Talk:Charles III

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Newbiepedian (talk | contribs) at 20:10, 8 September 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

RfC on infobox image

Proposed image
Proposed image (another rotation)

I found this image of Charles in 2021 (pretty recent) and its in good quality. Would this be a good candidate for the infobox image? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. DrKay (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good, I see no problem with it. Векочел (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the same image, but with a better, in my opinion, rotation (here it does not look too "rotated"). Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect year of death listed (2005)

Following the car crash in 1997 2600:1004:B005:8670:417A:8A64:8C3A:4D1 (talk) 08:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly which sentence(s) do you mean? Have you misread? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bin Laden family donation

I can assure everyone I am NOT a fan of the royal family, but for the life of me I cannot see what relevance the Bin Laden family donation has here. It wasn't a donation to Charles. He wasn't involved in accepting it. And I cannot see what's wrong with the donation anyway. It didn't come from Osama. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48, Doesn't this logic apply to the incident involving Lord Brownlow? After all, Charles was not directly involved in that one either. The only time that he actually got cash directly from someone was the one involving the Qatari prime minister, and that was for his charitable fund, not his personal pocket. And he has vehemently denied any involvement in the cash-for-honours allegations, for which Michael Fawcett was held responsible. Since all these issues are already covered in detail at The Prince's Foundation and The Prince of Wales's Charitable Fund, shouldn't we just remove them altogether and leave a summary of these events behind? Links to the sections with more details can be provided accordingly. Keivan.fTalk 22:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually went ahead with the changes. Other users are welcome to comment and give their opinions. Keivan.fTalk 23:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When he becomes King

I assume when Charles becomes King, we'll use Elizabeth II's current intro & infobox, as a basis for his BLP. In other words we'll be using in the intro "...King of the United Kingdom and # other Commonwealth realms..." & in the infobox "King of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" (with the collapsed list mechanism). Mentioning this now, so we can avoid any disputes, when he becomes King. GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The man is 73-years-old. At this point, it seems questionable whether he will live long enough to succeed to the throne. Dimadick (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In 2022, the average life expectancy in the UK is 81.65 years. Charles turns 74 in November 2022. That said, his mother is currently 96. Her mother died at age 101, and Charles' father died two months before his 100th birthday. Sampajanna (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The figure you actually need to be using is not current life expectancy for everyone, but the life expectancy for people already aged 73. It will be higher. And yes, what we know about his parents and grandparents counts for a lot. HiLo48 (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This didn't age well... Ocemccool (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He is 23 years younger than Elizabeth II. HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was guidance made public last year and reported here. "At 10 a.m. on the day after the queen’s death, the Accession Council — which includes senior government figures — meets at St. James’ Palace to proclaim King Charles the new sovereign.... The proclamation will then be read at St. James’ Palace and the Royal Exchange in the City of London, confirming Charles as king." According to this report (which may or may not be reliable), he "will have the opportunity to pick a new name for himself once he assumes power as the monarch... [He] actually has two options available; he can take the traditional route to his "regnal title," and become King Charles III. However, if he doesn’t go the traditional route, he may adopt a new kingly name. His full name is Charles Philip Arthur George, which means that as King, Charles can adopt any of the names in the full title. In this regard, he could choose to become King George VII or King Philip...". Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
" His full name is Charles Philip Arthur George, which means that as King, Charles can adopt any of the names in the full title. In this regard, he could choose to become King George VII or King Philip...""
Really? They went with "King George" and "King Philip" as examples when they could've led with King Arthur?! 2A02:2121:289:93CA:B933:2356:2AB8:BD04 (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I say stick with "Charles, King of the United Kingdom" until Reliable sources confirms whether or not Charles will use that name. Gust Justice (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that this is a sensitive situation, but one issue we need to address is what we call the article. There may be a short interval between him becoming monarch and official confirmation of his new title. He might become Charles III or George VII, what do we call him before we know for sure? PatGallacher (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To complicate matters, do we describe him as "of the United Kingdom"? There are only a couple of George VII's, both rather obscure, but there are a pile of Charles III's, including an important king of Spain. PatGallacher (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If he sticks with the name Charles? We'll simply 'rename' the disambiguation page as Charles III (disambiguation) & give the British monarch the article title Charles III. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His page should only be called "Charles III" if he is more likely to be the subject sought than all other Charles IIIs combined. That might be the case, but it's debatable. The other Charles IIIs include a King of Spain, a King of Hungary, and a Holy Roman Emperor. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's certain he will be the Charles III most saught on the English Wikipedia at least - I am not sure if any of the other Charles IIIs are living monarchs in existing monarchies, but the media interest in his forthcoming coronation will be massive. Of course he could decide not to have Charles as his regnal name, which would alter all of this. The Land (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the monarch can pick any regnal name, the current article title seems like the only appropriate compromise in the circumstances. That will change in the coming hours or days, when we find out what name he has picked. But for now, we can't use a crystal ball to try and guess what the name will be. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

King Charles

This page is about to get a lot of action as death of EII confirmed. Reliable sources already using "king" as is custom. Cameron Scott (talk) Cameron Scott (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Watching BBC, they affirm that Charles is king, but do not say what his regnal name is. --Zimbabweed (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there was no coronation yet, is he the King? This renaming seems a bit premature. - JD 37.191.3.150 (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He has become King - there cannot be a gap between monarchs. He doesn't need to be crowned for that to happen. The Land (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but he could simply choose not ascend. He is 73 after all. The continuity might simple become Elisbath II -> William without a gap.Tvx1 17:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. He can't "simply choose not to ascend". Charles became king at the moment of his mother's death. He has already ascended. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Royal Family's Twitter account referred to him as the King. KateBergerMpls (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I've named the article "Charles, King of the United Kingdom" for now, given that no announcement has been made about what regnal name he will use. We can move to Charles III or George VII or whatever else, as and when.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is the case. Thanks for doing that. The Land (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru It sounds awkward, but it works as an interim measure until his name is announced. Alphaboi867 (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They haven’t even announced his assencion yet. He might decide not to, given his age.Tvx1 17:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for an announcement, it happens automatically. He is already King. The Land (talk) The Land (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should read some wikipedia articles on the monarchy, you clearly have no clue how the succession works 142.165.62.112 (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this as interim title. the wub "?!" 17:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"he could simply choose not ascend" I don't think that is so; he is king as of now. He could (but probably won't) abdicate. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BBC confirmed he’s Charles III https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59135132 GamerKlim9716 (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles III

Charles the 3rd should not be on this page. He has not officially chosen his name yet. It's a bit premature. 166.182.250.222 (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There has been much speculation that he might choose George (becoming George VII). He may choose James as an homage to the scots in an attempt to scupper the independence movement (becoming James VIII), or possibly Phillip after his father (becoming Phillip II). 86.181.0.154 (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed not to rename. For information: The BBC commentator mentioned that it is expected that Charles would choose "Charles" as his regnal name. SmilingBoy (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. His regnal name has not been announced and may very well not be Charles. LiamE (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, he could as example decide to rule as a King Arthur. - JD 37.191.3.150 (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be King Arthur II. 86.181.0.154 (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it would be Arthur I. King Arthur is a mythical/legendary figure from English and Welsh folklore, and who may not have existed historically. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Wait for whether they announce it. Should he be known as Charles III, the name would be switched accordingly. Gust Justice (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. He has not been named Charles the third, and so it is inappropriate to use that. It is currently (and incorrectly) in the box to the right. Difbobatl (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it because, that, now he is King, we are not allowed to say just "Charles III" HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, he hasn’t even ascended to the throne yet.Tvx1 17:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He has. The monarch acedes to the throne as soon as the previous one dies. Gust Justice (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You keep repeating this without actually reading the responses. You're wrong, just like the last 4 times you stated this. 92.34.103.45 (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Charles became King the very moment his mother died. It has always been this way. The official proclamation is “The queen has died. Long live the King”. 86.181.0.154 (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. His regnal name has not been chosen and while his accession is immediate, it should remain as Charles until a name is chosen. MLHuntley (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Prime Minister just called him King Charles III. SmilingBoy (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed. It’s Charles III BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Liz Truss said it in her tribute/announcement in Downing Street. 77.100.215.194 (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can still afford to wait until the official proclamation.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Charles III has just been announced as the regnal name on BBC.Tvx1 18:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They also noted that Charles's own statement did not include what his title will be suggesting they're just interpreting as they go. It would be very odd for confirmation to be made via Downing Street. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's been no official announcement as far as I know. While Liz Truss did say it, it is not out of the realm of possibility for that to have been a gaffe. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What? Why? HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should wait for official proclamation, and revert to Charles for now. Eccekevin (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm... until the officialization we might not put Charles III a his regal name 18:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

BBC announced that his regnal name is Charles III PulksteņRādis (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The BBC has confirmed he will be known as Charles III. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for confirmation from the Palace. Charles's own statement notably did not give the title he will take and it's doubtful this would be deliberately announced at the end of a Downing Street statement. This may just be the speechwriter assuming. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC doesn’t have that power. We should wait for official confirmation. Eccekevin (talk)
The PM said Charles III in her statement, Charles' own statement did not have a name included. Rmhermen (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The prime minister said it on tv just now. The PM would have checked this with the Palace before making that speech, and the BBC is reporting it. Richard75 (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assumption on your part. LT would be a classic "unreliable primary source" in this case, but we can certainly say that the BBC has reported that the PM has "revealed" this. IMO not strong enough for a 'wikivoice' statement to that effect, much less a page move. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(ec*n)The Beeb has described this as being "revealed" by LT, rather than "more bluff and nonsense from the Number Ten lectern", so technically that's a reliable secondary source. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It could have been a mistake in the PM's office, and the BBC are reporting what Truss said, not what is official from the Palace. Leave as is until there's an official statement. The Land (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC is also saying this:
[1] What will he be called? One of his first acts is to decide whether to reign as King Charles III, or take another name. For instance, his grandfather George VI's first name was Albert, but he reigned using one of his middle names. Charles could choose from any of his four names - Charles Philip Arthur George.
Comments on air by presenters who've been in the studio for hours are picking up on the here and now whereas the written version is more structured. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BBC has it in writing now:
New King will be known as Charles III
The new King will officially be known as King Charles III, it has been officially confirmed. SmilingBoy (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same BBC who announced that Elizabeth II died in 2015, btw. Until the new King officially states his name, out of his own mouth, it's still up in thr air.

Caption

Would just like to point out that the new King is not 'of England', as the caption under the thumbnail states 80.43.45.105 (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since corrected. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He won't officially be Charles III until he declares his name before the Accession Council in a few days. Until then, he is officially Charles, King of ......

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2022

Since I live in the UK, I should be able to edit. I would like to add, 'Charles also inherited the title of King of the United Kingdom after the death of his mother on 8th September 2022, Elizabeth II.' TheEditor2024 (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something along that lines has been included in the meantime. Also, the ability to edit articles is not geographically determined.Tvx1 18:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did Charles become King of 5 countries on 9 September?

Namely Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu. Mike Rohsopht (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He became the king of all 15 countries 8 September UK time. In some countries that would have been 9 September local time. For the purposes of the article, I would not mention it and just use 8 September as the date. Gust Justice (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you base it on the time of where he was when he became King so 8 September would be correct. God Save The King. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, British time is used for such matters. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about in articles Monarchy of Australia, Monarchy of New Zealand etc.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Current Events - London Bridge Task Force

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

King Charles III

title announced and verified by the British Prime Minister. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not confirmed yet by the buckingham palace and the royal family. The PM and the media (BBC and GBNews) says it as well but it's not officially confirmed DaveHagen97 (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's up to Charles, not even the Prime MiniIt's up to Charles, not even the Prime Minister can announce/verify it instead of Charles. - JDster can announce/verify it instead of Charles. - JD 37.191.3.150 (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support moving the page since the PM has announced as such cookie monster 755 18:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the regnal name of the monarch is announced by the Accession Council, not the PM. We can wait the few hours until the Accession Council makes the name official. Dralwik|Have a Chat 18:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A spokesman for the king has now announced that he will be known as Charles III. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BBC News reporting that Clarence House has confirmed Charles III for his regnal name. Imzadi 1979 → 18:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence House has confirmed Charles III, according to the BBC. --84.65.68.38 (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


We do need to move it to something, though: "Charles, King of the United Kingdom" is inappropriate because he is king of multiple realms—independently and not by virtue of kingship of the United Kingdom. I would say Charles III is the best title; if in the unlikely event the accession council does something unexpected, we can change it to that or discuss again. TheFeds 18:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also announced by the Palace that that is the name he will use.

Regnal name

Is he definitely going to use "Charles III"? 197.87.143.28 (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59135132
(edit conflict)BBC have announced he will be Charles III. Sam Walton (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Charles will officially be known as King Charles III. HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, no official announcement has been made. The BBC doesn’t have the power to decide. Eccekevin (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC has the "power" to report, it's a reliable secondary source, and Wikipedia policy is "use reliable secondary sources". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(ec*lots) Yes, it'd been "pre-announced" by the PM, then officially announced from his own press office, both reported by the BBC. Unless he changes his mind before it's officially-official from the Accession Council, but that's very unlikely, and what edit buttons are for. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An official announcement has been made. At least the announcement was made the BBC, who are reporting it. See here, 19:27. I cannot find it on Twitter but this will do The Land (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not on the CH twitter, and their website is self-blanked currently, all of which is going to be keeping its interns busy to update by other means. So the announcement was made by other means -- maybe another framed A3 poster, or just a PR to the media. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move page to "King Charles III"

The naming consistency is broken as Charles usurps the throne. We shall tweak the name to make consistant. ElusiveTaker (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The PM said Charles III in her statement, Charles' own statement did not have a name included. Rmhermen (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need move protection? We are creating double redirects with all the moves. Rmhermen (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be sufficient. ElusiveTaker (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It was just confirmed by Clarence House. Gust Justice (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source? Rmhermen (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59135132 (it's mentioned in the article) Gust Justice (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can we do it now? HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dukedoms?

Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Edinburgh, Duke of Rothesay, even Prince of Wales: did he automatically cease to hold these titles? The article has been edited putting 8 September 2022 as the end date, but this may be just people making assumptions. And William does not, I believe, automatically become Prince of Wales. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The king is the font of honors. If no one holds them, they revert to him anyway. Rmhermen (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Duke of Edinburg merges with the crown. Prince of Wales becomes vacant and is not automatically given to the heir. I believe Duke of Carnwall and Duke of Rothesay is automatically inherited by William, but I am not 100% sure. Gust Justice (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Duke of Edinburgh title has merged with the Crown and thus ceased to exist (until Charles hands it out again).
You are correct that Prince of Wales is not an automatic title. Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay *is* automatic though, so William already holds Cornwall and Rothesay. Dralwik|Have a Chat 18:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are separate titles, in separate "peerages", whose automaticity is legally established separately, indeed. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Charles was 10 before he was made Prince of Wales, William may be a while before he becomes POW 142.165.62.112 (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the Duke of Edinburgh, every other role is vacant until granted. Ebbedlila (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong way around. DoE works like a "normal" dukedom (i.e. is extinct by "merger in the crown"), it's DoC and DoR that are automatically re-granted in an exceptional manner. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of Wikipedia editing needed

Also masses of Wikipedia editing to come, in particular changing "Her Majesty's [e.g. Stationery Office]". I did start to do this many years ago, changing "Her Majesty's Stationery Office" to something like "His/Her Majesty's Stationery Office", but got reverted. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can help at The London Bridge Task Force Rmhermen (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

King

He has been referred to as King by Buckingham Palace and The Prime Minister, however it is not officiated until his Coronation which will take place whenever it is planned to do so.

So maybe it was a bit rushed to rename the article so rapidly?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/09/08/when-queen-elizabeth-dies-charles-will-become-king---heres-whos-next-in-line-of-british-succession/ AF1990 (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct. The constitutional principle is that he becomes King immediately. See the statement from Buckingham Palace The Land (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. He has officially been king since the moment his mother died. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A well-know aphorism applies: "The king is dead, long live the king!". Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. There is so much talk about this. HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity sentences in first paragraph

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_III&diff=1109235939&oldid=1109235830 this edit and similar from User:Uhooep seem wildly out of place, and seem to mostly demonstrate the effectiveness of editing Wikipedia for political means. They should probably be reverted, or at minimum, moved out of the first paragraph. 2001:5B0:2B42:CED0:B4DE:BA42:F7A8:BFCE (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stick them in the accession paragraphs. A near 50/50 split in public opinion is notable IMO but in the lead is wildly out of place. Dralwik|Have a Chat 18:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's the only popularity polling we have to go on, and it asked specifically how the pubic felt about him becoming King. Uhooep (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is currently the subject of an edit war, with User:Uhooep having re-added it three times after removal by others. 2001:5B0:2B42:CED0:B4DE:BA42:F7A8:BFCE (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it as suggested in this talk page. I don't think it should keep being removed. Uhooep (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moves

The move to Charles III was already challenged, it should go through a move request at this point, not simply revert-warred back in place. nableezy - 18:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been confirmed by Clarence House according to sources such as Reuters. No discussion required.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  18:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anything thats been challenged requires discussion. Pinging Red-tailed hawk who challenged the move by reverting it earlier. nableezy - 18:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I opened a request at WP:RM#Requests to revert undiscussed moves but I fully agree that this should be reverted, as Charles is not the WP:PTOPIC for Charles III. What I will not be doing is reverting the page move more than once, though I believe that this should be done pending a move request. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: The previous moves were premature, made under the assumption that Charles III would be Charles' regnal name. The most recent move however comes after an official announcement by Clarence House, and has been reported by multiple reliable sources at this stage. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the only issue. Is it Charles III or Charles III of the United Kingdom. Seems WP:CRYSTAL that it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Charles III. The normal article title for monarchs is "X of X". DeCausa (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was changed to Charles III and not Charles III of the United Kingdom per the form used on Elizabeth II. I would assume. Gust Justice (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The challenge was due to primary topic, not because the name wasnt decided on. nableezy - 18:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously think we need a RFC to decide the title at this point. wizzito | say hello! 19:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened up an RM at the bottom of the page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updating links to "prince charles"

Do the old "Charles Prince of Wales" links need to be updated to Charles III? Ebbedlila (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since they are not ambiguous, no. (There's a policy claiming that somewhere, but I can't find it at the moment.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Technically the term is ambigious since Charles, Prince of Wales (disambiguation) exists. Gust Justice (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...And technically, they don't need to be updated since the disambiguation page is at Charles, Prince of Wales (disambiguation) and not Charles, Prince of Wales, so the links to the latter should be de facto not ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If they are referring to them in the present, yes. If they are referring to them in the past, no.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  18:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this actually means the respective articles, but not necessarily the links themselves; that is a content issue, not a link issue. Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2022 (2)

change "prince Charles to king Charles KD burr (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But what if someone else who is on Wikipedia could edit the page? HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. It is not clear what change is requested. Rmhermen (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title change

Can we change the title from Charles III to King Chares III? Just "Charles III" will cause a bit of confusion. HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not standard title practice on Wikipedia. Rmhermen (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To change name too "King Charles III"???? HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need to start a new section. See above. Rmhermen (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 September 2022

– I propose that we move this article to Charles III of the United Kingdom and restore the disambiguation to Charles III, where it was prior to bold moves today. The naming convention for royalty is extremely clear that the typical format is [Monarch's first name and ordinal] of [Country]}, which would render this as "Charles III of the United Kingdom". Moreover, there is no evidence that the current King of England is the primary topic with respect to long-term significance, so the DAB should take Charles III. The current series of moves, which have been contested, show extreme WP:RECENTISM and are out-of-line with our royalty-specific naming convention. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note that [i]n article title discussions, in the event of a lack of consensus the applicable policy preserves the most recent prior stable title, which would return the title of the dab page to Charles III. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...And blah, someone else opened up a move request. Red-tailed hawk, I'd recommend changing the destination of the first page to "?" since the agreed upon name of his title will probably change within the next 7 days. Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the title I've proposed follows closely from WP:NCROY, especially since he's now Charles III. The alternative would be Charles III, King of the United Kingdom, but that's non-standard per NCROY. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...And with my previous comment being said, support moving Charles III (disambiguation) to Charles III. I also support some move of Charles III, but have no opinion about where it should move. (And this will probably be my last comment because of the inevitable edit conflicts.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh, don't care anymore. Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I really do not see how Charles here has higher long-term significance over, for instance, Charles III of Spain (who spent 57 years ruling places, and as an active ruler who "made far-reaching reforms to increase the flow of funds to the crown and defend against foreign incursions on the empire. He facilitated trade and commerce, modernized agriculture and land tenure, and promoted science and university research. He implemented regalist policies to increase the power of the state regarding the church. During his reign, he expelled the Jesuits from the Spanish Empire. He strengthened the Spanish army and navy. Although he did not achieve complete control over Spain's finances, and was sometimes obliged to borrow to meet expenses, most of his reforms proved successful in providing increased revenue to the crown and expanding state power, leaving a lasting legacy" to boot!), given the current Charles' mere ceremonial role. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. " of the United Kingdom" is not part of the article title of his predecessors. It is not the Wikipedia standard: Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, George V, Edward VII, William IV, George IV, William III Rmhermen (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikipedia standard is elicited at WP:NCROY. I find it extremely dubious that this person is more significant with respect to long-term significance than Charles III of Spain and all other people named Charles III combined. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "significance than Charles III of Spain and all other people named Charles III combined" That is not how Primary topic is determined even if it is applicable. Rmhermen (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly how it's determined. The standard is "more likely than all the other topics combined". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec*2)The "Wikipedia standard" is to use the common name in English, according to what's the primary topic. It's far from clear that's been established here, especially given that until very shortly ago it was a matter of speculation what the regnal name was intended to be -- and indeed isn't yet formally proclaimed, just leaked by the prime minister and then confirmed by Clarence House press release. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We should maintain consistency with the patterns that have come before, just as Rmhermen explained. Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I on the other hand, do see him having a higher long-term significance over the other Charles IIIs, both because I disagree with the notion that his significance compared to other Charles IIIs can only be measured from today and not be based on his entire life, and also because there comes a significance from simply being the British monarch and Head of the Commonwealth. I would also argue that there is an already established precedent of British monarchs and Heads of the Commonwealth being titled as such, back to George II.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  19:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The page for George II is a disambiguation page... — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    George III*. I'm sure you can understand it's difficult to correct your comment when there's new edits being made every 10 seconds.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  19:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is a tough case. There are other Charles IIIs that have reigned before, and we don't know how long this one will reign. This one seems obviously the primary topic, but I also understand concerns of recentism.
wizzito | say hello! 19:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why.......
There is going to be so much abnormalities. HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charles III of the Commonwealth Realms. There are two issues: (1) WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and (2) he is monarch not only of the UK but of the 14 other Commonwealth realms. Charles III is not right because he is not yet the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I presume Elizabeth II because of her RS coverage became the primary topic and justified that for her. Charles isn't yet in that position. "Consistency" with his mother is therefore a false argument and to apply Charles III at this stage for that reason is WP:CRYSTAL. He shouldn't be Charles III of the United Kingdom because of the Commonwealth Realms. I think it's arguable but ultimately too much to claim that "of the United Kingdom" is WP:COMMONNAME. The Australian and Canadian realms are pretty significant. I would propose Charles III of the Commonwealth Realms until there is sufficient evidence that Charles III is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and "of the Commonwealth Realms" can then be dropped. DeCausa (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly not any form of the Common Name in English. And not even an actual title (but rather there are 15 such individual titles). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that's right. What's your point? DeCausa (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The vast majority of news articles refer to Charles and Elizabeth as British monarchs or monarchs of the UK. They rarely even mention the Commonwealth. Vpab15 (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Rmhermen and Ved havet's arguments on consistency. If we must disambiguate, Charles III of the Commonwealth Realms is a more neutral title per DeCausa. Dralwik|Have a Chat 19:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comments that ignore the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC issue should be ignored. He has been king for a few hours and his achievements as king are zero. There are many other notable monarchs at Charles III (disambiguation). As the articles says, he is the oldest and the longest-serving heir apparent in British history. Hard to see how he can be at the primary topic when his main achievement seems to be that he hasn't been king for a very long time. Maybe I should also get an article in that case, I have also not been king for a very long time. Vpab15 (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're referring to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC while ignoring that A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. That's what comments opposing the move is arguing. His achievements however, are not' relevant to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It also doesn't matter if his achievements or notability was gained as heir apparent or not, he's just got one article.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  19:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You forgot the question of long-term significance: A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. Vpab15 (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, WP:CRYSTAL DeCausa (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think his page views in the last month – not just today – compared to those of Charles III of Spain, speak for themselves on his long-term significance. I don't know where this idea that his significance as King is the only thing relevant, and that because he's just become King, his significance has somehow had to start from scratch. That's just silly.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  19:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I don't think there's any Charles III with the same notability, even if it's been a couple of hours only. Not that we should define notability this way but look at article views for Charles III of Spain vs Charles III [2]. Let's keep in mind what users search and expect to see. Different naming than most British monarchs might also bring more confusion for readers who might end up wondering if his status is different than Elizabeth II while only our title would be different. AlanTheScientist (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It seems the height of recentism (or English bias) to assume Charles becomes the primary topic for "Charles III" immediately upon accession. As such, we should revert to the status quo until such time as it becomes apparent that he is the primary topic. Powers T 19:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this is clearly not the primary topic, it is a literal impossibility for it to be the primary topic for Charles III since that has been his title for oh, checks watch, about an hour and a half. This is not Commonwealthepedia, and per our policies on article titles Charles III should be a disambiguation page. And all the votes that dont even attempt to discuss PRIMARYTOPIC are directly at odds with our policy, and so is the move warring that brought this article to this title now (which should also be reverted). nableezy - 19:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right but he's King of 14 other realms beside the UK. See my proposal above. DeCausa (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I support that disambiguation too. nableezy - 19:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As "King Charles III": As per the naming scheme of the former British monarchs, the trend shall live on. Name should be changed to "King Charles III". ElusiveTaker (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with the arguments of consistency, but I also understand that there are other (possibly more) important Charles III and the argument of bias. However, at the moment most people will be searching for this Charles III, so I don’t think it needs to be moved right now. If an alternate name is needed, I think Charles III of the United Kingdom would be ok. SunderB (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on grounds of consistency.--Smerus (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At time of writing (which is the only reference point for discussion per WP:CRYSTALBALL), this Charles III is not the primary topic for "Charles III" over Charles III of Spain and others. With respect to their role in the state, the monarch of the UK today has less significance than most monarchs in history. I would suggest that the disambiguation page should be at Charles III and this page should be under some sort of place modifier like "of Great Britain". — Bilorv (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Same reasons as the ones before. Mainly consistency though.--Bakir123 (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For consistency. Hektor (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Perhaps when he dies, but as the living Charles III he’s likely the result anyone searching that name will be looking for. The Kip (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Consistency with his predecessor, and he is not just King of the United Kingdom but also of several other countries. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For consistency as reasoned above but also he is King of more countries and dominions than just the United Kingdom. Yeoutie (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest "Charles III (King of the United Kingdom)", with the parenthetical added to disambiguate without suggesting that it is part of his title. Pmetzger (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose On the grounds of consistency with predecessors.--Mr Serious Guy (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support In historical context, he is very unlikely to become more relevant than other rulers who have been called Charles III. The past several monarchs of the United Kingdom did not really have very notable competition as the most famous or influential monarch of their respective names, whereas Charles III clearly does. Keeping it as just Charles III to me seems like presentism and somewhat biased toward the importance of Britain specifically. TKSnaevarr (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I support the change from Charles III for the sake of consistency with most of the Wikipedia translations and because, as stated, he is not the only Charles III of historical significance. To what it should be changed to, I don't know. Of the commonwealth, of the UK and Northern Ireland, etc.; I'll leave that to everyone else to decide. Christopher Arturo Aragón Vides (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not just for consistency, but also because there is no good alternative: as others have pointed out, "of the United Kingdom" is accurate but imprecise; listing all the realms of which he is King would obviously be asinine; and the shorthand "of the Commonwealth Realms" (as was suggested above) moves the problem from imprecision to inaccuracy, since plenty of Commonwealth countries do not have Charles III as head of state. I would also argue that he is both currently the primary topic for Charles III and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 20:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrews

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

His brother Nicholas is mentioned in the page, albeit briefly. Which brother are you talking about? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prince Andrew's controversies belong to – and are already well covered in – his own article. They are not relevant to Charles' article just because they are brothers.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  19:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

New Image

What do we think of changing the image to this? Charles Prince of Wales.jpg I recently found it and believe it fits better.

Charles_Prince_of_Wales

Is this the talk page of Charles III, current King of England? I get redirected here from his page. Isn’t Andrew, duke of York, his brother? I had to open three more wiki pages to try to understand it, I’m starting to get paranoid. Cicalinarrot (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is regarding the king of England. JaySDEA (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone deleted my section.
I also got redirected from here. HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The image looks good. HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes

We seem to be getting several hatnotes being added, see here. The one on the engineer I've deleted twice. WP:1HAT tells us to try to stick to one hatnote. I don't think the engineer, who averages nine hits a day, is important enough to disambiguate in this article. Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

King or "presumptive king"

@Dgreaser: Could you please explain why (1) you made this edit here and (2) why coronation is required for someone to be a monarch? — B. L. I. R. 19:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"King Charles" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect King Charles and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 8#King Charles until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to those who have kept the article in decent shape

At least the article is well curated. Thanks to all those who have contributed and stewarded the article. Very often a figure is suddenly thrust into the limelight and their Wikipedia page is a total mess. All the work is appreciated. Anna (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The move log is quite messy, though. wizzito | say hello! 19:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth realm

Is Charles the king of 14 commonwealth realms? This article says that some of those countries only recognize the queen as the head of the state (for example Jamaica). Uwsi (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, are you questioning whether only the queen can be head of state and not a king? Or are you questioning whether being head of state is the same thing as being king of those realms? Powers T 19:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from the linked article:
The Queen’s death is a precarious moment for some of Britain’s wider Commonwealth realm, 14 countries of which recognise the monarch as their head of state. In many cases their constitutions state that the Queen, specifically, is the head of state. In these countries, constitutions will need to be amended to refer to her successor. In countries such as Jamaica, where there is a strong independence movement, and Belize, these constitutional changes will also require a referendum, according to Commonwealth experts.
– Joe (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I should have read the article. I understand the question now. The issue is that several nations recognize Elizabeth II, specifically, as sovereign in their constitutions and those constitutions would need to be updated in order for them to adopt Charles as their king. We may need to consider different wording. Powers T 19:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Jamaican constitution, apparently it's not quite that specific, but it does use "Her Majesty" throughout. So one could argue on the one hand that there's currently an interregnum, or that "she embraces he", to reverse the old 19th century grammarians' doctrine. I'm not going to try to make either case, and I think neither should the article, other than by reference to reliable sources. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Do we know for certain that he will be King Charles III, I think I remember hearing somewhere that he may choose King George VII. He can take anyone of his names. Rlt152152 (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  19:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for letting me know. Rlt152152 (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should revert the rename then, just until we have a verifiable name. - Andrei (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A Clarence House confirmation taken from a Reuters, indeed a reliable source, is well within the guidelines of WP:V.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  20:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Revert to what? He's 100% certainly no longer "Prince Charles", whatever else he might decide to be. We have multiple independent significant references for this, from reliable secondary sources, as required. If he changes his mind before it's formally proclaimed, then we can move it (someplace else) at that point. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He is also already being referred to as King Charles III in media (e.g. [3]). Al-Muqanna (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles is not the King of Canada

Charles is not the King of Canada 2600:1700:57AC:2830:612C:FDA2:5F35:E3A3 (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Canada became a republic when you weren’t looking (sarcasm) Dronebogus (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is. Vince1073 (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stylistic query as to pre-accession usage

I don't know what the custom in the UK is or whether Wikipedia has a consensus on this question: What is the proper usage for photographs and the like from before his accession as King? That is, at various times today the infobox photo has shown Charles in 2021 or 2017. Obviously there are probably no public photos (yet) of him since he became King, and I certainly see no problem with continuing to use older images in the future. My concern is not with the images themselves; rather, I'm wondering what the correct way to refer to him in connection with older images is. That is, consider the caption "Charles III in 2021" (last year). He wasn't King yet and I wonder whether the more proper usage there would be simply "Charles in 2021" (or something similar), although of course I also understand the desire to show respect. 1995hoo (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The opening/lead

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_III&oldid=1109251676"