Talk:Charles III

Archives

This talk page has been archived:

• Archive 01: 2002
• Archive 02: 2003
• Archive 03: 2004
• Archive 04: 2005
• - DBD^R 11:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  Archive 05: 2006

Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg

When Prince Charles becomes king, will he be from the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, or Windsor?

• Probably the House of Windsor. It is however within the Royal Prerogative to decide the royal house name, so he could call it whatever he likes I guess. Astrotrain 16:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The article Mountbatten-Windsor may be of help, whether that will be used as a surname only or also the name of the house, I don't know. NoSeptember ^talk 18:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I think technically he would be of the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, however, it is very very unlikely that he would change the house name to this. It will most likely remain the House of Windsor, although there is a small chance he would change it to House of Mountbatten-Windsor or House of Mountbatten. Mac Domhnaill 22:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure your 'technically' is correct. Prince Philip renounced his status within the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg prior to his marriage to The Princess Elizabeth. Bbombbardier 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No he didn't. Prince Philip allegedly renounced his titles of prince of Greece and prince of Denmark, however, there are no provisions in either of those royal families to renounce such titles. All of Elizabeth II and Philip's agnatic descendants are members of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sønderburg-Glücksburg, a sub-house of the House of Oldenburg. That exists as a fact in that all male-line descendants of a male member of the House of Oldenburg are members of the house themselves, by definition of what such a house is. It is an association by blood. The name they use itself is what differs. Charles 06:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No more "His Royal Highness" at start of article

I've seen His Royal Highness taken out from the start of the article. Is there any reason why is that so? Also, I reverted a user's edit on Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh regarding this issue. --Terence Ong 09:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Got it, after seeing WP:MoS is not to add the royal title into the article itself. --Terence Ong 10:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless the MoS has changed again it doesn't say that at all. It says no to styles in the inline but that they can be mentioned in the article.Alci12 12:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Princely title question

I was just wondering, if Prince Charles was made Prince Regent (as George IV was), does this outrank his title of Prince of Wales? Similarly, if a prince becomes Prince Regent does his wife become Princess Regent or does she stay Princess of Wales? It must be odd styling TRH The Prince Regent & The Princess of Wales, or would it be TRH The Prince Regent, Prince of Wales & The Princess of Wales?

Finally, when Charles accedes the throne, it is intended that Camilla use the title "Princess Consort". But what if she were to outlive him and William succeed? Would she be known as "The Dowager Princess Consort"? Isn't that a bit odd since there would not be any future Princess Consort to succeed her?

Yes, he would be styled "His Royal Highness The Prince Regent" (and George IV was styled that before becoming George IV). As it's an office, however, no new style would attach to his wife, so they would indeed be "The Prince Regent and The Princess of Wales". There isn't really an answer to your second question, as the situation has never arisen before. However, it seems rather unlikely it ever will — this silly "Princess Consort" nonsense will be forgotten long before Charles becomes King. Proteus (Talk) 22:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

POV edits

User:Cardiff has made series of POV edits to a number of prominent articles involving Wales. Ther are a number of anonymous edits that follow the same pattern. These edits typically remove lots of 'Welsh' information. See the history of Prince Harry of Wales, Cardiff, Prince of Wales and Saint David's Day. See als Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Principality of Wales.

I am reverting his edits here (which also removed Welsh references). I will re-integrate subsequent edits. All comments are welcome. Econrad 23:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Choice of car

How can he be so obsessed with the enviornment when he owns a range rover, hardly a very green car?

I think that if he were to travel in an off-the-shelf Ford Popular it would create an unacceptable security risk. Viewfinder 14:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps...

A general opinion of Prince Charles? Easy for Henry- everyone thinks he's a good-for-nothing, but I'd also like to know about the kind of person the impending monarch is considered to be. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.185.248 (talk • contribs)

Unsourced comments like "everyone thinks (Henry)'s good for nothing" are unkind, in this case POV, and not appropriate. Viewfinder 04:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

.....................................................

Well said! Thinking someone else, Royal or not, to be "a good for nothing" takes only a little more effort than breathing.

I am impressed by this man's many charitable pursuits and interests that seem to reveal a great deal of kind-heartedness.

If people want to judge Prince Charles solely on a failed marriage then we'll have to judge a near majority of the modern world. Although I'm not British, it seems that the carniverous British press has blinded us to this man's many fine qualities in favor of a rather lobotomized fixation on one divorce.

I doubt many journalists would stand up to the same scrutiny in their personal lives.

Phil

Sean7phil 00:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

00:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Royal Succession in the Commonwealth Realms

It has been suugested in the Monarchy in Canada article that, should Prince Charles survive his mother and accede to the British throne, he would not become King of Canada until being proclaimed the new Sovereign by the Canadian Privy Council. Is that interpretation correct ? Along the same line of questioning, could Canada or any other Commonwealth realm appoint anyone other than Charles as their next King following the Queen's demise ? 161.24.19.82 19:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Where and how is such a thing suggested? The Queen's Privy Council for Canada should proclaim Charles as King of Canada, but the proclamation bears no effect on the actual acession, which will take place automatically upon the Queen's death, according to law. The proclamation is simply an announcement of what has already taken place. --gbambino 15:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The Valet Incident

Whoever keeps deleting my post, please stop. Just because the valet incident is a negative press for Prince Charles doesn't mean it needs to be censored.

Your edits are incorrect and unreferenced. Nothing more than allegations were reported in the media. The allegations were by witnesses insufficiently reliable to make the alleged incident sufficiently verifiable to be included in Wikipedia. Viewfinder 04:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am going to repost this for the following reasons:

1) First of all, sex is always a private matter. We cannot expect to find a large number of "reliable" witness. 2) Newspaper all over the world reported this. You just can't censor it because you don't like it. Remember, the goal of Wikipedia is not to cleanse history. 3) I had references and the wordings were clear. (I never said it was proved... see #1)

Contrary to what you have written on Wikipedia, the media did not report that he engaged in a homosexual act. They reported that it had been alleged that he had engaged in a homosexual act. That is not the same. The witnesses do not meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability, so I will delete your untrue statements again and continue to delete them as often as is necessary. See WP:V and in particular the section on biographies of living persons. Viewfinder 06:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewfinder is correct. No way could that edit be left in this article. It stated as fact a universally discredited claim. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 15:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone like Charles will always be subject to such claims- I remember one Italian newspaper reporting on the size of his manhood a few years ago- agree with Viewfinder and Jtdirl. Astrotrain 21:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

All very well but why no mention of Burrell anywhere in the article?burrell scandal

Infobox titles

In the Prince of Wales list of titles in the infobox, it does not give his title in Scotland. Is this for reasons of space or some other? -Acjelen 14:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the usage notes for the infobox, it states common titles, as in a list of what he's been referred to (correctly) as throughout his life. Do you think we ought to include Rothesay in (practically) every Price of Wales' box? My thinking was that it is noted later on in the article that that title is used in Scotland... // DBD 10:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The Two Wives of the Prince of Wales

"The Prince is also well known for his high-profile marriages to the late Lady Diana Spencer and, subsequently, to Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall." Why is his first wife called by her maiden name, while his second wife is called by her married name? And surely "high profile" is a piece of shallow journalese - how could the heir to the throne have a "low profile" marriage? (Perhaps there are low-profile marriages we don't know about?) Adam 01:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why this is the case but I'm assuming the reason is because the late Diana, Princess of Wales's posthumous title would be Lady Diana Spencer just as Victoria Mary of Teck (consort of George V) is not referred to as Queen Mary. In the article she would be referred to as Diana, Princess of Wales as that was the title she held immediately prior to her death. Camilla's title I might add is wrong, as she is alive at present she should accorded either the title HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, The Duchess of Cornwall or HRH Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall. HRH The Duchess of Cornwall is not now nor has she ever been Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall just as HRH Sophie, the Countess of Wessex has never been Sophie, Countess of Wessex as they are not divorced. As a result, I'm making the appropriate changes.

As I understand the process of bands and common reference to persons who marry, it is normal to refer to them by their titles and names at the moment before they marry. Thus referring to Lady Diana Spencer would be correct in this case, however I question the requirement of referring to her as "the late". Similarly Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles would be an appropriate way of referring to the Prince's wife in this context. With regard to titles and severance of relations, Lady Spencer lost her title of HRH upon her divorce. However she was unusually permitted to keep the title Princess of Wales due to public scrutiny under the condition that it would eventually be conferred on any future spouse of Prince Charles. With regard to Queen Mary, it is in my understanding that she did not loose her title of Queen upon her husbands death. The difference is that she was not "The" Queen. This is similar to the late HRH Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother prior to her death. Later references to Princess Camilla's styling as Duchess of Cornwall is a matter of interpretation. She would have inherited the precedence and associated titles of her husband Prince Charles upon her marriage. She did not hold any such title prior to this point. The main reason behind her not officially being known as the Princess of Wales is due to the obvious outcry such an action would cause with regard to Princess Diana. Of course there are plenty of opinions as to accession of titles. It is a unique problem which remains to be solved. Stuart Harland 15:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The offer of the Romanian throne

The pertinent fragment in Tom Gallagher's article about this amazing offer reads in English as follows: "And if, utopically speaking, His Royal Highness had decided to give up waiting for his mother to pass away, had learned Romanian, and had accepted the invitation to become the head of a state he had fallen in love with - see his repeated visits and gestures of protection extended to a patrimony oftentimes endangered - perhaps he would have ended up proving himself to be the best sovereign Romania had since Carol I." To paraphrase, Gallagher says that it is an utopia for Prince Charles to accept the offer to become sovereign of Romania, not that the offer is utopic. There is no adjective next to the noun "invitation" such as "presumed" or "hypothetical" to put the offer in doubt. So the offer existed. The "utopical" pertained to "if he had accepted" it. The acceptance of such an amazing invitation is clearly a utopia, for it would be very unlikely for Charles to desert his duties towards the British Kingdom, albeit a beautiful utopia as the author further explains. Who made the offer is, indeed, not clear from the article. However, we can safely presume republicans cannot support such an offer. Therefore, logically, it could have come only from the Romanian monarchists, the only ones interested in preserving the ideal of a Romanian Monarchy alive. This report is extremely credible, even beyond doubt, as Tom Gallagher is an avowed monarchist who has written in support of the Monarchy and of King Michael of Romania, and an extremely well-reputed expert in Romanian politics and history (see, for instance, the Encyclopaedia Britannica entries on Romania signed by him). MihutM 22:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahem,I read Romanian,and I maintain that this "AMAZING" shock! Horror!offer TO TAKE UP THE INVITATION TO BECOME HEAD OF STATE OF A LAND HE LOVES!!! is purely hypothetical / speculation, written by Professor Gallagher in a totally different context than the one you are trying to force into the article. It is not a "report" as you would wish it to be. The offer for PoW to take up the Romanian throne did not exist, does not exist. Search for it anywhere you like, you will not find it.

Next: Why should anyone be content with your attempt to paraphrase Prof. Gallagher in order to prove your point? That is not good enough. Provide another source if you are so sure. Then your claim will be stronger, and may be considered good enough for inclusion in an Encyclopedia. For now what you wish to insert is your construction, not reality. In this case I too can speculate: one possibility could be: Gallagher was writing rapidly to deadline and was not careful enough to use his normally precise prose and an ambiguity resulted. Another:bad translation. Etc, Etc.

Similarly, we cannot "safely" presume anything from what Gallagher has written in this article. What sort of rigorous criteria are you using? You invoke logic. Very well, it may also be logical that, "logically", King Michael (rather than some nameless monarchists) may been the one to have proffered this "invitation" to his cousin Charles to accept the Romanian Throne and asked him to become the sovereign of Romania upon his(Michael's) death. The permutations are endless. That is why this speculation has no place in this encyclopedia. Stick to reliable, verifiable etc, sources as per Wikipedia source policies.

Lovellester 21:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's just stick with Gallagher's text. According to it, "utopically speaking" "if he [Prince Charles] had accepted the invitation" to take the Romanian throne, he would have perhaps become the best king since Carol I. The utopia pertains to the acceptance, not the invitation. There is no doubt about the existance of an invitation for somebody who understands basic grammar. I agree, though, that the rest of my edit about who made the offer and for what reasons, is speculative in nature. I have therefore taken it out, although the use of logic would not warrant such an action. MihutM 03:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is absurd. The whole affair should only be mentioned if we can find a source that actually describes it, rather than one which simply refers to it indirectly, as though it is something well known. john k 11:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

For this matter, also see Talk:Michael I of Romania. -- Jao 12:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not absurd at all. According to Wikipedia editing rules Wikipedia:Reliable sources, an edit requires a "reliable published source," not that the edit itself be the absolute truth. We will never know for sure the absolute reality about such an offer, but the fact that somebody so reputable and such an expert in Romanian politics and history mentions the invitation in a "reliable published source" as the third largest Romanian daily, certainly passes Wikipedia's standards for acceptable editing. MihutM 16:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you deliberately missing the point that Lovellester, john k, Iapethus and I are making? Nobody has questioned the reliability of the source. If the article said that Charles had been offered the Romanian throne, there would be no dispute. The problem is that the article, according to your own translation, says no such thing. "[If he] had accepted the invitation ..." does simply not imply "[if he] had accepted the invitation, which has been offered ...", it can just as well refer to a hypothetical invitation. The mere fact that it is not marked as hypothetical means nothing and cannot be made a premise of a logical argument. I would say that you might have mistranslated the text if it weren't for the fact that Lovellester and Iapethus both claim to have investigated the original and found that your translation is correct, which can only mean that your conclusion is incorrect. That, of course, does not necessarily mean that Charles was not offered the throne, but you will have to find another source to say that he was (and by whom). -- Jao 19:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe MihutM is correct in his/her claims. "If he had accepted the invitation" doesn't mean at all there was no invitation. In fact, the definite article "the" makes the invitation quite concrete, a fact, unlike the indefinite article "a/an", which makes the noun less clear, more doubtful. Had the material talked about "an invitation," then yes, I would have agreed with you that it is more likely a hypothetical one. The Google results for "if he had accepted an invitation" are only two out of the billions of materials on the web, both of which speak only of hypothetical invitations. By contrast, the Google results for "if he had accepted the invitation" speak only of actual existing invitations, not of hypothetical ones. Carbunar 21:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The wish to"Stick with Gallagher's text" is not so simple. Do we have this original Gallagher text? No we do not . We have a translation. "Sticking to Gallagher's text" means using the original text in English, not RL's translation subsequently back-translated into English from the Romanian. MihutM and Carbunar must obtain the original English text first. Then we can see what interpretations are possible.

I maintain that the context in which Gallagher's sentence is placed is totally different from the one that Carbunar and MihutM are trying to force into the article. Gallagher's text is not a "report". The so-called "offer" for the PoW to take up the Romanian throne DOES NOT EXIST. There is no firm, verifiable, reliable, existing, proof/article/text/anywhere. Keep searching for it everywhere, it is not to be found. Perfhaps Prof Gallagher was having fun,trying to prove a point or just trying to make a theoretical point, or tired or in a hurry, anyway it is sure that he was he was speculating not "reporting".

Provide another source, reinforce your claim. Write to Professor Gallagher. Then your speculations may be considered good enough for inclusion in an Encyclopedia. For now what you wish to insert is just an interpretation, not reality, not verifiable, reliable or anything like acceptable by Wikipedia. Lovellester 22:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no need for an "original" English version of Gallagher's article as he writes and speaks fluently in Romanian. Secondly, Wikipedia does not require multiple sources for an edit. A single "verifiable, reliable, published source" is enough. If you wish to include your POV about how there was no such offer, please, quote a source. Thirdly, you are clearly a native Romanian since you claim you read in Romanian and since your English has some subtle idiosyncracies of a non-native speaker. Therefore, you should pay more attention to the rules of the English grammar above mentioned, which you do not seem to grasp. You will then perhaps have the decency to stop forcing your erroneous understanding of English (and Romanian, for that matter) onto what is clearly "the invitation to become the head of state" of Romania made to Prince Charles. Carbunar 22:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If there was an invitation, you all should be able to find a source which refers to it directly rather than obliquely. If you can source the thing, I don't think anybody would have a problem. Although I will note that there is no Romanian throne to be offered to anybody. There is a Romanian pretendership, and this is all that "Romanian monarchists" (specifically: whatever percentage of Romanian monarchists acting in opposition to the current head of the Royal House) have to offer. john k 22:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's unreasonable to expect to find a direct refference to such a highly sensitive offer, for a number of reasons. The offer could not have been but unofficial, since Romania is a Republic and to speak openly about the restoration of Monarchy would have offended a number of political actors, first and foremost the current president of Romania Traian Basescu, who is an avowed Republican. Secondly, the current Royal House of Romania would have also been offended. Princess Margarita continues to entertain hopes fueled by her overly ambitious husband, of one day becoming the first reigning Queen of Romania. Since Prince Charles is a very good childhood friend of hers, he would never ever allow such an insult to Margarita's sensitivities to happen through a direct open statement on the issue "leaked" to the press. Thirdly, the British Monarchy would be negatively impacted by any hint of Charles' even remotely considering deserting his duties towards his nation as heir to the Crown. So there are multiple and very serious reasons why such a highly sensitive offer cannot be talked about in a direct manner. The indirect way Gallagher so wisely chose to use does not, however, cast any doubt at all over the offer itself -- "utopical" pertains only to its acceptance, while the grammar, as Carbunar well pointed out, strengthens the definite concrete character of the invitation. MihutM 01:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not need to possess a perfect grasp of the english language in order to see a politically motivated edit. The Gallagher text says "the invitation". Just leave it at that. There is no mention of WHO made the offer, WHY is was made, WHEN it was made and certainly nothing about any Romanians' reaction, disillusioned or hopeful or otherwise.Lovellester 07:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. If this is to be mentioned, someone needs to find an actual, direct reference to it, not some kind of oblique obscurity. I agree that Gallagher's grammar suggests that he is saying that some sort of offer occurred. But, sorry, that just isn't sufficient. We need an actual source that says it directly. It is a very strange story, and very strange stories need real sources. john k 11:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Everybody is entitled to a POV, but no POV can be edited into an article without sources. I, Sir, beg to differ with your POV: no, it is not "ridiculous." Your saying this proves you are unfamiliar with the role of royals and of the Monarchy as an institution. I can add another reason to the above list as to why you are unreasonable to expect more direct references: the royals never interfere in issues of domestic politics, as they must always stay above it. It is then even more stringent that royals should not publicly interfere in the politics of a foreign country, hence the lack of a more direct statement on the offer. Also, you already have a source about the offer that meets Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia does not require such explicitness as you demand, nor multiple sources for an edit: a single "verifiable, reliable, published source" suffices and you already have it. If you want to redefine Wikipedia rules, I would suggest you write to its moderators/administrators. Carbunar 18:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, slowly: we need a source that actually describes the supposed offer, and explains it in context. It needs to say when it happened, who made the offer, and what the result was. If we cannot do that, this material cannot go into the article, because your interpretation of Mr. Gallagher's syntax does not comprise a reliable source. Even if your interpretation of Mr. Gallagher's syntax is correct, that is still not a reliable source, because he is only referring to the supposed offer in passing, and is not describing it. If this happened, you should be able to find a real source. Please do so, or it's not going in. john k 19:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

For all those who understand basic English grammar, there is no doubt that the offer existed. You yourself incline in this direction. Plus, there is a source proving this offer, which meets the Wikipedia standards for acceptable editing. You are confused as to what "reliable" pertains to: it pertains only to the source (newspaper, book, etc.) of the edit, not to the contents of the edit. The edit must come from a reliable source, but the contents do not have to be exact or the absolute truth itself: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." (Wikipedia:Verifiability) So your own POV regarding the exactness standards for an edit (who, when, where, why, etc.) are not mandated at all by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Therefore, any future edit based on this POV of yours will be immediately reported as vandalism. Just FYI: this is not the first time such an offer was made, which supports the credibility of the claim (although I don't have to prove this by Wikipedia rules). The Czech monarchists have made a similar offer to Prince Charles in the past (sources 1 (in French), 2 and 3 (in Romanian)). Have a good day! MihutM 20:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I am having a lovely day, thank you MihutM.

The offer may well have existed, so Gallagher's precise text can stay in,thus readers can make up there own minds. But OUT goes the assertion that the offer was made by "Romanian monarchists" (not in Gallagher's text) ,and that the POW "reportedly turned down" the offer. No mention of that in Gallagher's piece, nor any other reports anywhere.Lovellester 17:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If we can't substantiate the very hypothetical wording of the Gallagher article, the material should not be included, as it is not notable or (really) confirmed. Carbunar, however, has added a reference to a Romanian newspaper. Could someone who reads Romanian provide some kind of rough translation, or at least a paraphrase, of what this article says? john k 17:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Gladly. Here is a translation of the second source -- the largest Romanian daily: "It is said that Prince Charles had been offered the Romanian Crown unofficially by the Romanian monarchists, an offer which was turned down, affirms between the lines of a controversial article Tom Gallagher, an expert in the politics and history of Romania. Tom Gallagher is known for his monarchist views and his respect for King Michael." Carbunar 17:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Libertatea is the best sold Romanian tabloid.

I come to a similar translation as Carbunar, but I would like you, Carbunar, to translate very precisely the conditional " i-ar fi fost oferita" (the romanian throne) for us. I can check tomorrow with an expert translator, but this sentence could also read :"It is said that Prince Charles may have been offered,unofficially, the Romanian throne by romanian monarchists......".

Secondly, I need help with the sentence" unui articol controversat analistul britanic Tom Gallagher": is it the article that is controversial, or is Gallagher? No need to give grammar lessons, just a straight answer, thanks. Lovellester 17:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...so Libertatea is not actually making the claim independently of Gallagher. I'm still feeling this is a bit odd. Gallagher writes about this offer as though it is something well known. But yet the only sources we can find on the subject are his own oblique reference, and a discussion of that oblique reference by a Romanian newspaper which seems to feel that Gallagher's remark is the first time anyone's heard of the business. This is still a very indirectly sourced material. I would suggest saying something along these lines, if the information must be included: "The writer Tom Gallagher has even suggested that Prince Charles has been offered the Romanian crown unofficially by Romanian monarchists, but turned it down." Or, anyway, something like that. john k 18:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Libertatea is just using Gallagher's sentence. It is indeed very odd and certainly not a well known/notorious incident. I have made an edit-slightly tortuous- yours would be ok without the reference to "romanian monarchists". WHO made the offer, WHEN? WHERE? and WHAT did it consist of. Those are the reports we need. Following the logic of those who want to extrapolate from the sentence, we could say that Romanian gypsies offered the throne to Prince Charles (making a case out of the Libertatea article that POW has bought a house in a village with a majority of RRoma inhabitants and that they are happy with this). Or that King Michael offered him the throne as POW and Michael are close, Prince Charles likes Romania and Princess Margareta is a woman and cannot inherit the throne as the 1923 former royal constitution upholds salic law,so Michael is trying to ensure a chance for the monarchy's return etc, etc. Absurd indeed. We should eliminate all speculation and stick to what was actually said. Lovellester 19:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi , I sent first a message to Stefanp's user page to say that , I had some correspondence with Professor Gallagher since end August, and I got the text of the article in english meantime. I was quite amazed he answered me (2 times). He is a great guy -superior intellect obvously, but a bit vague through decency i think and refuses to be drawn in. He said no offer that he knows of was made to prince Charles to accept the Romanian throne, Prof was just talking "hypothetically" in the article he published, which was about quite another subject. I was sort of disappointed as the idea was really interesting.

Here are Professor gallaghers words, from his first email to me of 23 august:

Sujet Re: Romania - King and Prince Charles Afficher l'en-tête

Expéditeur T.G.Gallagher@.........uk

Date Mer, 23 Août 2006, 10:11

Dear Mr Perlier,

I'm glad that you've been having rewarding times during your visit to Romania. it is a multi-layered country and it is only rarely that some of its finer aspects get the treatment they deserve in the world's media.(...)

I had a look at wikipedia and couldn't find the reference to my recent article in which i alluded to an invitation to Prince Charles to come and fill any monarchical vacancy in Romania. (...) maybe I didn't look at the particular sentence with the reference to Prince Charles closely enough. It was a detour from the main point in the article and I was just saying that if there was a vacancy and a call came, he might want to consider accepting it.

all good wishes,

Yours Sincerely,

Tom Gallagher

Second email 3 days ago:

Sujet Re: Romania - King and Prince Charles Afficher l'en-tête

Expéditeur:T.G.Gallagher@........uk Date : Sam, 28 Octobre 2006, 18:38 Priorité: Normale

Dear Ian Perlier,

Thank you for your absorbing message. (....) As for the main point of your letter: sorry to disappoint you, but I am reluctant to get further involved.As you know, I didn't call for Prince Charles to become a contender for the Romanian throne, I just floated it as a hypothesis. Perhaps it was inevitable that royal bloggers from different camps in Romania would choose to argue that I had done the first. But my words stand for themselves in the newspaper and you have managed to find the translation, due to your tenacity.

What I say or don't say from now on about the subject will make little difference to how it is treated and I am reluctant to plunge into wikipedia armed with a denial. It was a very rare intervention by me on the royal question and I don't have strong views on the matter, except perhaps that in certain specific circumstances a royal restoration could end an injustice and prove beneficial for the future development of Romania.

Best wishes,

Tom Gallagher

So there was no offer, Prof G would have confirmed it. i guess this counts as a primary source ? So not valid on wikipedia? Interesting for us all anyway, and so editors can remove speculation and stick to the published text only.It has been a cool experience for me in any case.Iapethus 19:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

While we shouldn't source his comments and include them in the article, as that would be OR, there is not rule saying we can't use Gallagher's words as a basis to remove the claim, apparently disproved, that Gallagher was writing that the Prince of Wales had been offered the Romanian throne. I would suggest that we remove the whole business. john k 01:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oka i agree with you, it is not serious to keep in that stuff, it is irresponsible to try and twist out of Prof's words that this thing happened.Iapethus 13:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Private emails do not meet at all the Wikipedia standards for Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:Reliable sources. And understandably so: anybody can forge such emails to further his/her agenda. Therefore, all edits based on these so-called emails will be reverted. Any such further edits will then be immediately reported as vandalisms. MihutM 19:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That's rich! Your edits do not meet Wikipedia standards or policy on verifiability either. Extrapolation and speculation are not allowed.

You know perfectly well that what you are trying to force into the article is bollocks. So Iapethus got some primary source info which illuminates the issue for those editors who have no political agenda in this case - I am personally now quite clear on the matter - why should anyone "forge" emails here. We do not care, we want a good encyclopedia article and no more than that. There was no offer of the Romanian throne to POW, there is NOTHING. Zilch - capisci? You can only go round and round and on and on with all sorts of speculations,but no facts apart from the word "THE" sunk in a hypothetical context in an article about something quite different than sterile debates about a non-existant throne. No other sources apart from Libertatea, which entry looks like it was taken from your own edit of Wikipedia - self-fulfilling prophecy, methinks. However, I have made an edit sticking to the facts - perhaps Iapethus should have waited until removing the whole lot.Lovellester 21:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comments and speculations are completely beside the point: no private emails can be used to edit any Wikipedia article. MihutM's sources, on the other hand, do meet the Wikipedia standards for editing. Now, we can debate as to how to better paraphrase them in the respective edits, but there is no question whatsoever that Mihutm's sources are reliable, verifiable, and published. Carbunar 21:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Carbunar, glad you are here as now you can answer an earlier query of mine: I asked you above to translate very precisely the conditional " i-ar fi fost oferita" (the romanian throne) for us. Secondly, I need help with the sentence" unui articol controversat analistul britanic Tom Gallagher": is it the article that is controversial, or is Gallagher? No need to give grammar lessons, just a straight answer, thanks. Lovellester 22:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Lovellester. Please, see my earlier translation. I stand by it 100%. Carbunar 22:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Carbunar, I am really sorry, but there is so much on this issue, or possibly I have a problem, but it is relly difficult to identify which earlier translation you refer to. Can you just paste it here. ThanksLovellester 23:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Gladly. "It is said that Prince Charles had been offered the Romanian Crown unofficially by the Romanian monarchists, an offer which was turned down, affirms between the lines of a controversial article Tom Gallagher, an expert in the politics and history of Romania. Tom Gallagher is known for his monarchist views and his respect for King Michael." Carbunar 23:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Fiona Watson?

The "Romantic interests" category lists Fiona Watson, a Penthouse model, and has a link. However, the link is to a slain UN worker who appears to be a different person. (Her external biography lists no hint of modelling or Charles, which is understandable, but she also was born in 1968 which would seem to make her too young for His Royal Highness.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.255.55.40 (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

I saw that and thought the same thing. A quick Google search showed that he was at least rumored to be with a Fiona Watson who modeled for Penthouse, and that there is also Fiona Watson who worked for the UN. I think the easiest solution would be to delete the link to the UN-worker article, no? I'm doing it. Vter4life 06:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Interests" should include gardening

The list of topics under "Interests" should include gardening and specifically, organic gardening. rich 10:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Source? – DBD does... 11:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The Prince of Wales is the quite knowledgeable co-author (with Charles Clover, environment editor of The Daily Telegraph) of Highgrove: An Experiment in Organic Gardening and Farming, published in 1993 by Simon & Schuster, ISBN 0-671-79177-X.

I added it to the article in mid-October 2006 (diff here). A recent registrant at the time, I did not know about watchlists, and learned only today that it had subsequently been removed by someone else. The article would benefit from a Publications section as well, as the Highgrove book is not his only authorship or coauthorship. Athænara ✉ 09:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Prince of Wales's Institute of Architecture

Spelling Wales's, as opposed to Wales or Wales', per government website.[1] Stubble 16:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Navy

"From February 1976 until December 1976 he served in the Royal Navy". Later, the article says he was in the RN for 5 years, 1971 to 1976. Which is correct? GrahamBould 10:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Royal Air Force rank

The Prince's official website states that he is currently Air Chief Marshal (as well as Admiral and General). In Jeremy Paxman's On Royalty, which I looked at a few days ago, I think he says that the Prince's most recent promotions were to the ranks of Vice-Admiral and Marshal of the Royal Air Force (no mention of Lt-General). His most recent promotions were on 14 November 2006, after Paxman's book came out, so obviously he refers to the promotions of 14 November 2002, which were indeed to Vice-Admiral, but also to Lt-Gen and Air Marshal, not Marshal of the RAF. The Paxman version struck me as strange at the time (why Marshal of the RAF but not Admiral of the Fleet and Field Marshal?) Paxman mentions the detail of how proud the Queen was to sign the document promoting her eldest son to these ranks. Assuming I have not misread his words, is it the case that Paxman made a mistake; that he doesn't know the difference between an Air Marshal and a Marshal of the Royal Air Force? It seems to be so. I wonder if anybody else has picked up on this.

In 'Walking Backwards', The Guardian 23 November 1998 Roy Hattersley correctly described the Prince of Wales as a Rear-Admiral and Major-General, but incorrectly described him as an Air Marshal: at the time of writing he was an Air Vice-Marshal. I find Lord Hattersley easier to forgive: just imagine what Paxman would say if a University Challenge competitor had made the same mistake.--Oxonian2006 10:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible he's not familiar with the ranks of the RAF and assumes "Air Marshal" is a contraction of "Marshal of the Royal Air Force". Obviously doesn't stop it being a mistake, though... Proteus (Talk) 11:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Photo

I don't know how to change it, but someone seems to have put some grafitti on the photo.... Guineveretoo 12:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Princely bibliography

I've been working on a bibliography of the books of which Charles, Prince of Wales is author, co-author, illustratrator, designer, narrator, or for which he has written the foreword, introduction or preface. It's a list of about three dozen, and it may not be complete, but I'm nearly done with what I have here.

As it is, it's about four screenloads in length, which is not terribly long, but the main article is terribly long, so I'm wondering where to put it. Any ideas, anyone? — Athænara ✉ 10:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography of Charles, Prince of Wales? ^† DBD 12:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, excellent suggestion. Done. — Æ. ✉ 04:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

King George?

I once heard that when Charles becomes king, he will not be called King Charles as this is bad luck. Instead, he will be King George. Has anyone else heard this? Rogwan 21:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Try reading the article. ^† DBD 21:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

My bad! Rogwan 21:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Apostrophes

Ok, so it's a small point, but I can't let miscorrections pass. As the wiki article says, possessives of nouns in s depend largely on pronunciation. By way of quick poll, I want to know, who here says, in the case of "Clarence House is the Prince of Wales'(s) official residence":

• Wailziz
• Wailz

^† DBD 11:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think most people say Wailziz, I know the BBC does. [2] Also, The Prince of Wales's own home page uses the form "Wales's" rather than "Wales'" MrMarmite 22:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not a matter of being "correct" or "incorrect". This is a matter of style; any given publication adopts a manual of style and sticks to it. Some style guides recommend rules which take pronunciation into account, and others don't. Neither is more "correct" than the other. The CMS would recommend "Wales's". - Nunh-huh 22:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Heir Apparent of sixtenn nations?

According to the Commonwealth of Nations article, Charles would only succeed automatically to the British throne. The 15 other Commonwealth nations would have their governments confirm him seperately. Charles would be tecnically 'Heir Presumptive' of the 15 other realms. GoodDay 22:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what Heir Presumptive means. Heir Presumptive means that there is a possibility that someone can be born who would move you down a step in the line of succession. It doesn't have anything to do with confirmation or acclaimation or anything other than birth order. Heir apparent means that no one can be born to displace you from 1st place in the succession, so it's the right term. - Nunh-huh 23:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I do understand what 'Heir-Presumptive' means. What I meant was, on the day the Queen dies, Charles automatically becomes King (assuming he's alive & hasn't renounced the succession). The 15 other nations could (theoretically) reject his succession & choose another (say Prince William), though unlikely. GoodDay 00:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that has nothing to do with "Heir Presumptive". - Nunh-huh 00:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand, PS- check out heated current debate at Elizabeth II. GoodDay 00:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Lots of arguing, but mostly about politics rather than anything actually in articles :) - Nunh-huh 00:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is the mention of his real name?

And the fact that he is mostly German? Xavier cougat 17:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Charles' real name is Charles Philip Arthur George. It isn't necessary to note that The Prince's ancestry is "mostly German". His nationality is British and he is a member of the British royal family. Charles 18:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

His citizenship is British. He's also a subject of the Canadian Sovereign, making him a member of the Canadian Royal Family as well. But, regardless, his ancestry is not "mostly German," his descent is also Greek, Scottish, English, Danish, Dutch, and more. --G2bambino 19:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I saw the family tree and I think it should state what the nationality of his ancestors are. He certainly is not English or British. Xavier cougat 20:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We're all African when you get down to it. Doops | talk 20:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That is not helping. That is just saracasm. The point is for many years I thought the familiy was British and they are not. And they changed their names. In the Charleton Heston article his original name is mentioned very early. Why is this hidden for these people? Xavier cougat 21:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The name was changed to Windsor long before Charles was born. His name has never been changed. --G2bambino 21:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is that he and his mother are not British. And it is noteable that Windsor was just a name that was made up. I think that is notable about him and his mother. Xavier cougat 21:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

But they are British, alongside being a whole slew of other nationalities. As well, everyone's name was made up at some point. Who cares if the current dynastic House of the Commonwealth Realms changed theirs nearly a century ago? All that info's covered at House of Windsor anyway. --G2bambino 21:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

They have little British in them. And I was shocked when I first found out about how they try to hide their ancestry. And that they did not pay taxes. Seem like the article is a white wash. Xavier cougat 21:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)