebogus: pointed out, this topic is just going to go in circles again. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll raise again the example of the British monarchy's website that uses, in the section "The King and the Commonwealth": "The King is Sovereign of 14 Commonwealth realms in addition to the UK."
A possible variation for this article: "Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948) is King of the 15 Commonwealth realms,[fn 1] including the United Kingdom." --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That'd work for me. (Except for the part where '15' is inexplicably used instead of '14'. But slightly quicker edit next time a country leaves the club, admittedly!) Or "most notably", "prominently", or words to that effect. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite explicable. "14 Commonwealth realms in addition to the UK" implies the UK is not a Commonwealth realm, whereas "15 Commonwealth realms, including the UK" makes it clear the UK is a Commonwealth realm. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, "14 Commonwealth realms in addition to the UK" would imply that the UK isn't a Commonwealth realm. The only problem is that the article doesn't say that; it says "the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms", "other" being the operative word. This implies that the UK is in fact a CR. I don't see the problem. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Timothy, we have it as "...of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms", because Charles III was born in the UK, resides in the UK (thus no UK governor-general) & most likely will be buried in the UK. Same as his mother, as she was born in the UK, resided in the UK & is buried in the UK. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, not "we". That is your reasoning. We have it as UK-is-special because that's what the majority voted in favour of the last time it was put to a vote. Not everyone--indeed, few, if I recall correctly--shared your particular view. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're going in circles again (over 15 years), you & I. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That'll tend to happen, if someone raises a new point or suggested edit (however slight) and your response is just "no let's not". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a really big problem, then best to rip the plaster off and hold an RfC either here or on WP:BROY to settle this "issue". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day, if you reread what I wrote, I don’t take issue with the wording “King of the UK and 14 other Commonwealth Realms” in the text. I take issue with them not being individually listed in the infobox as they always were for his mother before some overzealous editor decided to destroy the clarity of her article in the misguided pursuit of brevity. I don’t know how to create an RFC, but if one could be held to determine whether the majority of contributors believe each of his quite seperate monarchies should be listed in his infobox (which of course they should) then I would be pleased it has at least been voted upon Timothy N-F (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Defender of the Faith, & King infobox headers.

It seems that someone has added Defender of the Faith and King to the infobox just below Head of the Commonwealth? I think it's quite strange. It will be reversed for now due to it being unnecessary.

BillClinternet (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but then I rather feel the same about "Head of the Commonwealth". Given utterly WP:UNDUE weight in the infobox, both for readers, and as an eye-magnet for editors who then thing 'great place to add other secondary jobs and titles he has'! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I too am against the addition of "Head of the Commonwealth" in the infobox. But, the RFC on that matter, decided to include it. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When and where was this RfC? I can find nothing in the archive post-kingage (and a fair bit beyond that). If we're treating some previous discussion about his predecessor's infobox as binding here, I'd think it's past time to revisit that. (As a change of pace from discussing portrait images every ten minutes...) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the RFC. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the main RFC, which further cements the consensus. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So, not post-accession, but it did consider Chuck's case specifically, so fair enough. And at least consistent, so I see I have something of an OTHERSTUFF hill to climb on this. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Commonwealth of Nations is a group of 56 countries. England is one constituent part of one country. You're drawing a false equivalence. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... no-one even mentioned England. "King of England" is not one of his titles, contra occasional informal (to be kind -- incorrect, really) description as such. I'm missing how any sort of equivalence was drawn, false or otherwise. Are you seeking to suggest that his HoC role is more important than his fifteen monarchies collectively? I really don't think that's at all plausible. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Defender of the Faith" relates to the Church of England only. (And perhaps Canada; though, here, while "Defender of the Faith" is in Charles' title, it's rather an aside, as there is no state church.) I said nothing about the 15 monarchies. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaah! Thanks, makes more sense in that context. Actually it's in his long-form max-pomposity title in the UK (as a whole, not just England), Canada, and New Zealand. But we have a whole section of the article for such fluff, definitely wildly WP:UNDUE to put in the infobox, I agree. It's too bloaty as it is -- though by far from the worst of Wikipedia's infobox-bloat crimes. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right; I forgot about New Zealand. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, recall that "Defender of the Faith" was originally granted by the Pope -- the Catholic one, for the avoidance of doubt. So it's a little more complicated than his formal role in the CoE. Much less Anglicanism generally, which is its own nest of complexity vipers. For most practical purposes, it's simply a matter of "it's part of his title because we say it's part of his title". (If we say that -- which in twelve cases "we" apparently do not.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see, anywho, HoC will be the only title that is emphasized above his infobox picture. Thank you. BillClinternet (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We at least agree that DotF has no place there, certainly, so we're picking those nits to little purpose. But, per my comments elsewhere, HoC has no business being there either. If nothing else, it'd be an improvement to a) drop that entirely, and b) move the "King of..." text to where that is now. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: List of realms in the infobox

Charles III is king of 14 independent countries in addition to the United Kingdom (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, The Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu, the Solomon Islands, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Lucia, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, and Saint Kitts and Nevis). Should they be listed in the infobox? DrKay (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we did & I'm agreeable with it. Particularly if/when some of the 14 other realms, become republics. GoodDay (talk) 10:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see all or nothing (other than, I assume, the UK) being the options. (The latter is so misleading it's untenable.) The two variations that have been bandied about for years are "mention all the Commonwealth Realms" and "the UK and 14 other Commonwealth Realms". Since reading the wording on the British monarchy's website, I'm now of the mind that the compromise is "Charles III is king of 15 independent countries,[n1] including the United Kingdom" or "Charles III is king of 14 independent countries in addition to the United Kingdom.[n1]" Or something along those lines. It 1) doesn't spell out every Realm, 2) doesn't impose an unverified second class status on the non-British Realms, and 3) avoids use of the term Commonwealth Realm without explanation of what a Commonwealth Realm is. (I now believe, with some basis in my own experience, that most readers probably assume "other Commonwealth Realms" just means all the other member-states of the Commonwealth of Nations.)
As to the infobox: I can't think of anything that's workable other than "King of the United Kingdom and 14 other independent countries", with a drop-down listing them. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 09:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support DrKay's version - As this is about the Infobox, DrKay's (efn) version, suffices, as (unlike his mother), Charles III's reign began in the other Commonwealth realms at the same time. If/when any of the 14 other Commonwealth realms become a republic? Then we can change to the old drop down method, which used to be used in Elizabeth II's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this article is moved from draft space, then use the same method as Elizabeth's article. Otherwise, a footnote is fine - and better than nothing. BilledMammal (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm ok with the present version and I'm ok with DrKay's footnote. A few additional (albeit inconsistent) thoughts. (1) The UK is different and can be justified as beng singled out in this way. It's the only realm where he actually fulfills the role, however ceremonial. In the others it's the Gov-General. (2) But it is somewhat bizarre to have the article on a G7 Head of State (i.e Head of State of Canada) not refer to this status in the opening sentence. (3) It's not strange at all to miss out Tuvalu though. Clearly many of these roles are frankly not significant enough to be in the first sentence. (4) But where to draw the line? Somewhat arbitrarily, I'd be happy to draw it at a population of 1m+ and list the realms up to and including Jamaica and leave the other Carribean Islands and the Pacific islands (other than PNG and NZ) in the footnote. That's a list of 6 - not too bad. But I think there's little chance of that getting traction. (I also missed the RfC on this on E2 so don't know what those arguments threw up). That's my 2p. DeCausa (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong great-lady-goddess-eris no. The infobox is cruft-filled and over-long as it is. Very last thing is we need of a laundry list of fifteen (use the word, dangit, not the bare digits!) items to have it scroll beneath the fold... beneath the fold, beneath the fold. "An infobox is a panel, usually in the top right of an article, next to the lead section [...], that summarizes key features of the page's subject." (my emph). If only. I think a footnote would technically fly by the MOS, but it'd be essentially the same footnote as we already have for the lead section (yes, that can of worms again). The key problem is that we're trying to hint at this at the top of the IB, but can't bring ourselves to actually just say it straight. His primary notability is he's King of the [[Commonwealth realms]]. Say that at the head of the infobox, and not "Head of the Commonwealth". That latter is a tertiary side-gig, and not officially part of his main role: get rid of it. Or "Monarch of", or "Head of state of", Have a footnote as well the link to the CRs article if you want to belt-and-braces it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no such title as "King of the Commonwealth realms", fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, but not really a relevant objection. It's a perfectly accurate description that he is "king" (note sentence case) of each of the "Commonwealth realms". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unacceptable description. PS - I'm not entirely certain as to what it is you're arguing for, btw. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, an entirely accurate and "acceptable" description. Even the official site uses extremely similar wording, as has already been pointed out. I'll be happy to clarify any of the above on specific request. If you really need an executive summary, the most important single take-away is: no to a list of fifteen countries in the infobox. HTH. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The RFC question isn't about changing "King of the United Kingdom" in the infobox. It's about how to show the 14 other Commonwealth realms in the infobox (with a footnote, without a footnote, or drop down form). Again, I don't know what you're arguing for. But as for "King of the Commonwealth realms" bit (which isn't what being asked in this RFC)? you & I are in disagreement. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fully aware of what it's about. I addressed that very specifically in my original comment, and again for your benefit immediately above. I made an additional observation about a clearly related manner. Related exactly because descriptions like "Sovereign of 14 Commonwealth realms in addition to the UK" (to quote the official site), or more concisely "king of 15 Commonwealth realms" (per my suggestion) are a another way of communicating the same information. "We're in disagreement" doesn't seem at all helpful. In fact, we seem to agree that a) it's a description, b) that it's accurate, and c) that you don't like it for some unspecified reason. De gustibus, etc. I'll be happy to help you with any other particular point, but if this is just going to continue on the basis of "still don't like it" indefinitely, some refactoring seems likely to be needed. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to have to let others chime (if they want to) in on what ever it is you're proposing. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no such title as "king of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms', either. So, "there's no such title" is a red herring. "King of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" is a description. So is "king of the Commonwealth Realms", which, as you know, I've proven has been used, numerous times, outside of Wikipedia. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Circles again, between you & I. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have both the options of saying something different and saying nothing at all. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As do you. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. However, when you try to reuse the same false claim you've used dozens of times before, I'm compelled to post the same correction. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not going to drag me into repeating circular arguments with you. We've been over this topic, multiple times over multiple years. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No one needs to drag you into anything. You do it all on your own. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice try. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for illustrating the point. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support listing all fifteen realms in a footnote. Oppose listing them all directly in the infobox, and strongly oppose listing only the largest of the realms, primarily because of the difficulty of drawing a line that is compatible with NPOV and WP:WORLDVIEW. Agreed that the UK warrants being singled out, for historical reasons as well as DeCausa's point about being the only realm in which Charles doesn't delegate to a Governor General. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree that having some of the realms is contrary to WORLDVIEW (cf. UK only?) and especially not NPOV. DUE is part of NPOV and per MOS:LEADREL "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." Leaving out Tuvalu but including Canada is entirely justified by that and to have them all is the NPOV issue. DeCausa (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, DUE allows us to omit things of lesser importance. My point is about the difficulty of deciding where to draw the line. We'd have to determine the relative importance of the realms according to published reliable sources. It's pretty unlikely that we'd find multiple sources all using the same metric to determine that importance. And even if we somehow managed that feat, omitting some of the realms from our list would inevitably be a source of conflict and endless edit wars. Nah, if we list any realms we have to list them all. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we need to lean on sources, though? List of longest-reigning monarchs just stops at 25. List of the most intense tropical cyclones restricts itself to "storms which [sic] reached a minimum central pressure of 920 millibars (27.17 inHg) or less." List of highest mountains on Earth ends at 100. None of them seem to base the limits on any source; where to quit has been determined by Wikipedia editors. Saying "name the Realms with populations over 10,000,000" therefore doesn't seem to be either unreasonable or contrary to any policy. There's always the Good Country Index [3]. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the problem with listing all fifteen in a footnote, which is very much different from the issue of what -- for example -- the lead sentence should say. (Though perhaps somewhat comparable to whether they should be mentioned anywhere in the intro.) It might be a bit of a laundry list -- though it might be a little more structured than that -- but that's not a deal-breaker in that context. I think that an editorial decision to highlight some of them does have WP:WORLDVIEW implications. Given that any partial list is necessarily going to be a subjective exercise, it's hard to make it beyond reproach, pure and innocent as I'm sure DeCausa's motivations actually are. How could we possibly exclude the state providing the most recent Superbowl halftime show! Or whatever other such objection one chooses to construct. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Short answer: no. Because it's not consistent with how the infobox for his predecessor, Elizabeth II, has been set up. If you remember Elizabeth's infobox did list the countries but people believed it to be too space consuming for the infobox alone, so a separate list was created. In Charles's case neither listing them, nor creating a separate list is necessary because the number of the realms has not changed since his ascension. Keivan.fTalk 15:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as part of a footnote, though I would strongly prefer a dropdown/collapsible list (as GoodDay suggested) over a footnote if possible. However, outside of the footnote or list, I would recommend put the UK at the top given that Great Britain is where the British Empire is headquartered. It's important to mention these, but listing them out is not going to be possible as it would severely inflate the infobox. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What British Empire? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad....Commonwealth I mean (just got out of an 19th century history class lol). Charles still does a vast majority of his living and working in the UK. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, but that's the Commonwealth as a whole (the Post-Imperial Support Group, predominantly republics), as distinct from the Commonwealth realms (that Chuck is actually head of state of). The realms don't have a single headquarters as such. If the UK falls into an oceanic trench overnight without a single trace, the Monarchy of Jamaica (let's say) passes to the next available Hanovarian, and the Commonwealth have to meet and decide, "welp, where to put our offices now?", and who to appoint as a new head. The latter not being hereditary -- supposedly. On the "collapsing infobox" idea, I'd support that iff it meant that the default size of the whole thing was... actual infobox-sized. That we keep the current eternal-scrolling right-sidebar of shame and add even more stuff to it gives me the horrors. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hanoverian? You're two dynasties behind. DeCausa (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not for succession-law purposes I'm not. Hanoverian, Saxe-Cobur-Gothic and Windsoresque are equivalent for that (and largely for most other "dynastic" purposes, beyond the self-serving self-id of the "House"), whereas No Stuarts or Tudors Need Apply. 109.255.211.6 (talk)
  • Support as part of a footnote. I would say to follow the example of a list link as done at Elizabeth II, but that link is to a wiki article showing the variation over the 70 years of her reign. Here, a simpler footnote seems more appropriate. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as a dropdown/collapsible list like how Elizabeth II had in this revision. If not, I also would support it in a footnote. I've added a mock up of what it would look like in the article; if it makes this section too cluttered, feel free to remove it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My qualms about cramming ever more bloat into the IB aside, that looks surprisingly unaesthetic. I think the trouble is that it's a long two-line caption -- because of the awkward wording -- combined with that markup flipping the justification from centre- to left-. Having said that, the footnote version is more visually intrusive than I'd have liked too... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the title is off-centre, but I don't think that's too much of a price to pay for the extra information it provides. I tried playing about with centring the title, but obviously it can only centre the bottom line, and that looked worse. Best leave it as is; it was the norm on Elizabeth's page for years. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec, restoring lost comment)A (much) shorter caption would help the visuals, but then we're having that argument all over again. Unless you can split the [show]off from it entirely, or it into two parts... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - This is my preference, but the most important thing is that each reign is listed in the infobox somehow Timothy N-F (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Charles III
Head of the Commonwealth
Photograph of Charles III
Charles as Prince of Wales, 2017
Reign8 September 2022 – present
PredecessorElizabeth II
Heir apparentWilliam, Prince of Wales
This would be my second choice (see above), but I won't protest much, if this 'drop down' version is adopted. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The drop down version looks good when using computers, but it makes the whole thing bloated when you view the page on your mobile, which is why it ended up being removed from his mother's article as well. Keivan.fTalk 05:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had forgotten why it was removed. DrKay's footnotes is the best solution, it seems. GoodDay (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that the browser version looks good (FHD 14" screen here), but to be fair GoodDay's tweaks did slightly improve it from time of my comment above. But if the only options that are "!"electorally viable within the system are a) a footnote, b) the dropdown, or c) neither (just the current caption text and links), I'd favour the first of the three. Makes sense to have a common footnote between the IB and the lede, and looks slightly better too. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The version presented in this preview down the bottom of the page is in my view the only acceptable option. Anything which doesn’t set out each of the 15 realms individually in the infobox suggests false priority to the crown of the UK over the other crowns. Each are held separately, and losing them all individually in the infobox as suggested here makes the article most accurate. This infobox layout should also be reinstated for Elizabeth II’s page, although that isn’t a discussion for here. I’m not totally sure the dates for each reign are necessary, but I don’t object to them either Timothy N-F (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reign dates are probably in there for "consistency" with the very few comparable other such articles, and future-proofing for when they successively republicanise. I'd omit as intrusively redundant. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from your implying that it is inevitable that all of the Commonwealth Realms will eventually fall to the folly of republicanism, far from a forgone conclusion, I agree. I'm not really opposed to dates being included or omitted, but short of another realm deciding to abandon the Crown within his reign, I don't think they're really necessary Timothy N-F (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For reference I browse Wikipedia almost exclusively on my mobile, and it is not in fact cumbersome, particularly if it’s collapsible Timothy N-F (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Browsing on mobile might have the side-effect of leading to you not notice how wildly oversized it is in its browser-layout form. And maybe even makes more sense in that presentation: "I didn't get the essential info from the lead I was supposed to, but here comes the oversized infobox that has all the info that section omitted." But still very much at variance with the style guide, and how the hierarchy of information and structure is supposed to work. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although I almost exclusively browse on the mobile, I have done so on the computer too and I must disagree in the strongest possible terms. Although a large infobox, it is not oversized or out of place (particularly since it's collapsible). Further, the infobox is the most logical place for this information. His Majesty is rather unusual amongst subjects of Wikipedia articles in that he holds not 1, but 15 distinct and equally noteworthy roles. He is no more (or more importantly) the King of the United Kingdom than he is the King of Australia or Grenada, he is king of each equally and quite independently. Listing his position in the infobox as King of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth Realms implies that his substantive position is "King of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms", which although technically true on some level, is really only one fifteenth of the whole truth since this is only his title in the UK. Worse still this can erroneously imply that somehow he's king of the other Commonwealth Realms because he's King of the United Kingdom, or that these realms are somehow subservient to the UK, none of which is true, he holds all 15 offices entirely independently from each other. I'm not opposed to the information being made more clearer in the opening paragraph, but it simply must be displayed in the infobox Timothy N-F (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC is about restoring DrKay's footnote in the infobox or not. It's not about changing "King of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", to something else. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know, my point is that because of the way that title is used, clarity is lost if the collapsible list of all his crowns is not included Timothy N-F (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional summary paragraph for lead section

OK, this is related to admittedly familiar ground on this talkpage, but stay with me! The article is, IMO, significantly under-summarised. There's 2 1/2 paragraphs in the lead section for what is a looooooong article. There's a summary-of-the-summary first para (great), a second on 'early life' (excellent), a third on him as PoW (suberb!) and-- waitwhat, we're done already? Tangentially, I have to assume that people who think "that's a perfectly normal and optimally sized infobox!" will agree with me that the intro is badly undersized, as "next to the lead section" has somehow turned into "actually next to most of the following section too".

Specifically, I suggest we add a (for now necessarily rather short) paragraph on his tenure in the "what I like to call the Top Job". A sentence on his events of becoming king and choice of regnal name, a sentence on the upcoming coronation, and that brings us up to date and about wraps it up. But! This would also be an opportune place to mention... the complete list of places he's presently kinging. All fifteen. Organised by population size, by creation date, alphabetically, regionally, or by previous status -- whatever you're having yourself. I don't think it's excessive to do so in that context. And it's implicit in the whole accession concept: those are the Platonic concepts zinging into him at the Speed of Monarchy. Severally, rather than jointly. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slight tumbleweed on this so far, but here's a draft for such a suggested extra paragraph:-
Becoming king immediately on the death of his predecessor, Charles also inherited the separate thrones of the other Commonwealth realms. These fifteen independent countries are the UK itself, the large former dominions of Canada and Australia, and New Zealand, the Pacific islands of Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and Tuvulu, and in the Caribbean, the former colonies of Jamaica, the Bahamas, Belize, Saint Lucia, Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. After brief speculation that he might choose a different regnal name, it was announced he would indeed reign as Charles III. Though already king, he has not yet been ceremonially crowned; in due course it was announced that his coronation would take place on May 6, 2023."
And make good on any other parts of the article that might imply changes to. Thoughts? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A better write up (if a new paragraph is required) would be something like - "Becoming king upon the death of his mother, he chose to reign as Charles III, after brief speculation about another name. His coronation is scheduled to take place on May 6, 2023 in London, United Kingdom" - We don't need to list the 14 other Commonwealth realms (which would be a sea of blue), as DrKay already has them in a footnote in the lead. GoodDay (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first "sentence" is not a sentence. The second sentence is too long, poorly composed and gets two names wrong (Tuvula? Barbudai?). The third sentence is trivial and undue. The fourth sentence is too wordy. DrKay (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, every sentence is unnecessary and unsuitable for the lead. DeCausa (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DrKay, Jeepers, it wasn't a "please c'n'p this wholesale without proofing" request. Sleepy typos edited. Second sentence would probably be better split, sure, I'm open to suggestions. A shorter 3rd and 4th sentences, perhaps condensing them into one, would be fine and dandy with me. @GoodDay, I very much disagree about the realms. If someone is primarily -- to a good first approximation solely, when you factor in the ex officios -- notable for being king of various places, literally not mentioning almost of those places in the body the text is terrible structuring. (OK, this isn't news, it's a broad-spectrum terrible article, but in theory we're trying to improve it, not just ThisIsFine.jpg our way through the dumpster fire.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
109.255.211.6, I think it would be ideal to have a paragraph on his accession and reign. I would take issue with listing all of the realms in the paragraph, per aforementioned concerns about WP:SEAOFBLUE and the fact that lead section needs to be concise. As you are aware, there is an RfC going on about putting all of the realms in the infobox, which would solve that issue. I would suggest the following edits of the paragraph:
"Charles inherited the throne of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms upon the death of his mother on September 8, 2022. After brief speculation that he might choose a different regnal name, it was announced he would reign as Charles III. His coronation will take place on May 6, 2023."
It provides all of the same information but has been condensed. It could still do with some tidying, but I think it's a good start. Regards, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, and thanks especially for being a relative ray of positivity in doing so! I'd certainly take your suggestion over the status quo, as it addresses at least one of the key concerns (structural and timeline completeness), and nudges us towards something fuller, which clearly we're going to eventually have in time. Perhaps after we've exhausted every revert-to-the-status-quo alternative, but eventually! I forget to address the SEAOFBLUE point above my bad. Simplest fix is to do as my draft para does: don't them them at all. Several of the countries would certainly consider themselves "major examples", and I don't think in this context linking is at all essential. "A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from." You don't need to link each one to understand the key point there, i.e. this is a list of nominally co-equal and separate countries/monarchies. I'm supportive of both the existing footnote and adding the same to the IB, but I do not think it's a satisfactory substitute. Lead sections should really work as stand-alone mini-articles, and this is, IMO, clearly in the category of "if you only were able to say four paragraphs of things about this topic, what would they be?"
I will, however, put to you a middle case, swiped from @DeCausa's IB suggestion. A partial list of countries, with the "long tail" linked to the "... other Commonwealth realms". Either their suggestion of doing it strictly by population, e.g. the minor size cliff after Jamaica; or adapting my geographically structured text above, but snipping off the West Indian fragments as "... Jamaica and several smaller other Commonwealth realms in the Caribbean", or some such phrasing. Any more tolerable? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Charles III has been king for just under six months, at least wait a full year. Also, DrKay already has a footnote in the intro, so we don't need to list out the 14 other Commonwealth realms entirely or partially. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty:'s version is acceptable. It conforms with the page's intro & the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction already says he became king of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms on the death of his mother on 8 September 2022. This seems to be a repeat, though his mother could come out of the first paragraph and 'the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms' doesn't need to be repeated in the final paragraph. The brief speculation about his regnal name happened over 15 years ago and wasn't really much more than trivia then. I don't think it deserves to be in the introduction. I agree with adding a sentence on the coronation. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree this might call for slight refactors elsewhere, such as in the opening para. The point of the final para is to expand on info that's not essential (and is too long) for the opening one, but is still of "top four paras" importance. Like y'now, someone primary notable entirely for kinging and prepping for that, where does he actually king. The regnal name thing was definitely still a live issue post-accession. It wasn't until the PM blurted in out at the #10 podium that it was considered in any way confirmed, and even then there was a element of "was that just a) Liz Truss Liz Trussing, or is that actually b) factually correct, and c) the correct protocol?" And will certainly be robustly sourceable as such. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there were legitimate regnal name issues, even here on Wikipedia. I'm sure we all remember the "Charles III" to "Charles, King of the United Kingdom" to "Charles III" back to "Charles, King of the United Kingdom" and then finally "Charles III" page moves on September 8th. I think the regnal name sentence is a legitimate one to have, as he reigns as Charles III. We only got conformation when the once-in-a-premiership event of Liz "Lightnin'" Truss getting a fact right occurred and the editing community could breathe a sigh of relief. So, should we include that "trivia"? I think so. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, I remember it well! The usual Battle of the Palantirs. It's IMO not essential, but it's a logical part of the "how to get to be monarch" timeline. Predecessor dies (or abdicates, etc), you think up a regnal name, accession council, you're proclaimed, etc, eventually you're crowned. Just a matter of editorial judgement how much detail to include, or how compressed to make that. For example one might include the circumstance of the announcement, but not the prior speculation. Or vice versa, or both... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it because only the speculation from 2005 is in the article body, so the few minutes of speculation in 2022, if it occurred, is not cited. Even if citable, I still doubt that a few minutes of idle and trivial speculation that turned out to be wrong should be put in the introductory summary of a life of 74 years. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the 2005 speculation (Charles III or George VII) is the more important to note. As for 2022? not overly unique or a big deal, as there was speculation in 1952 about his mother's name at her accession & so on. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I think as of now, there is a vague consensus to include the post-accession paragraph. I'll add it now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed it down, to avoid as much repetition as possible of the info already in the lead & infobox. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the paragraph is as good as it can be at the moment. It has just enough detail without too much repetition.
"Charles inherited the throne upon the death of his mother on 8 September 2022. It was announced he would reign as Charles III despite speculation that he might choose a different regnal name. His coronation will take place on 6 May 2023."
Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The date and the fact that he succeeded his mother are already covered in the first paragraph almost verbatim. So I've removed those. The paragraph is OK without, even if it's a bit short. I agree we don't need to mention 2005 in particular though, I recall "George VII" speculation throughout my life, and indeed in the hours after the Queen's death when they discussed it on the BBC etc.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that singling out 2005 should be removed as it implies that that was the only time there was speculation. I think that we should have a passing mention of the Queen's death, as the first paragraph in the lead should be able to stand alone (the first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it.) and should be expanded on in the other paragraphs. I said that the longer version could do with tidying and I think that's been done now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: Please don't remove the bulk of the paragraph. It was discussed here and consensus is to include it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus on what "it" is. DrKay, Amakuru and Surtsicna all removed parts of your paragraph (quite rightly in my view in each case). The current single sentence on the coronation is probably the best reflection of what most agree on. Leave it at that. DeCausa (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't what "most" agree on. Amakuru is in favour of keeping the parts on the regnal name speculation. I think we should include it all. You think it should all be excluded bar the coronation sentence. DrKay wants the exclusion of the paragraph entirely. The formula that makes the least people unhappy is to have a briefer version of the paragraph put forward on the 25th. I am willing to compromise, and so should we all be; we can't all stick to what we want because they are all completely opposing views. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim, thanks for that. The longest journey, etc, etc. @GoodDay, the 2005 stuff is entirely off-topic here. This is about the period of his reign for the purposes of the lead. @Celia, very clearly it occurred, very clearly it was more than "a few minutes", very clearly it's citable. We'd an entire afternoon of this stuff, wall-to-wall coverage in every conceivable medium. (Actually seemed like longer -- I had to check it wasn't the following day, but that's likely my confusing the talk that we in theory should have had to wait until the Accession Council and Proclamation, but instead it was just blurted out at a Downing Street presser.) Here for example is an Indi subhead: "Prime Minister Liz Truss made the announcement outside Downing Street, rather than it being revealed at the Accession Council as is tradition." As I say I'm intensely relaxed as to whether we mention the speculation per se, but I think there's a chronological logic to mention "becoming king" and "regnal name announced". (It's sorta the two main parts of the job description: existing, and having a name to be emblazoned on things. Everything else is fairly optional.) There's not a great deal more to say about his reign to date, but saying nothing at all here isn't very logical. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would favour the somewhat slimmed down version that we had yesterday, but still mentioning the speculation about his name:

When Charles acceded to the throne, it was announced he would reign as Charles III despite speculation that he might choose a different regnal name. His coronation will take place on 6 May 2023.

In the absence of other significant detail to include about his reign so far, this is at least relevant and of interest. Note that the "speculation" was far from limited to 2005. I have added cites to the article suggesting other names from 1958, 1981, 1987, 2000 and 2018, as well as noting that such speculation existed in the few hours before we knew the name.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I remain unimpressed. Le Monde claiming that George VI's first name was Alexander is sloppy at best and the other sources are equally bad. DrKay (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's also trivia - why does it matter enough for the lead (especially as it's not even mentioned in the article)? MOS:INTRO DeCausa (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was Charles reborn when he became king?

Why does the infobox caption have to underline what Charles's title was when the photograph was taken? Is there really a mystical aura of monarchy that is supposed to be visible in a photograph? Surtsicna (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I wouldn't bother showing the date. His appearance hasn't changed much since the time of the image-in-question & it didn't immediately change, when he became king. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What would the lead caption be then? "Charles", or "Charles as Prince of Wales"? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need a caption, really. But if we do? "Charles" or "Charles III", will do. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna: I don't see the issue. Edward VIII has this format. You say it's because he reigned as a 42 year old and is 25 in the photo, yet in your edit summary you said "If anyone cares about whether he is a prince or a king in the photograph, they can deduce it from the year in the caption and the reign dates right below". Surely this applies to Edward VIII as well. Again, Edward V's caption says he was Prince of Wales at the time the image was produced; he wouldn't have looked much different if the manuscript was made when he was king either, yet you haven't taken image with that caption either.
What harm does it do to have "as Prince of Wales"? It is true, informative, and consistent. There is no problem. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's currently correct and unambiguous, which is kind of what we strive for.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Third that. I mean, this thread is sort of arguing this is like an article showing a doctor before their doctorate, with a caption stating such, is akin saying they were “reborn” after becoming a doctor. It gives me a wp:GREATWRONGS vibe, like not giving monarchs their proper contemporary titles is supposed to somehow bring them down a notch. (I’m even a small-r republican and I’m saying this) Dronebogus (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be just as ludicrous for a doctor's biography to have an infobox caption stating "Smith as an MSc, 2020". Surtsicna (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just so. Unless it's a very old photo of a living person, or shows some very contextually perplexing pic ("Victoria Smith (brain surgeon)"; "Smith in 1968 during her earlier career as a rocket scientist") there's absolutely no need for this in any article, and in the face of infobox bloat -- unfortunately not particular to this or other 'royal' articles! -- should be a prime candidate for the chop. If they weren't removed before that. I'm struggling to see the "great wrongs" at issue here. Just a poor-quality article on a supposedly Top Importance article that we're trying to improve, by agonisingly slow inches and in the face of constant setbacks. So a pretty petty wrong, outside of wikicircles. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this infobox is overly, excessively long. There are far worse ones on other articles, e.g. George VI, Gordon Brown, Geoffrey Howe, etc. That's just how infoboxes are on prominent figures, I'm afraid. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will you be in favor of the caption saying "Charles as king" if a good-quality post-accession photograph becomes available? Surtsicna (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, because people aren’t going to be confused by that. Dronebogus (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And what about having a pre-accession photo of Charles do you think people might find confusing? Surtsicna (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, because he is the king now. He is not the Prince of Wales. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does it matter what title he had when the photograph was taken? Does he look different now that he is king? Is he another entity? Surtsicna (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was the Prince of Wales, regardless of if he "looks different" or not. He isn't another entity either. In any case, this image is most likely a temporary one. In May, we will probably get one of him as king which can be titled "Charles in 2023". For now, I say we keep the image caption the same (unless the RfC above changes the image, in which case it will be "Charles as Prince of Wales, 2019). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You did not answer: why is it essential to note in the caption what title he held when the camera snapped? Surtsicna (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again I find myself agreeing strongly with @GoodDay. It doesn't need a caption at all. What's the current caption conveying? His name, check, but I think we already got that. His then title. ("Metaphysical majesty: not shown.") And the date. All of this fails the "needs to be in an infobox" test, and fails it extra-hard when the infobox in question is already grotesquely over-long. The extra narrative would be fine in in-line pictures, but not here. Strong preference for caption: "". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the caption is useless, but this "as Prince of Wales" thing makes it silly too. Surtsicna (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on both points, jointly and severally. But I'm hoping to recruit some fans of getting rid of useless captions, to support the fans of getting rid of silly ones. BTW, this caption, I should warn you to brace yourself to hear, is furthermore being used on other pages by way of an 'WP:OTHERSTUFF, so we should have a silly caption here, too!' argument. And I use the term "argument"... quite incorrectly. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we can be grateful at least that the caption at Prince George of Wales does not say "George as Prince George of Cambridge in 2021" (ditto for siblings); not yet at least. Surtsicna (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Prince George of Cambridge" is not a fixed title. The monarch doesn't go around saying to family members "I appoint you [NAME], Prince George of Cambridge". They do go around saying "I appoint you [NAME], Prince of Wales". As far as I know, there's no Richard, Prince George of Cambridge, or Edward, Prince George of Cambridge, or even a James, Prince George of Cambridge. Curious that. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right. And what about prince of Wales being a "fixed title" makes it essential to include in the caption? Curious too that we have Camilla, Queen Consort and yet no "Camilla as Duchess of Cornwall, 2018" sort of caption.Surtsicna (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim, you're conflating two different things there. There's substantive vs. courtesy titles on the one hand, and inherited titles vs new creations on the other. And neither are... of any relevance whatsoever! Unless you're advancing your own rule, novel to wikipedia and unclear to me even at this point what you might intend they be, on which titles have these mystical auras that require a caption, and which do not. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advancing any "rule", but if people are going to try to create inconsistencies within Wikipedia, with contradictory reasoning as to why when it should be left alone (and has been for over 5 months), then they have to expect pushback. As I have said, those pushing for the removal of "Prince of Wales" in the image caption have been thus far unbothered by Edwards V and VIII's image captions, which use the same format. In fact, calling for a purge of "useless" image captions would mean stripping pretty much every single lead image caption on Wikipedia. That's a huge change, and seems to me to be more like "advancing own rules" than anything I've said here. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly this. The article talks about a bloke called Charles III, whereas the guy in the pic was not called that at the time. The OP may wish to use dramatic rhetoric saying that this implies he has been "reborn", but the reality is that such titles, particularly when referring to a monarch, matter. And it's standard practice both on Wikipedia and elsewhere, and helps clarify things for readers.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, maybe apply a modicum of WP:AGF. People aren't "trying to create inconsistencies within Wikipedia" (I couldn't do that, I'm much too late), they're trying to get rid of captions that read weirdly, that further bloat already infoboxes, and that provide no useful information whatsoever. Clearly that's not every single caption in WP: I've already proposed a standard above, and it's a lot more consistent and applicable than your "fixed title" theory. Amakuru, it's a bloke called Charles, before and after. Titles aren't names, and even if they were, a trivial name-change doesn't necessarily need an over-wordy narrative caption either. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I know the point of this proposal isn't to intentionally create inconsistencies, but it does create inconsistency regardless. The most glaring ones I can think of are the aforementioned Edward V and Edward VIII, whose image captions both use "as Prince of Wales" as a quick way to tell the reader that this was before their accession. That alone would be enough to oppose it because having Charles as an exception doesn't make sense. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we prioritize consistency with the biographies of his granduncle and a 15th-century boy over consistency with the biographies of his wife, son, and grandchildren? As noted earlier, we do not have a "Camilla as duchess" caption. Charles is already an exception among his immediate family. The year ("2018") already tells the reader that the photo was taken before his accession. Is that so essential to underline that the reader has to be told twice in one caption? Surtsicna (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Picture as King

  • King in 2022
    King in 2022

Thoughts on new infobox picture such as this with Charles as King? Cliffmore (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion above regarding two competing pictures already underway. IMHO, this is a candid photo taken extemporaneously, certainly of lower quality than either of the two official posed portraits currently under discussion. --Jayron32 17:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a discussion but it's a discussion that has occurred multiple times over the two same images, taken before Charles was king. Something to consider. Cliffmore (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but either or both of the images is better than the one you proposed, for the reason I just told you. --Jayron32 18:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does it matter whether the picture was taken before or after he became king? Did he metamorphose? Surtsicna (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a question, not a proposal, which is why it is in the discussion section. You can express your view without being rude. No, he has not metamorphosed but he is a 74 year old man who has aged in the last 5-6 years since his infobox picture was taken. Your dissent is noted. Cliffmore (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cliffmore, I don't think now is the time for this discussion. Wait until either after the coronation or until the RfC above closes before starting a separate discussion. You could, however, enter your proposed image as a third candidate. Regards, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the eternal-discussion. Short of some sort of self-denying ordinance (an RfC to have no RfCs on this for six months? Or until we get article quality off rock-bottom? crazy, I know...) they'll just keep coming. Adding into the existing one isn't an ideal option, as then we get into the 'close of "!"voting' issue. Likely it'd involved either extending the period -- like I said, eterna- -- or perhaps slightly less morale-sappingly, {{ping}}ing everyone that'd contributed in favour of either 'A' or 'B' just in case they like this one better. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_III&oldid=1142376456"