This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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
prince charles 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? Athaenara ✉ 10:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
I see nothing in the article that proves he is considering ditching the possibility. In fact, all that I've ever read shows no quotes from him at all - it is all outside speculation.FlaviaR 18:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Apostrophes
bob
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":
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)
I don't understand. Where does it actually state Charles is British anyway? --G2bambino 22:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Well most people think so. And thats why it should be brought up here that the Royal family are not the same ancenstry as the ones they rule. Xavier cougat 22:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The "ones they rule" are of all ancestries: English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish, sure; but also Indian, Pakistani, Jamaican, etc. -- and that's just in the UK alone, putting all the other commonwealth realms. My comment earlier wasn't just a joke: it's not for you to say what a person's nationality is. Charles was born in Britain, raised there, lived his life there; if he considers himself British, then he is. The notion that our ancestors define who we are has a name: racism. Doops | talk 22:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
That is not racism. Are you accusing me of racism? All I said is his ancenstry is notable and educational. So it is racist for me to want to know my geneaology. I think you need to apologize to me. Xavier cougat 23:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
To the contrary, I think genealogy is a fascinating subject. I just don't think it means anything. Research your ancestry by all means; that doesn't make you racist. Doops | talk 05:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The point here is that it should be known and it is notable that the rulers of Britain are mostly German. And they changed their names to hide their german roots. Xavier cougat 12:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Why "should" it be known? Charles has not changed his name at all. He has no surname. Charles 12:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
^ a b As a titled royal, Charles holds no surname, but, when one is used, it is Mountbatten-Windsor, although, according to letters patent dated February 1960, his official surname was Windsor ...........and Windsor is a phoney name made up to avoid the letting the fact out that he is german. These are facts. And people should know. 21:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Well that's what an encylopedia is for: to give interested and notable info. Isnt his last name Windsor now? and it was Saxe before? Why wouldnt you want people to be informed? Is there some reason this is hidden? Xavier cougat 14:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Few would read that article compared to the one on the modern royals. Xavier cougat 15:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Charles wouldn't be "Saxe" anything, anyway. If you are adamant that his "real name" is so important, you ought to have known this beforehand. Charles does not have a surname. He is the member of a Royal House. Charles 20:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, he does have a surname; it's Windsor. This was made clear in a number of official statements - and not just from George V, who agreed to the name change in the first place. After the present Queen's accession, it was said by Prince Philip's uncle, Lord Mountbatten, that "The House of Mountbatten reigns in England (WTTE)." This was naturally because of Elizabeth's marriage to a man with the official last name of "Mountbatten". Queen Mary, however, became furious & made the Queen issue a statement to the effect that the British Royal Family's surname was Windsor. While she later said that her younger descendants would be "Mountbatten-Windsor (as a sop to her husband's understandably wounded feelings)," Charles and Andrew are still officially surnamed "Windsor" - tho' I seem to recollect Andrew calling himself "Mountbatten-Windsor" - Anne certainly calls herself that (re: her signature on her marriage certificate). But, as to the other nonsensical "charges", Charles is NOT "mostly German". If people are going to insist on being racist, he's MOSTLY "Scottish" - look at his own grandmother! He's at least 25% Scots, and the rest is more or less a mish-mash of Europe - AND Africa thrown in; this much has been brought up recently in discoveries about Queen Charlotte.FlaviaR 18:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong, I'm afraid. As a titled royal, Charles does not have a surname. He belongs to the House and Family of Windsor, but that does not make it his surname. There was no statement of the Royal Family's surname, it is all regarding the House name with the distinction made for the male-line descendants of the grandchildren of the sovereign. I could call or sign myself Charles Smith if I wanted to but that would not make Smith my surname. Charles 11:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
That'll teach me to tailor my terms for people less familiar with the subject - of course you are correct, it's a House name, not a surname as you & I use them; thanks for the clarification.FlaviaR 18:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it WOULD make it your surname. In English law, one can simply take a new name, and it becomes your name. Mayalld 15:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a decree on the matter, there is no surname for the royal house. More often than not, they do not use surnames, so under English law, wouldn't that make their "surname" nothing? Charles 00:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The decree was merely one way in which a name (or lack thereof) could be adopted. More unusual that deed poll, statutory declaration or simple adoption of a name, but not incompatible with them. The declaration merely defines a starting point, and those covered by it are free to adopt other names, just as we all are (for example William and Harry have adopted Wales as a surname) Mayalld 05:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, they have not 'adopted' that name – it is merely used by them, per Royal tradition DBD 13:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Which is exactly what is meant by "adopt other names". William and Harry both habitually use the surname "Wales" in any circumstance where a lack of a surname might be inconvenient, and that this was not recorded as their surname when they were born. If that isn't adopting a name, then we clearly have very different understandings of the English language. Mayalld 13:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
You're completely missing the point: the name change has nothing to do with Charles. --G2bambino 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Anyone reseaching charles should realize that he basically a german and his name is phoney. Xavier cougat 19:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Why should they "realize" something like that? Sounds like a case for xenophobia on your part. And "phoney" is a loaded word to describe something. Charles 20:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The name "Charles, Prince of Wales" is phoney? Really? --G2bambino 20:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
To repeat: we are all basically Africans; all our names are phoney. Doops | talk 20:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
that is ridiculous. you are being disruptive and trolling. Xavier cougat 21:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Well that is your opinion. I am raising valid points and getting ridiculous replies like 'we are all african' I keep trying to state my point: most people want to know this about Charles, that he is German. And what his real name is. I did have an editor help me with this and got the % of German he is. The name Windsor was just made up. It is purposefully deceptive. This should be brought out that commoners do not change their names like this. This weirdness of the Windors (Saxes? Waleser whatever they are calling themselves now ) should be brought out. And if you think I am a troll it is your duty not to feed me so do not. Now one editor and I are making some progress. But you and that other one just are being disruptive. Please stop. Xavier cougat 22:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you can rest assured I will. --G2bambino 22:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
For actual figures, see [3]. The UK% (English + Scottish) rises rather significantly from 19% for Charles to 49% for Prince William, while the German % (Royal + German) falls from 66% to 35% - Nunh-huh 22:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Excellent Charles is 66% German and his mother is 40% German Diana was 60% British. Xavier cougat 23:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Fascinating link, Nunh-huh. You forgot to note that Elizabeth's Royal percentage, at 39%, is fully matched by her English percentage (and, indeed, her Royal/German share is smaller than her English/Anglo-Irish/Scottish/Welsh share). So she's definitely cleared! But of course, despite all the learning and research which went into those figures, they're ultimately wholly fictitious, since each line gets cut off either at the limit of genealogical record (where somebody's ancestors are unknown he/she is assumed to be 100% X, which is of course not true) or at the 14th generation. It's ultimately impossible to calculate such a thing, since there's no starting point; every ancestor has his/her own ancestors, ad infinitum -- and pretty soon we're all back in Africa again! (Which isn't a joke but a serious point.) Thanks again, though; fascinating link. Doops | talk 05:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Ditto, minor point re an earlier post is that Phil the Greek was a Danish prince of largely German descent, so Chas and Wullie aren't Greek at all, as far as we can tell. Of course a majority of the British population are English, and hence originally Germanic immigrants who displaced the Britons, but then on that logic there are very few Americans in the U.S. who are American, and as far as we know it all goes back to Africa, as Doops says. Bit on the news today about Orangutans being found to walk upright rather more than expected, wonder if our primate ancestors count as "Royal" in the ethnic scheme used in the article? ..... dave souza, talk 20:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
"there are very few Americans in the U.S. who are American" sure that is true. And we do not have Kings and Queens and Dukes. The point is that it should be mentioned that the inherited ruler of England is not English. I am very proud Mr Washington fought that war to get rid of Royalty. In the US all men are created equal and no one is better than someone else because you can claim this ridiculous 'royalty' thing. Its a con they have been playing on the English. Xavier cougat 23:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
"In the US all men are created equal". Yes, but some much more equal than others. The US has its royalty and ruling class, they just don't have the honesty and decency to call it such - so do us a favour and take your ridiculous views elsewhere. How about those untouchable Kennedys? The Bush dynasty? Skull and Bones? At least we acknowledge our social systems; you lot come up with this egalitarian and "all equal" nonsense that exists only on a piece of paper which the likes of Bush choose to ignore at will. Tell the Blacks and Hispanics of America that they are just as equal as the Whites - you'll get an interesting response. Oh, and by the way, if you think the Constitution is such a strong and important influence on US life why don't you tell your Christian extremist fundamentalists to get out of politics and government. -- 86.17.211.191 09:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
It's factually wrong to insist as the "much more equal than others" poster does that unequal accumulations of wealth and unequal accumulations of influence can result ONLY from (or even PRINCIPALLY from) unequal operation of laws. Americans can arrive at positions of relatively greater wealth, political power, and cultural influence WITHOUT having decrees with the force of law mention them by name as being guaranteed such positions regardless of what they do or what anyone else does. (You mentioned "the untouchable Kennedys", but no law was passed guaranteeing Joe Kennedy Sr. that he and his kids would have positions of influence. That was a result of his own actions, crooked and straight.) But Prince Charles's future position in the UK scheme of things is mandated by law. Cite the U.S. statute that appointed Henry Ford as Viscount of Vehicles, Sam Walton as Marquess of Markdowns, or Roy Kroc as Burgher of Burger-Joints. Americans can also hit LOWER levels of wealth and influence by a shared FEELING of disenfranchisement when no such disenfranchisement or feelings thereof are mandated by law. But in the U.K. a law will TELL you that you are a commoner and that you are worth less than a peer NOT because of historical operation but, rather, ONLY because the long arm of the State says so.64.131.188.104 (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
And with this comment, we have uncovered your ridiculous vendetta against royalty. Charles 01:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it's not just royalty where he has a ridiculous vendetta - check out his contributions. But he has now been blocked indefinitely. --rogerd 04:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Ding dong, the troll is dead! Well, permanently banned at least... RIP Mr. Cougat, and good riddence to bad rubbish. :-) CanadianMist 20:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
most directly involved
What evidence is there for this idea that he will concentrate on the UK, as if to undermine his role as heir to all the titles? There can surely be no constitutional reason for suggesting he will only partially inherit those roles. Such conjecture doesn't belong so early in an article unless it's supported by a good source.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldanon (talk • contribs) 20:15, 1 June 2007
It's not really conjecture as the sentence in question only says he is expected to be more directly involved in the UK - as he will live there. These words included here are a direct result of the lengthy debates over the opening sentences of the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article, wherein one or two editors were adamant that the UK be given absolute priority over the other 15 Realms. Trust me, this compromise sentence is a lot better than what they proposed. --G2bambino 00:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thats because hes pagan
CRAP I JUST RELEASED A HUGE MAJOR ROYAL FAMILY CONSPIRACY.
I am being serious.--Kizkyran (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
"Diana chronicles" revelations
According to this review in the New Yorker, the soon-to-be published book The Diana Chronicles has much detail on Charles, some of it of a rather delicate nature (go read the link if you want to find out more). Does anyone have an opinion (or, even better, a Wikipedia policy) on what the boundaries are for discussing details of the private lives of public figures, when such details have been published in reliable sources? Grover cleveland 07:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
British Empire
Is it really necessary to mention that fifteen of the sixteen Commonwealth Realms are former colonies of the British Empire in this particular article? Such information is already covered in detail at Commonwealth Realm and British Empire. --G2bambino 18:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is obviously relevant. Readers might be wondering why on earth the heir to the British throne is also heir to 15 other countries scattered all over the world. TharkunColl 18:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
We can't assume our readers know the background. And it is common practice on Wikipedia to briefly describe something, then place a link to a more detailed article. Why would anyone wish to avoid mentioning the British Empire in this obvious context? TharkunColl 18:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I think because there is only so much "relevant" information that can be included; though it is related, we don't state that he inherits the Throne of the United Kingdom because the Act of Union merged Scotland and England into one monarchy. What is immediately germane to Charles is that he's currently in line to be king of sixteen individual countries. --G2bambino 18:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I concur with john k and TharkunColl. G2bambino seems to want to have this same discussion on a number of articles about royals. G2bambino, you need to stop being quite so touchy about Commonwealth/former colony issues. The information is pertinent. RockStarSheister (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Prince Charles's Article Title
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was Article moved back. I don't see a real consensus below, but the discussion kind of stalled, and the old title has the virtue of stability and in line with WP:COMMONNAME. Duja► 07:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Why does Charles's article link to "Charles, Prince of Wales", when all other male royals have theirs as - Example: "Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh" and not Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and also "Prince Andrew, Duke of York" and not Andrew, Duke of York ?? Is it because he's a Prince and his father and brothers are all either Earls or Dukes?? PoliceChief 17:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly so. Although the Prince in "The Prince Charles" and the Prince in "The Prince of Wales" are two very different concepts, it was successfully argued when the naming guidelines were laid out that because the concepts are communicated using the same word, it should not be duplicated. It also does make some (non-aesthetic) sense for the person familiar with the title: the Prince of Wales is necessarily a royal prince anyway, so we need not mention this; the Dukes of Edinburgh and York certainly need not be royal princes, so we do mention that these two fellows are (this is actually in place of using a surname in the article title). I for one would not have anything against Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, but I certainly won't start a debate on it. -- Jao 18:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that since Charles is really HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, etc, etc, that this article should follow the format used by other royal peers. Think about it in the German... He would be Prinz Karl, Fürst von Wales. That illustrates the difference, he is royal because he is a cadet prince on one hand and holds the highest "peerage" (if the Wales title is indeed considered to be such) on the other. Charles 22:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
But as Jao said they're communicated using the same word, which isn't the case in German. (Besides, he's not in any sense royal because he's the Prince of Wales, but only because he's a cadet prince; and "Prince of Wales" isn't a peerage title, and certainly not the highest such.) Marnanel 02:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
These are two different titles of prince though. I would even describe them as homonyms. Charles 10:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes. That's pretty much what Jao said above: it was successfully argued when the naming guidelines were laid out that because the concepts are communicated using the same word, it should not be duplicated. Nobody has said that "prince" as a royal title is the same concept as "prince" as in "Prince of Wales" (which is the only example of its kind in the UK in modern times, I might add). Marnanel 18:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
A problem with this is that as writen, he is not of royal birth. Prince Charles, blah blah, denoted him as royal birth. (Prince William of Wales, Princess Beatrice of York) Charles, Prince of Wales denotes married to the royal. (Diana, Princess of Wales, Sarah, Duchess of York). Prince Charles of England (or of Wales or UK) would be in better keeping with conventions.Creol 17:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it does not denote that! Name, Title of Place, in wikipedia title, "denotes" a person, called, Name, who was/is Title of Place... Diana and Sarah had/ve those titles because that form is the one officially used, in real life, for divorced peeresses – the official use for Prince Charles is "HRHThe Prince of Wales", which is an unsuitable title... DBD 21:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, the only other British Prince of Wales not to have ascended the throne is at Frederick, Prince of Wales, so, where Charles goes, so does Fred. DBD 21:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Arthur Prince of Wales never ascended the throne either. Are you going to say that since he is pre-1707 he is not British but English? I'd say that too often "British" isn't an adjective of citizenship referring to people who lived in The UNITED KINGDOM of GREAT Britain after England and Scotland merged, but, rather, is an adjective of geography referring either the island of Great Britain or all of the British Isles. Therefore the Tudors were British. It's not good English but simply to avoid this ambiguity I'd say Frederick is the only other "UK Prince of Wales" never to reign. That qualifier leaves a clear implication that there was at least one other Prince of Wales who never reigned, but that such other Prince was English and not UK. 64.131.188.104 (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
He is not a Prince of England, nor is he "Prince Charles of Wales". The latter is the form used for a son or grandson of the Prince of Wales. I feel that the article should be titled Prince Charles, Prince of Wales. Charles 17:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by a "prince of England", anyway? Marnanel 00:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
As do I think "Charles, Prince of Wales" should be moved to new page "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales" as even Charles's children, have the styles Prince William of Wales and Prince Henry of Wales, as he holds the style Prince of Wales and to distinguish between all Princes of Wales, whether he be the official holder of the position or the spouse, they too have their names after the princely title, and then location of father's royal title. PoliceChief 21:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't really give you carte blanche to go in and move the article while we're still talking about it, though... Marnanel 00:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. I wish it to be known that I oppose the move and am requesting its reversal. We are in discussion here. DBD 06:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Please don't be bold here. Charles, Prince of Wales is usage, and need not be regularized, at least until someone other than the heir to the English throne again effectively claims the Principality of Wales. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 21:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
If there is a majority that wish for the article to be reverted back to "Charles, Prince of Wales", I will personally initiate the revertion, but with the support of other wikipedians, who'd stated their support for the move, I took the decision, maybe not well-informed one, to move the page to "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales", I am only too happy to accept scrutiny for my actions PoliceChief 18:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that offer. Please move it back to "Charles, Prince of Wales", since we had not completed our discussion of the matter. Lethiere 09:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I favour Charles, Prince of Wales. Having two Princes is unnecessary duplication. DrKiernan 11:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Popular culture - a bit tabloid?
I just removed a section which detailed a rant by Morrissey (from the Smiths). It said much more about Morrissey than about Charles.
Morrissey also criticizes other world leaders, such as President Bush, and I looked to see if similar comments were made on G.W. Bush's page. No surprise, nothing there. Not even a popular culture section, although he has been lampooned in popular culture quite a lot.
Given the respect accorded to the US President, it seems reasonable to accord similar respect to Prince Charles, or anybody for that matter. Living persons and all that. The popular culture section could reasonably contain information regarding things where Charles has contributed to popular culture, but it doesn't seem appropriate for other items in which Charles played no part himself.
Sorry, just removing scurrilous speculation according to WP:BLP, which applies to talk pages as well. Trishm 22:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Naming of Prince Charles
Charles wrote at 22:40 on 2 September 2007 (UTC):
I think that since Charles is really HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales,
I have just been in discussion with staff members of one of The Prince's Charities about the styling of HRH's name. They have been directed by Clarence House to always refer to Prince Charles as HRH The Prince of Wales, and that the various charities of which he is president always have a capitalised T, viz, The Prince's Charities, The Prince's Drawing School etc Ibrown 17:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Well of course, just as the Duke of York is always called The Duke of York and not "Prince Andrew" or anything like that. He is also though "Prince Andrew, Duke of York" just as the subject of this article is also Prince Charles, Prince of Wales (two different types of prince, one as the son of a queen and the other as Prince of Wales, equal to Prinz vs Fürst). We, however, will not be naming this article "The Prince of Wales" or "HRH The Prince of Wales". Charles 17:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh no, I wasn't expecting anyone to rename the article "The Prince of Wales". I was trying to ensure that people realised that there is a styling which The Prince's Charities have to follow, and that articles on The Prince's Drawing School should be styled accordingly. Ibrown 09:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Is this ok, Im not sayin he is, but...
There Are somethings that point to him as the AntiChrist, here are a few...
p=70 r=90 i=9 n=50 c=3 e=5(227) p+r+i+n+c+e=prince c=3 h=8 a=1 r=90 l=30 e=5 s=100(237) c+h+a+r+l+e+s= charles o=60 f=6(66) w=0 a=1 l=30 e=5 s=100(136) w+a+l+e+s=wales prince(227)+ charles(237)+ of(66)+ Wales(136) = Prince Charles of Wales which has a numerical value of 666 in both the hebrew and english. The numerical values for the hebrew charaters in his name r 50+60+10+20(140)+90+200+30+60(380)+40+6+10+30+60(146)=666 —Preceding unsigned comment added by David-buchanan-haha (talk • contribs) 04:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
"Prince Charles of Wales" tells me all I need to know here – you know nothing about the man, and haven't even read the article. DBD 14:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course, there's a book, The AntiChrist and a Cup of Tea by Tim Cohen, that explores the possibility that The Prince of Wales is, indeed, the Antichrist awaited by the tin-foil hat crowd. - Nunh-huh 15:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you kidding me with this crap? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.251.189.74 (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's specifically tailored for you. Let's write this in 2007, and wait until anonymous IP 192.251.189.74 comes along two years later to let us know if it amuses him. That was basically our line of thinking. - Nunh-huh 23:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Is Prince Charles a Muslim?
Is Prince Charles a (closeted) Muslim? Any connection with
Islam? tharsaile (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
If he were a secret Muslim, we'd hardly know about it, would we. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Charles could not become a Muslim while being in line for the throne, because he shall be the future head of the Church of England. The is *no way* Charles could possibly change religion without abdicating. Volantares (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Abdication is something a monarch might do (and even then, in this case, only with Parliament's approval and that of all the 15 other Commonwealth Realms). It doesn't apply to people in line to the throne. If Charles became a Muslim while Elizabeth II was still reigning, then when she died, he would be bypassed and Prince William would become King William V. If Charles became a Muslim after he'd become King, there's no telling what might happen. He might be deemed to have abdicated, which in law is the same as having voluntarily chosen to step down; or, as you seem to be suggesting, he could abdicate first and then convert. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I've heard rumors about Prince Charles being a Muslim too. Or, rather, about him being very interested in Sufism, even though not as a Muslim convert proper. In any case, although we cannot be sure whether he's Muslim/Sufi or not, it's clear he's interested in comparative religion in general, via the Traditionalist School approach in particular, having written articles on the subject as shown here. Thus, if no one minds, I'm adding the "Category:Traditionalism" tag to the article. -- alexgieg (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Some of the above statements are simply incorrect. The Act of Settlement makes no mention of Islam at all. All it says with respect to religion is that the monarch must not be, nor ever have been, a Catholic (or married to one). No doubt there would be pressure on Charles to renounce the throne if he became a Muslim - though this in itself would require an act of parliament - but as the law currently stands the mere fact of being Muslim would not disbar him. TharkunColl (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Error on When Charles Became Prince of Wales
The article reads, "He has held the title of Prince of Wales since 1958, and is styled "His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales", except in Scotland, where he is styled "His Royal Highness The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay"."
Charles became Prince of Wales in 1968 when he was twenty, not in 1958, when he was ten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.49.65 (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
No, that's not true. He was created Prince of Wales on 26 July1958, when he was nine years old. The investiture was held on 1 July1969, when he was twenty. (The reason given was that the queen wanted her son to be old enough to understand the ceremony's significance when it was (eventually) held.) - Nunh-huh 17:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
His name in parenthesis (Charles Philip Arthur George) is in bold, unlike his mother, grandfather, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.62.198 (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Children
Why is there no mention anywhere of the fact that the man has children? They're mentioned in passing at the very end, but not the fact that they were born. I'd put it in myself but I wouldn't know where to begin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.215.71 (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Camilla, Princess of Wales
While Camilla has been given the title Duchess of Cornwall, my understanding is that the Prince of Wales' wife must be given the title Princess of Wales (she can be given others though, too). I'm sure many of us are willing to acknowledge that she is not addressed as such for aesthetic reasons (controversy with the media/public/etc), but I think this fact should be mentioned (once perhaps) in this article (and hers as well, if it hasn't been there either.) It should be mentioned since she officially has both titles. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure that when they married they slipped in the title once or twice because they had to do so (because she must be referred to as such in such circumstances). Volantares (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I more than agree with you, but the whole article seems to be subtly riddled w/anti-Charles/Camilla sentiment (such as placing the immediate & sole blame for the breakdown of his marriage to Diana squarely on Charles/Camilla), so I am certain that it will be reverted out. FlaviaR (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Time-magazine-cover-prince-charles.jpg
Image:Time-magazine-cover-prince-charles.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
I note that there is no way for people to edit this webpage on Prince Charles. I suppose that is logical. However, I note that in the data located under his photo where it shows his spouses, the date of Diana's death is 1996. Could someone please correct that to 1997? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlhawken (talk • contribs) 06:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
A range of dates following a name will always be interpreted as a lifespan, absent indications that it is something else. I've inserted the appropriate indicators. - Nunh-huh 08:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
One just did. One shouldn't have to perform a mathematical operation to determine that the numbers - which appear to be birth and death - are feasible, or must be otherwise interpreted. Check the guidelines for the template. - Nunh-huh 08:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
One doesn't need to perform a mathematical operation to realise that Diana wasn't born in 1981. We can't make WP idiot-proof and shouldn't try; any normal person looking at a span for Diana that starts in 1981 does not think it's her lifespan. I've checked the guidelines for the template, and they do not say anything about this; I noticed that you advocated your position on the talk page, but I didn't see any great wave of agreement. And usage seems to be against you, as in the examples I just gave, which were the first six (3 UK and 3 US) that it occurred to me to check. -- Zsero (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
One can avoid misleading presentations of data, and we indeed should try not to misrepresent data. See the example on the template guidelines, at [[4]] toward the bottom of the page. - Nunh-huh 16:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That's not the template guideline, it's the talk page, and all you're citing is your own opinion. The fact that you've expressed that opinion elsewhere doesn't give it more weight. I don't see any masses agreeing with you there.
The main disadvantage of your preferred style is that it slops the line over; if you insist on keeping the (m.) and (div.), perhaps we could shorten her displayed name to just "Diana", since it's not as if that would confuse anyone. -- Zsero (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
If you'd like. What's "slopped over" on one person's page won't be on someone else's slightly wider page. If line length and clarity conflict, we need to opt for clarity. - Nunh-huh 19:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Point is to keep it short, and for you not to claim that your own preference is a guideline. The first six examples I looked up all had the date range, I see no reason at all why this one shouldn't follow the same convention. Unless you care to do a wider survey and find that the examples I found were outliers, or point to some sort of guideline or something that makes your view more than just that. -- Zsero (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Brevity is for newspapers, not encyclopedias, and Wikipedia isn't limited by space. The "view" that an encyclopedia should present data clearly should be one that we all share. - Nunh-huh 20:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
But infoboxes are about presentation, and space in them, especially horizontal space, is scarce. And the view that spouses should be listed in infoboxes by "m.", "d.", and "div." rather than by yyyy-yyyy, seems to be limited to yourself. Here's an idea: why don't we both stop this and wait to see whether anyone else has a word to get in edgewise? -- Zsero (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that in the article about Prince William it is noted that if we only looked at his patrilineal descent, Charles would be a part of the House of Oldenburg. Because he is to be king, I think thos os important to put in under ancestry. Would someone please copy the following into the article about Charles. -Folkmann, 12.45 21st of March 08 (CET)
Charles's patriline is the line from which he is descended father to son.
Patrilineal descent is the principle behind membership in most royal houses, and can be traced back through the generations - which means that if Charles were to choose an historically accurate house name it would be Oldenburg, as all his male-line ancestors have been members.
Some people seem to forget; Just as one may change one's surname so also ones house can be changed. Thus Charles' royal house is windsor and nothing else...--Camaeron (t/c) 12:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
That remains to be seen when and if he actually comes to the throne. He may also choose to go by Mountbatten, or Mountbatten-Windsor. (For that matter he may decide to change it to anything he likes, but that would be pure speculation.) -- Zsero (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but until then he is still a member of the house of Windsor (per the Queen's declaration in 1952)...--Camaeron (t/c) 17:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Camaeron, you are wrong. He may be a member of the House of Windsor but that does not change his membership in the House of Oldenburg. By definition, every dynastic agnatic descendant of a member of a Germanic house is also a member of that house, regardless of whether there are other house memberships. The Orléans, the Nassaus of Luxembourg (via Parma) are all members of the House of Bourbon, the Queen of the Netherlands is a member of the House of Lippe (although she is the head of her own house) and so on. Charles 22:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
That is POV my dear Charles...houses may and can be changed by the person who is a member of the house. See my very personal history...the noble house of Bylandt split into three branches that no longer accept being part of the former house...it is all perfectly legal...even though agnaticlly it would be a very different story...--Cameron (t/c) 23:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
My personal history dictates otherwise (German family) but I am not entering that into this equation. It is not POV, it is practice. One can be the member of more than one house. A person cannot renounce or change that patrilineal descent. Charles may become the head of the House of Windsor someday but he is still a member of the House of Oldenburg. Houses don't replace each other, one simply becomes primarily used. Your anecdotal example of Bylandt is fine, the fact of the matter is personal opinions don't change anything and also that Charles is a junior member of the House of Oldenburg. Charles 23:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
My Bylandt example was a German house also...I agree one can't change ones descent but dont accept that one can be a member of more than one house...I think we shall have to agree to disagree...= )--Cameron (t/c) 17:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I think everyone agrees that a person can belong to a house while belonging to a cadet branch of that same house, which would solve these cases. For instance, there's no argument that Elizabeth is both a member of the House of Wettin and a member of the House of Windsor – at least I think there isn't. The problem with Charles is that he is obviously not a member of the House of Wettin, so if he is a member of the House of Windsor (and he is, per official decree) that leaves two options: either the House of Windsor has ceased to be a cadet branch of the House of Wettin, or there are now two Houses of Windsor, one consisting of the agnatic descendants of Albert and Victoria (a cadet branch of the House of Wettin) and the other consisting of the agnatic descendants of Philip and Elizabeth (a cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg). I think Charles (the user, not the heir), as well as our House of Windsor article, is getting at this latter solution, and I tend to agree that this is how it is to be seen, but of course an official citation would be nice. In this case, Charles being both a Windsor and an Oldenburg would be no less complicated than his mother being both a Windsor and a Wettin. -- Jao (talk) 04:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You should also all remember that It's only because of the wars and anti-german feeling that there is a House of Windsor. If WWI and WWII never had been, they would stille be called the House of Hannover, or at leats the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha... Folkmann 21.11, 2 May 2008 (CET)
Charles is neither a Hanover nor a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Wettin). He belongs to neither of those houses in the male line. Charles 19:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The world has changed. Now someone can belong to a house in the female line. When Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden has children, they'll belong to the Bernadotte line, certainly not the Westling line (which is a mixed male/female line itself if you look at Daniel Westling's family tree).67.100.203.179 (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
So, you are saying that Charles is a member of the House of Teck, the House of Oldenburg, the House of Hanover, the House of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, the House of Welf, the House of Bourbon, etc? Well, it doesn't work that way. Surtsicna (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
"Assassination Attempt"
Wasn't it Charles that was subject of an "assassination attempt" involving an aerosol spray, possibly taking place in New Zealand? I forget the details... Anyone have any idea? 83.100.143.2 (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you ought to take it to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities...--Cameron (t|p|c) 19:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Leeds United Supporter
In the Leeds United vs Gillingham match programme (Saturday 3rd May 2008) page 65 it states "It's not a widely publicised fact that Charles is a mad-keen Leeds fan, apparently." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garygash (talk • contribs) 19:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Charles has considered George as a regnal name?
There has been speculation by others in this regard, but he has specifically denied it, according to one of the references in the article. Do we have a citation that he has considered rejecting Charles III as a regnal name? fishhead64 (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Diana did NOT become Princess of Wales by marrying the HEIR APPARENT.
The sentence in this article 'By marriage to the heir apparent, Lady Diana received both the title of the Princess of Wales and the style of "Her Royal Highness"' should be changed. If you marry the Heir Apparent to the Throne you can't receive the title of Princess of Wales unless the Heir Apparent has been created Prince of Wales. Or you will at some later point in the future when he is created Prince of Wales. The sentence 'By marriage to the PRINCE OF WALES, Lady Diana received both the title of the Princess of Wales and the style of "Her Royal Highness"' would be correct, unless the marriage was insufficient and a royal document was issued upon her wedding that conferred the title and style upon her. If marriage makes it automatic and no royal document is necessary, the article should state as much. Princes of Wales do not become so automatically. But they DO become Dukes of Cornwall (if their parent is a Monarch) automatically. No cadet son of a Monarch has ever AUTOMATICALLY become Duke of York -- it has required a royal document each time. Nor has the extinction of each creation after one generation been specified in the grant, but has occurred by chance each time (except for one run before the Tudors). These facts show that it is not obvious what happens automatically and what happens by royal will, and so when a Royal Family member acquires a title or style automatically without royal action we should say as much.64.131.188.104 (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
House of Glücksburg
Charles is categorized as a member of the House of Glücksburg. Why do editors insist upon "censoring" this? I am going to re-add it until the removal can be justified, which it cannot. The house he is a member of called Windsor is defined differently than the house he is a member of called Glücksburg and someone can be a member of both. Charles 18:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It's hardly 'censorship'; it's neither important nor notable. It's minor trivia along the lines of him preferring his eggs sunny side up rather than over easy. You know better than to add something that is contentious until consensus is achieved. Prince of Canada t | c 18:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It is important and it is notable and it fits exactly into the space which is provided for it. There is no consensus, it is fact. It's things like your attitude that MAKES things contentious coupled with "you know better" that keep decent editors away from Wikipedia. Next time you call for something to be discussed, initiate the discussion yourself. Charles is a member of the House of Glücksburg and it belongs where the space is provided for it. If you don't want it listed then remove the field for the royal house. Charles 18:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Why, exactly, is it notable? What makes it anything other than a piece of trivia? You do know better than to add things which are contentious, and it seemed useful to remind you. You also know full well that consensus, whether active or implied through inaction, is required. I would also remind you that you should be civil, and refrain from attacks. Prince of Canada t | c 18:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Compromise: House of Windsor<ref>Through his father, Charles is also a member of the [[House of Glücksburg]]. As it currently stands, per the Letters Patent issued in 1960<ref name="sur" /> by his mother, he shall reign as a member of the House of Windsor, though he may issue Letters Patent of his own amending that name.</ref>
Or something along those lines. It's a tad bit crystal ball-ish towards the end, but it gets the point across. Prince of Canada t | c 18:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a good compromise. But don't clutter the infobox with it, add it to the article somewhere. It really isn't important enough. The letters patent, on the other hand, are...--CameronPublic (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. The Letters Patent were and are incapable of removing his membership in the House of Glückburg nor did they amend, alter, augment, etc, etc it. He may reign as a member of the House of Windsor but he is also a member of the House of Glücksburg. Charles 02:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Like any royal, I'm certain Charles is (lineal wise) a member of many Houses. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Many? Name them all, please. I've got two, one of which is a sub-branch of another house. Charles 02:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hardly germane to the point, which is: he is now, and will remain unless after Accession he issues Letters Patent to the contrary, a member of the House of Windsor per his mothers declarations of 1952 and 1960. Putative membership in any other Houses (Cameron argues that one cannot be a member of more than one Royal House; I would like to see a citation if possible) is completely and utterly immaterial, as the only one which matters in any sort of a notable way is the House of Windsor. I have proposed a compromise which allows for the historical trivia to be included without attaching too much importance to it. That is what we should be discussing; none of these tangents are addressing what should be the substance of an article talk page, viz the contents of the article. You know this, I know this, everyone here knows this. So let's stick to that, shall we? Prince of Canada t | c 02:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, which is why undue weight shouldn't be given to anything other than Windsor, which is his House, by royal decree.
Proposed:
Ancestry
Patrilineal descent
Charles's patriline is the line from which he is descended father to son.
Patrilineal descent is the principle behind membership in most royal houses, and can be traced back through the generations. Through his father, Charles is descended from the House of Glücksburg. As it currently stands, per the Letters Patent issued in 1960[1] by his mother, he shall reign as a member of the House of Windsor, though he may issue Letters Patent of his own amending that name.
(follow with (collapsed?) list of ancestry in the House of Windsor, and then House of Glucksburg)
Also removed some WP:OR around 'correct' house name. Prince of Canada t | c 21:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Besides, even Philip dropped the Gluckburg House as his identification. Philip went with his mother's family name Mountbatten. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Philip's mother's family name wasn't Mountbatten, she always was a Battenberg. Philip did not change the membership of his house as much as he could change who his father was. Charles 02:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Oy gevalt. Alright. NITPICK Philip went with the Anglicisation of his mothers family name Mountbatten. Which is neither here nor there. We are discussing the compromise I proposed to the article in order to satisfy the point you are trying to make. Prince of Canada t | c 02:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem is...this is such a big step. If we add secondary houses to this article, people will add secondary houses to every article. Saxe-Coburg-Gotha will be added to the infoboxes of members of the house of windsor. After all, what are Letters Patent? By your argument, the letters patent change nothing. Are we to add, House of Windsor (de jure), Glucksburg (de facto) (wink in GoodDay's direction)? Infoboxes will start to become extremely cluttered. --Cameron* 09:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Another photo for consideration
Visiting Jamaica, March 13, 2008
I recently uploaded to the Commons this photograph that I shot while on vacation this year. For your consideration on this article. I've left it portrait, but it could stand to be cropped in landscape to close in on the couple. It's reasonably high-rez so there's a lot to work with. Mattnad (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
It's an excellent photo! I have removed it for now as the article is rather image-heavy (see the edit history for my reasoning), but I'm going to try and find a way to put it back in without breaking anything. Prince of Canada t | c 10:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Aw, I love it! Well done, Prince! --Cameron* 17:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Infobox image
MOS prefers that images 'face' text, though deprecates flipping images to conform. Can we find a good image of Charles that faces left? Anyone? Prince of Canada t | c 10:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Titles
I'll start by admitting that I don't know terribly much about noble titles. However, I may be under false impressions regarding those given to Charles. Is he recognised as Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Earl of Chester, etc., throughout the United Kingdom, including Scotland? Or, are those titles not recognised within Scottish jurisdiction? --G2bambino (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I would have thought he is recognised as them, just officially called Rothesay when in Scotland. On a seperate point, is the Lord High Commissioner thing actually needed at all? I mean he was never called this by anyone I can't imagine. --UpDown (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Updown. As to the High Commissioner thing, I would perhaps mention it briefly further down, perhaps before the "Inuit titles"? Regards, --Cameron* 16:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yes, certainly we should mentioned the high commissioner thing, but not where it is at the moment.--UpDown (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, then, if it's a matter of official usage within different jurisdictions, why is his official Scottish title listed here as subsurvient to his official non-Scottish titles? You're both right about the High Commissioner position and title. --G2bambino (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Who says subservient? One of the titles has to be listed first! ;) I suspect the reason the English/Northern Irish/Welsh version is listed first is purely because is more widely used. --Cameron* 19:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The article does, really: the way the section is structured now, in terms of syntax, communicates to readers that the title Duke of Rothesay is a subordinate part of the title Duke of Cornwall. Perhaps the titles section should be split by jurisdiction, so that it appears like this:
14 November 1948 – 6 February 1952: His Royal Highness Prince Charles of Edinburgh
For England, Wales, and Northern Ireland:
6 February 1952 – 26 July 1958: His Royal Highness The Duke of Cornwall
Since 26 July 1958: His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales
For Scotland:
Since 6 February 1952: His Royal Highness The Duke of Rothesay
That way, the Scottish and non-Scottish titles are presented equally. --G2bambino (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Personally I really like the idea, however since such changes would need to be made to other previous POW articles, I would suggest bringing this up at WP:BROY. Also, after looking at some other monarch's styles and titles sections, I take back my previous statement regarding High Commissioners. It seems such titles are also included. Perhaps thing ought to be brought up at BROY also. Regards, --Cameron* 20:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear; I didn't think this would so balloon in scope. But, if changes here do touch on other articles, then yes, I suppose you're right to take it to the project first. --G2bambino (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I just realised that my last suggestion doesn't work; once Charles accedes to the throne, it would look like this:
14 November 1948 – 6 February 1952: His Royal Highness Prince Charles of Edinburgh
For England, Wales, and Northern Ireland:
6 February 1952 – 26 July 1958: His Royal Highness The Duke of Cornwall
Since 26 July 1958: His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales
For Scotland:
6 February 1952 – 24 August 2029: His Royal Highness The Duke of Rothesay
Since 24 August 2029': His Majesty The King
As though Charles were only king in Scotland. Of course, where this problem would really present itself is on previous male monarchs' articles. --G2bambino (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Haha, quite a funny side effect! ;) --Cameron* 20:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
On a related point just how far is the title "Duke of Rothesay" actually used in Scotland? I presume the court circular uses it, and presumably also any charities he's involved with, but does the Scottish specific media call Charles "the Duke of Rothesay" when elsewhere he'd be called "the Prince of Wales"? (And was there any fuss over the title used for Camilla in Scotland?) Timrollpickering (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Recent edits
Spelling has been corrected throughout the article; there were numerous outright spelling errors as well as uses of USEng instead of UKEng;
Dead references have been removed;
References have been split into citations and footnotes;
NB: Some of the footnotes need to be cited
All citations have been converted to {{cite foo}} templates.
Twice now, Mountbatten's quoted words to Charles have been highlighted using a quote template. Is this necessary? The words, though pertinent to this article, aren't central to the character of the Prince of Wales. I think they should simply be within the body of text. --G2bambino (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
You're right. They aren't even his own words! ;) --Cameron* 15:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The advice Mountbatten gave Charles is often mentioned as the basis on which he chose his first wife, rather than marrying the woman with whom he was apparently in love. The fact of this man's life which is most memorable so far, aside from his being heir to the throne, is his failed first marriage, and his subsequent marriage to a former flame. Germane quotes about the subject, when significant, are appropriate and have never been excluded from articles on the grounds that they are about the subject rather than by the subject. FactStraight (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Nobody suggested the quote be removed. Merely that it is not necessary to highlight it in the manner that it currently is. If more has been made about Mountbatten's words, well, then, maybe they deserve graphic emphasis. But, right now, I don't see much evidence of them being more than some advice offered to Charles in his youth; pertinent, yes, but central to his character? --G2bambino (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as Mountbatten's marriage advice was disasterous, perhaps it shouldn't be highlighted. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. (To my annoyance) even Elizabeth II's "I declare before you all..." doesn't use a quote temp, then this definitely shouldn't. To be honest it's rather riduculous. I've removed it. --Cameron* 11:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd be interested, though, to see this apparent commentary on the words and their effect on Charles. It would probably be of benefit to the article. --G2bambino (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Official portrait
Can we get his portrait revealed on his birthday? That was great. Grsz11→Review! 23:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Suggested move
I suggest moving this article to Prince Charles or The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales. Personally I'd prefer the latter. At the moment HRH seems to be styled as the divorced wife of a Prince (eg Diana, Princess of Wales or Sarah, Duchess of York)! --Cameron* 13:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Could someone replace the bizarre table in the Arms section with some prose that is intelligible to non-British people? I can't make heads or tails of half of it. For example, there is a section called "Supporters" (with no explanation as to what as a "Supporter" is), that states: Dexter a lion rampant gardant Or imperially crowned Proper, sinister a unicorn Argent, armed, crined and unguled Or, gorged with a coronet Or composed of crosses patée and fleurs de lis a chain affixed thereto passing between the forelegs and reflexed over the back also Or
Is that vandalism or is that text supposed to be there? If so, what the heck does it mean? And why does it end with "or"? And why are the ors capitalized? Parsing this table seems to require some very specialized knowledge, which is not in line with the WP:JARGON and WP:MTAA guidelines. If the table cannot be replaced entirely, it should at least be augmented with some explanatory text. Kaldari (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
See blazon. Or here refers to a golden tincture; it's customarily capitalized in blazons, and placed after the noun (weird for English, but it's a Norman heritage; it's like Charles's mother being of the United Kingdom [etc] Queen, I guess). There's nothing wrong with keeping the blazon, but a layman explanation should definitely be added by someone who knows what he's talking about. Maybe the people at WP:HV can help. —JAO • T • C 21:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's a paraphrase:
Quarterly 1st and 4th gules three lions passant guardant in pale or armed and langed azure 2nd or a lion rampant gules armed and langued azure within a double tressure flory counterflory of the second 3rd azure a harp or stringed argent overall an escutcheon of Royal Badge of Wales.
The shield is divided in quarters. The upper left and lower right quarters are red, with three golden lions with blue tongues and claws, arrayed in a vertical row, each walking with three feet on the ground and looking at the viewer face on.
The upper right quarter is gold, with a red lion with a blue tongue and claws standing on its left hind foot inside a double border inset from the edges of the quarter. The border is decorated with fleurs-de-lis alternating inside and outside the border.
The lower left quarter is blue, with a golden harp with silver strings.
In the center of the arms, a shield depicting the Royal Badge of Wales.
Dexter a lion rampant gardant Or imperially crowned Proper, sinister a unicorn Argent, armed, crined and unguled Or, gorged with a coronet Or composed of crosses patée and fleurs de lis a chain affixed thereto passing between the forelegs and reflexed over the back also Or
On the right, a golden lion rearing up on its left hind leg with its forelegs elevated, the right above the left, with its face turned to the front, wearing an imperial crown in its natural colors.
On the left, a silver unicorn with golden horn, hair, and hooves, wearing a golden coronet as a collar, the coronet consisting of crosses with arms narrow at the center and broad at the periphery and fleurs-de-lis, with a golden chain passing from the coronet between the forelegs and thrown over the unicorn's back.
The whole differenced by a plain Label of three points Argent, as the eldest child of the sovereign
With a silver band with three pendants running across the top of the entire shield.
Note that our picture does not show the supporters! - Nunh-huh 22:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I have also changed the description of the crown of the Prince of Wales from 'coronet' to 'crown'. A coronet never has arches, the headgear of the Heir Apparent to the British throne and the Prince of Wales (both follow the same design) has two arches and is correctly described as a crown. [See also the article on here on Coronets, where the headgear for the Heir Apparant is correctly described as a crown, not a coronet]. Ds1994 (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Neutrality disputed?
Why is there a neutrality disputed indicator next to the listing of HM The Queen as HRH The Prince's mother? I was pretty sure we were convinced :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.9.161 (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe it's her description rather than maternity that's disputed. Someone apparently felt it was not "neutral" to describe her as Queen of the United Kingdom, rather than, say, Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia, or Queen of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Quite silly, really. -Nunh-huh 23:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
That would be silly, if it were actually what was being proposed. --Miesianiacal (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course, if there ever was a "proposal" it's been archived. There's no active discussion on the neutrality "issue"; if you'd care to enlighten us, why not do so rather than just dropping a subjunctive in to inform us of your disagreement? - Nunh-huh 03:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
It has indeed been resolved. Thus, I've no disagreement to inform you of. Discussion has wrapped up and the tag no longer exists, so I trust we can now work together to make other improvements. --Miesianiacal (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
So then it was what was being proposed after all? - Nunh-huh 08:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, no; what you said was proposed actually was never proposed. There was a discussion on the neutrality matter, though it had essentially wrapped up by the time you commented above on Feb 11. The decision was to return to "Elizabeth II", as it had been for ages before. --Miesianiacal (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I note in that discussion (about another page and another person) references to "Elizabeth II of Canada", the "Queen of Belize" and the "Queen of Australia", so my comment seems not far from the mark. Unfortunate that the tag remained after the discussion had concluded, isn't it. - Nunh-huh 00:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Far enough from the mark, though; it would seem hypocritical to me if one were to claim that "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" was unacceptably NPOV, but propose "Elizabeth II of Canada" as a superior alternative! :) It's also my impression that leaving the tag for an additional 24hrs was merely playing it safe. --Miesianiacal (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
It's my impression that best practice would be to actually discuss the placement of a neutrality tag on the talk page of the article on which it is placed. Then no one will have to guess (in this case, quite accurately) what it is about. - Nunh-huh 00:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed that that is the preferred scenario. However, in this particular instance the matter spread across more than one article. Rather than having multiple parallel discussions about the same subject, it seemed better to concentrate it in one place. --Miesianiacal (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Even in that case I suppose a link to the centralized discussion belongs on the talk page of each article afflicted with the tag. For next time, then, since the tag is at least temporarily absent here. -Nunh-huh 02:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Certainly. Hence, the link above to the centralised discussion; the one that I just pointed you to. As sometimes happens here, things may have become slightly convoluted; but, I suspect it was only because of unique factors. I assure you I tried my best to make things as clear and open as possible. --Miesianiacal (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps next time the link could be marked as "discussion with regard to neutrality tag on how we should refer to the Queen" rather than "link about this matter" with no indication as to what "this matter" might be? - Nunh-huh 04:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
[outdent] The original header I had above was more clearly associated with the tag in the article. Another user subsequently expressed a dislike of the header and changed it at the other talk page; I thus changed it here to match. Regardless, is it really so difficult to simply click on the link? --Miesianiacal (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
It would be best for the creator of the link to label it properly, rather than for him to insist that the curious find and click on the mystery link, and then complain when someone gives an accurate precis of what is to be found there. - Nunh-huh 03:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Nunh-huh, I've tried to explain to you what happened. As you seem unsatisfied with what I've presented, I could go to the further effort of showing you diffs of edits made across two articles and their associated talk pages to illustrate. However, as it's really such a trivial matter, I'd rather you just simply took my word for it: my original set up may not have been ideal, but it was what I thought best given the circumstances, and I did not want to see additional conflict over nothing more than the wording of a talk page header. If you don't want to believe me, well... I can live with it. --Miesianiacal (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
HRH Charles, Prince of Quackery
There is enough notable criticism in RS of his ignorance of scientific matters and his support for unscientific (=alternative medicine) medical practices that we could easily have a separate article on the subject. It could be entitled:
What think ye of the idea? Right now we have an article that is about as whitewashed of any form of criticism as any article I've yet seen. Even on this controversial subject there is only this meager mention of the subject:
As such, Charles has also been known to have interest in alternative medicine,[2] which drew fire from the medical establishment. In 2004, doctors spoke out against Charles' endorsement of coffee enemas as a treatment for cancer,[3] and, in April 2008, The Times published a letter from Edzard Ernst, a professor of Complementary Medicine, that asked Charles and his Foundation for Integrated Health to recall two guides promoting "alternative medicine", saying: "the majority of alternative therapies appear to be clinically ineffective, and many are downright dangerous."[4]
The subject needs to be developed into a whole article. Here's a search to start with:
I personally don't see any particular "need" for an entire article dedicated to attacking Charles. --Miesianiacal (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
It's really irrelevant to Wikipedia whether it attacks or not. We document what happens in the world, and this is a notable subject where all sides of the issue can be documented, IOW his POV will also be documented. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, as you were criticising the lack of criticism, I got the impression your proposed article would fill the supposed gap; ie. it would be predominantly critical. However, if I misread (or you miswrote), and you do wish for something balanced, then I shall reserve my judgement until there's something tangible to judge. --Miesianiacal (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
It would be on the subject, and there would naturally be lots of criticism from V & RS, but his POV would also have to be presented, which is what NPOV requires. BTW, "balance" at Wikipedia doesn't mean that there must be an equal amount of "for" and "against". The weight would favor the subject matter (identified by the title), and since there are several sides to the matter, they must be aired.
Actually the whole royal family has a historically problematic relationship to alternative medicine, most notably the pseudosciencehomeopathy, which sets a very bad example for the nation. That could be another article too. In past times there was so much awe and respect surrounding the royalty that public criticism was subdued, if voiced at all. Times have changed, and since the Prince has expressed much support for nonsensical and even dangerous POV, the scientific world has risen in rebellion and thrown off their earlier retiscence and openly rebuked Charles. It's a serious matter that leads to deaths and increases the profits of quacks and charlatans. At a time when the public's knowledge of science is at a historically low point, and superstition and ignorance are regaining their hold on large parts of society, such a bad example is tragic and also does more to undermine confidence in the royal family. It just doesn't deserve it anymore. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Prince Charles' attitude towards science and medicine is quite notable, and should be included in this article. It is not a criticism of him, it's just what he espouses, and it should be in this article. Homeopathy doesn't work, because it's just water. I'll support Fyslee's addition to this article. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 06:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it should definitely be included in this article, whether there is a daughter article or not. THere is probably more than enough RS for a daughter article, but that shouldn't reduce the coverage here. I fully support the addition. Verbalchat 13:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
It's only a really small aspect of Charles' life, I really think the current section is more than enough...--Cameron* 15:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I get the sense that people think this subject isn't presently covered in the article, when, in reality, it is. The question then is: is it covered enough? I suppose the answer is a matter of personal opinion, but I'd say that however much is inserted, it should certainly be only a fraction of the content dedicated to his architectural and environmental pursuits, as - as Cameron notes - the homeopathy stuff is really not an area Charles intently focuses on. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Yep. And as a side note, this isn't the place for discussion. --Cameron* 15:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow. Lecturing three experienced, good faith editors about what the talk section is or isn't. Give us a break. Three experienced, good faith editors, are convinced that it is notable and it should be included in more detail, especially since his anti-science comments are given a lot of weight (if not because everyone thinks Charlie knows anything, it's just his position). We can discuss herein on whether it should be included, how it should be included, etc. Don't insult us with a nonsensical reference to an irrelevant guideline (at least in this case) just to end the conversation. BTW, his environmental pursuits are solidly anti-science too. Architecture isn't science, so I could care less about his opinion, especially since it's kind of a UK problem, not a world-wide one. Let's not whitewash this article, if there is an opportunity to improve it significantly. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 16:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how Cameron sought to end the discussion. I only interpret his words as a reminder that we should keep our discussion focused. However dearly they're held, personal views on homeopathy or Charles himself don't contribute much to this matter. --Miesianiacal (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Given the impressive scope of Charles' ignorance and his habit of embracing potentially dangerous quackery (coffee enemas?), it is entirely appropriate to have a section dedicated to this, with a link to a more complete article on the subject. What exists here now doesn't even begin to cover it. Doc Tropics 18:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I assure you, I would never presume to end a discussion. Claiming Prince Charles' opinions constitute "anti-science", "nonsense" and that he sets "a bad example for the nation", however is personal POV which is entirely irrelevant to this talk page and the article. Best, --Cameron* 20:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I assure you there are plenty of RS to support such statements. Just look at the scientific and media response to the infamous "grey-goo" gaffe. His support of AltMed and derision of science has had a disproportionate effect on the perception of AltMed in the UK, as shown by RS, and that is worthy of its own section and possibly a daughter article. It is also interesting to note how frosty homeopaths have been to his recent efforts to set up offquack. Verbalchat 22:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
[outdent] There's a difference between a source saying the Prince's views are "nonsense" and you saying the Prince's views are "nonsense". Cameron's point, I believe (and he may correct me if I'm wrong), was that we all should stick to the former and avoid the latter. I take it that one of you will soon present a proposal for additions/alterations to the page? --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course there's a difference, and it's the same difference between the article itself and the talk page. Here we informally discuss things, often without adding refs to each of our statements. When we are actually developing the content, then we will indeed use refs, since there are plenty of them. What you have correctly observed is that my personal opinion happens to coincide nicely with the sources and the scientific community's opinion of him.
I suggest that we just start with adding more content to a new section (merging it with the existing meager content on the subject) and when it becomes large enough for a new article, we can spin it off as an appropriate fork and leave a "main article" link and a copy of the LEAD of that new article. If we don't develop it very much, then it can just remain a section here. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
That's a good plan Fyslee, and it looks to me like you've made a good start on the new section. Doc Tropics 03:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Chronology
The sections and content dealing with the first marriage, adultery, separation, divorce, remarriage, death of Diana, etc., aren't in chronological order and needs some fixing, probably by making some different headings. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems quite chronological to me. --Miesianiacal (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Possessive punctuation
That header may have a double meaning. Regardless, as the punctuation format used here to indicate a possessive has been very long-standing, I think it would be up to anyone wishing to change it to gain a consensus for the move. It seems utterly unnecessary to me as not only is the Charles' form completely permissible outside Wikipedia, but Wikipedia:MOS#Possessives very clearly states that either Charles's or Charles' is acceptable, as long as consistency is maintained. User:JohnArmagh should make his case here as to why only the former is to be used. --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
British English usage is quite specific. Only where the terminating s on a noun is a construct of the plural form is it permissible to omit the possessive and terminate with the apostrophe. It is likely that the usage terminating with the apostrophe irrespective of plurality is a development either from non-British regions (possibly the English-speaking Americas), or (quite likely) has come about through mistaken perception of the rules of punctuation.
Given this mistaken perception, a consensus on the matter would not establish correctness, but would rather establish the widespread nature of the misconception. In the end language is determined by common usage rather than established standards, but it will be a sad state of affairs when standards are not upheld, as this would bring into question the purpose of educating people in the proper use of the language if it is so easily to be left open to common usage without underlying standard, and this trend can only lead inexorably into misinterpretation and ambiguity of the information intended to be related in the text. --JohnArmagh (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I personally cannot say with absolute certainty that you are wrong. However, if what you say is true, I still think the MoS is the place to bring this up, as the problem (if it exists at all) has a far wider reach than just this page; the s' form is used frequently across articles of a "British nature" (though, it's also debatable just how uniquely "British" this article is). A good number of British individuals have edited this article, and in all the years I've been looking at it, none has raised any issue with the way the possessive of a singular noun ending in s has been presented. --Miesianiacal (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I've asked for assistance from people at the MoS. --Miesianiacal (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I can say with absolute certainty that JohnArmagh is at least half wrong. See the OED: In England it goes by the name of ‘King Charles' Wain’. Omitting the terminal s is more formal and poetic, but it was standard usage as recently as the nineteenth century. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 03:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The consensus must surely be that "permissable" is not permissible. Neither is "concensus", but because the word is derived from the same root as consent. When we judge language, we must be careful to not demonstrate ignorance of it. So I shall cover thy butt, JohnArmagh.
The LEAD utterly fails its duty
The lead section needs to be developed much more. There are many subjects that are covered and only a few are mentioned in the lead. It can't stand alone as a complete summary of the article. If a subject has its own heading, it deserves mention in the lead. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I've rewritten it. The earlier version was mostly trivia about rarely used titles. Kauffner (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Fatuous Facts
He's '...a fan of Leonard Cohen' yet there is no mention of the Goon show and the fact that he was made an honorary patron of the Goon Show Appreciation Society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.102.179 (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
House
The infobox should include Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. By Glücksburg house law and by European convention (excluding the UK) he is a member of that house and is also widely regarded as such. He couldn't be in the line of succession to the headship and ducal title if he wasn't a member of the house. Urban XII (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, a certain user appears to be wikistalking me constantly interrupting my editing with edit conflicts. It is not acceptable to move the information on his place in the line of succession of his own house to the most obscure section of the article. Articles on other royals and nobles who are in the line of succession to the British throne prominently feature this in the lead section. The line of succession to the headship of his own house is much more relevant than being number 200 in the British line of succession. Urban XII (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree, the infobox should mention Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg and I agree with you reasoning as well. However, I am afraid that including S-H-S-G would be original research. Do we have any sources that confirm that he is a member of that house, that he considers himself to be a member of that house or that every legitimate agnatic descendant of a member of the House of S-H-S-G is himself/herself a member of the House of S-H-S-G? I know, it's common knowledge that children belong to their father's house but we need sources nevertheless. Furthermore, mentioning the House of S-H-S-G in the infobox of this article would require doing the same in the articles about the Duke of Edinburgh's other children and in the articles about the children of his sons. Surtsicna (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Why does it seem that the Queen does not want Charles to be King?
Now that we hear that the Queen is taking steps to have Prince William take on some of her duties and responsibilities, it seems clear that the Queen has not and does not intend for Charles to ever hold the title King. Would such a statement really be construed as opinion, for the purpose of inclusion in the main article?
Has there ever been discussion of this here in the talk section of this article?
Can William take or be given the thrown as King before the death of Charles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.130.47 (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Complete POV. Why can't she simply be training him for when he becomes king after Charles? And it would require an Act of Parliament to exclude Charles from the succession. ðarkuncoll 20:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Tharky's correct, anon. All the tabloid, media etc etc stories (over the years) about William replacing Charles as Elizabeth II's successor, are hallow. The UK Parliament has the last say on the British succession. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
And the Canadian parliament has the last say on the Canadian succession, and the Australian parliament on the Australian succession, and the Jamaican parl... well, you get the point. --ĦMIESIANIACAL 04:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I knew I should've mentioned the other 15 realm Parliaments, hehehe. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Divorce section makes the prince sound somewhat.... sugar coated
I can't help feeling, having not read this section, that it's not perticularly fair and has portrays the Prince in a much better light than what a more balanced article would.
For example, there are phrases which delibrately give the impression that Diana was 'unstable and temperamental', there's hear-say 'one by one, she apparently dismissed each of Charles' long-standing staff members and fell out with his friends' and only at the end it's noted that Charles cheated on her!!!
I think we should rewrite the divorce section to make it more balanced - does anyone have any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardeast (talk • contribs) 22:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I thibk it's the complete opposite, it doesn't mention Diana's many affairs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.85.218 (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Longest serving Prince of Wales
Regarding the paragraph where it's mentioned that Prince Charles will become the longest serving Prince of Wales in British history in April 2011:
Edward VII was Prince of Wales for just over 59 years from late 1841 to early 1901. Charles became Prince of Wales in 1958, so wouldn’t he have to wait until 2017 to become the record holder? — EgbertW (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Surely he should have been created Prince of Wales just after his grandfather died on 6 February 1952? (HaroldLockwood (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC))
Should have been, Harold? Well, no, actually. The only person traditionally eligible to be Prince of Wales is the eldest son of the sovereign; but whether the title is granted at all, and if so, when, is entirely a matter for the sovereign. This is different from the Duchy of Cornwall, the Dukedom of Rothesay, the Earldom of Carrick, and the High Stewardship of Scotland, which are all automatically the Heir Apparent's titles. Charles became all those latter titles immediately he became Heir Apparent on 6 February 1952. But he did not become Prince of Wales until 1958, because his mother was not ready to grant him that title till then. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Charles will be the longest-serving Heir to the Throne in 2011. (92.13.64.160 (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC))
Like that's a title a guy reall wants -- just sitting around, twiddling thumbs, waiting for the phone call reporting that Mum has kicked the bucket so that he can pick up luggage and move into the big bedroom. One must be patient with these things, of course. Sixty years or so of waiting, hum-dum-dum. Gee, that wall on the clock certainly ticks slowly...
Actually Prince Charles is very active, and has tremendous work for various charities and humanitarian organisations etc He most certainly does not "Sit around twiddling thumbs".
this attempted assassination. 23-year-old David Kang fires a starting pistol at the Prince of Wales during an Australia Day speech in Sydney Australia, on January 26, 1994. David Kang's attemp was regarded withe the protest of boat people. David Kang has become a lawyer now.(XJG) 19: 09, 13 June 2010
How can you assassinate with a starting pistol, hit them with it? Clearly not an assassination attempt. Leaky Caldron 11:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
what i dont understand is why is there not a subsection in the article devoted to all unusual incidents and threats?--70.162.171.210 (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Interest in architecture
It is surely true that PoW has been criticised by top architects for his perceived interference in architectural projects. I think this needs to be balanced by a statement that his involvement is generally popular and applauded by most people. But it needs a reliable source. Any thoughts? Kittybrewster ☎ 21:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Should there be a section for public perception?
As a public figure he's certainly generated a lot of controversy, with many thinking he should not succeed his mother on some of the various thrones. Is a perception section wikipedia like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.169.106 (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit old, isn't it? If you want to insert it somewhere, you'll need to find out when the picture was taken and whether it would be relevant to include it under that period. 82.176.209.52 (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
More images of him with Diana
There are far too many images of him with Camilla. There should be at least one with Diana, apart from the commemoration medal.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Footnote numbering problem
All the footnote links after 23 link to the wrong number and there's a footnote N 2 in the middle. I won't mess with it, because I don't know why it's there, but it looks wrong. -Loyal Subject of the Queen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.20.94 (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from 89.149.63.82, 18 November 2010
{{edit semi-protected}}
Please change at 'Built environment': and Saxon villages of Transylvania,[43][44][45] where he purchased a house.[46]
to: and Saxon and Szekler villages of Transylvania,[43][44][45] where he purchased 2 houses.
source: www.transylvaniancastle.com
89.149.63.82 (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. No view on whether the Prince has 1 or 2 houses, just that source you provide isn't reliable by Wikipedia standards. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
National Trust in Canada
The article says "Charles assisted with the establishment of a National Trust for the built environment in Canada, after lamenting, in 1996, the unbridled destruction of many of the country's historic urban cores. He offered his assistance to the Department of Canadian Heritage in the creation of a trust modelled on the British variant, and, with the passing of the 2007 federal budget by his mother's representative in Canada, a Canadian national trust was finally fully implemented."
I cannot find any evidence of this Trust. Could someone please provide a source, or perhaps point out what part of the budget act contains a provision for this trust? --Munchkinguy (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Spouce
This page needs to be updated as he is now married to Camilla Bowls Parker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.52.98 (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Reason for separation
The article as written implies that they separated due to Charles having an affair with Camilla. However he has stated that he did not consort with Camilla until after the separation, and Diana has admitted to seven or eight lovers - several before the separation. The article should be more balanced, and less hostile to Charles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Rumored abdication
Would it be possible to include that there have been rumors that Charles would simply step aside and allow William to reign? Or should they just be dismissed as only rumors? There are plenty of sources that mention the idea, and apparently polling in the UK shows some support for the idea [5][6][7][8]. Hot Stop (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Issue: Henry aka Harry
Under heading 12, "Issue," both on the page and in the right sidebar, it would be quite helpful and should be briefly noted (in parentheses) that, Henry is most widely known as "Harry." In the main article (and exclusively virtually everywhere in the press) he is mostly referred to as "Harry." It should be noted in the "quick facts" sections as well, so that one doesn't have to read the whole article (or do an internet search) to figure out who "Henry" is.Priscilla-jesus (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Military Rank?
Charles holds the title of Personal Aide-de-Camp in the United Kingdom, and that article lists his military rank as "Admiral". If this is correct, it should have some mention here. SeanNovack (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I had the same thought at the Commodore-in-Chief article. This article does not spend much time on his military service. Here is what I found. Charles has held the rank of Admiral of the Royal Navy since 2006.[9] He was promoted to 4-star on his 58th birthday.Prince Charles promoted to four star rank for 58th birthday When he served in the Royal Navy, he must have left service with a specific rank. It would seem that it was not terribly notable by his own words. "The prince's brief military career ended 30 years ago, in charge of the coastal minesweeper HMS Bronington. "I spent most of the time petrified that I was going to run aground or we'd have a collision," he said soon after.Group29 (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Religion
How is he a practicing member of the Church of England and the Church of Scotland? (Not saying he isn't, I know he is, as is the Queen, I just want to know how it is possible). One is Anglican and the other is Presbyterian, and they have conflicting theological beliefs. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Name Suffices
As a Master of Arts, he should also have the suffix "MA" after his name. Is there a reason why he doesn't or has it just been missed off? 87.194.214.89 (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know whether I understood your question entirely correct, but here at Wikipedia post-nominal letters of academic degrees should not be used, this according Wikipedia guideline WP:INITIAL. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Name of His House?
I'm not certain but the last section on ancestry it says: "In the United Kingdom, in the absence of any future decrees to the contrary, Charles will use the name Windsor as a monarch." Does this mean, as king, he will continue to be part of the House of Windsor? SDSpivey (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, he will use the name Windsor and that will be the name he is refereed by officially. However, he also a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (A cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg) in the male line through his father Prince Philip. It really has no meaning, but it is a technicality. Andrew0921 (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
An Order-in-Council issued in 1960, which is the legally controlling document concerning the name of the British dynasty and its members' surnames. It says, in relevant part, "...Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor." (London Gazette, issue 41948, Feb. 8, 1960, p. 1/1003. See also the Times Feb 9, 1960 p. 10E.) Andrew0921 (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
References to the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg are being added to multiple articles related to the Royal Family of the Commonwealth realms, and yet, not one reliable source has been provided. I yesterday began a discussion about this at Talk:House of Windsor#House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. Input there by interested parties would be appreciated. --ĦMIESIANIACAL 13:21, 15 February 2011
(UTC)
The article on Prince Philip can be used as a citation if needed. Prince Charles is indeed a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (itself an extension of the House of Oldenburg) in addition to being a member of the House of Windsor, Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg in the paternal-line and Windsor in the maternal-line. This fact was mentioned in article because it is relevant and has encyclopedic value, and to not mention it almost seems to deny the refutable fact that the children of Prince Philip and Elizabeth II belong to both houses through the male and female lines respectively. Andrew0921 (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The article on the House of Glücksburg even mentions that Charles is a member of that house. Nobody is denying that he is a Windsor, or that Windsor is his official surname. It is, however, an encyclopedic fact that he is also a member of the House of Glücksburg. and the fact is mentioned because of it's relevance to the article. Precedence is given to his being a member of the House of Windsor first and foremost by listing it above Glücksburg, but the fact remains that the mention of Glücksburg has encyclopedic value. Andrew0921 (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles cannot themselves be used as sources for other articles. We need a reliable source from off-Wiki, and the one given in the "Ancestry" section of this article doesn't support the claim. Please discuss this where I linked above. --ĦMIESIANIACAL 16:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I second what Andrew0921 says above. A source for Charles being a member of the House of Glücksburg/Oldenburg is Michel Huberty, L'Allemagne dynastique, Volume 7, Giraud, 1994, ISBN2901138071, ISBN9782901138075. This is in its nature a genealogical question, the issue of which name he is using a different issue altogether, using the name Windsor changes nothing (the British royal family has actually not settled on one name, but are using several, including Windsor, Mountbatten-Windsor or sometimes only "Wales" (for some of them)). I find it puzzling how some British nationalist editors are seemingly trying to remove his ancestry from the article. Fact is that he is both a patrilineal member of the House of Glücksburg the way the traditional system of genealogy works, and using a different name in the UK under a new system created there in 1952/1960 (which has nothing to do with genealogy/ancestry). In Europe except the UK and the field of royal genealogy internationally, "house" means family in the sense of agnatic lineage (patrilineality), this has been the system since Roman times. It is a system used by genealogists, and not necessarily a "name" actively used by those considered to be part of the house. This system, and the post-1952/1960 practice in the UK, are obviously not compatible, so the neutral and sensible solution is to list both house names, the house name per the traditional system used by European genealogists (such as Huberty), and the UK-specific system/name. (The House of Windsor is categorized as a cadet branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Charles is obviously not a member of any branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, so if he were to be a member of a house called Windsor, it would be a different house than the House of Windsor that is a cadet branch of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha).
An encyclopedia should not push one point of view only when this can be viewed differently. If a living person (Elizabeth) claims something completely at odds with the way things have worked for thousands of years, we should at the very least mention both positions on the matter. Garn Svend (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
As Charles was born in 1948, he must, even in Britain, have been considered a member of the House of Glücksburg at the time of his birth. It was only in 1952 and 1960 that his mother issued her Windsor statements. It's only appropriate for this article to have the house he was born into, even by the then British system, listed first. The two Windsor statements actually refer to the name only. Even if the family of Charles is using a new name, it will still be a cadet branch of the parent house of Glücksburg. The 1952 and 1960 Windsor statements say nothing on this issue, so it's reasonable to follow standard, agreed on practice in the field of royal genealogy.
In 1917, George V declared that: "all descendants in the male line of Queen Victoria [i.e., male line descendants of Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha], who are subjects of these realms, other than female descendants who marry or who have married, shall bear the name of Windsor". This did not change until 1952, so Charles was not considered a member of a house of Windsor from 1948 to 1952. Even his mother was not a member of such a house by the provisions of George V's declaration following her 1947 marriage until starting using the name in 1952, she was by marriage a member of the house of Glücksburg, and possibly with her husband's newly adopted surname of Mountbatten. Patrilineality was the system used for house membership everywhere in Europe including the UK until 1952, well into the marriage of Elizabeth and Philip as well as the life of Charles. Garn Svend (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I came to the article curious about what his actual name is. It seems like the article might discuss this issue a bit. It sounds like it is Charles Mountbatten-Windsor for personal purposes and Charles Windsor for the purposes of his official King/Prince actions based on some of the above posts. I saw in a documentary that he entered the name Mountbatten-Windsor in the official documents of his marriage to Camilla which is consistent with this idea. So now I'm curious what the actual names of William and Harry are. --Davefoc (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
If you by name mean surname, it is officially Windsor for some members of that family and Mountbatten-Windsor for other members. But even the ones who are theoretically called Windsor, in practice always use Mountbatten-Windsor. The topic of genealogical-historical house membership and ancestry, of course, is a separate issue. Garn Svend (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe you'll need to provide more than one source to support the amount of information you inserted into the article, per WP:UNDUE. You can say Michel Huberty claims Charles is a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg; but one person's opinion does nnot a fact make. --ĦMIESIANIACAL 12:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from 67.162.11.74, 22 May 2011
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the "ancestry" section at the bottom of this page, add the following suffixes to 4 of Prince Charles ancestors:
24 - Prince Edward VII is sister of #23 - Princess Alice (both are children of Queen Victoria)
16 - King Christian IX is father of #25 - Alexandra, Princess of Denmark
The move of the Prince Charles' new Canadian royal standard into the coat of arms template has drawn my attention to what seems to be an inconsistent and confusing arrangement. The template highlights the Prince of Wales' arms for the United Kingdom and, thus, also contains banners that derive from or are directly related to those arms; namely, the banners for the United Kingdom and Cornwall and the defaced Royal Standard of Scotland. However, the banner of the Duke of Rothsay, and those for Wales and, especially, Canada are completely unrelated to the coat of arms. Why, then, are they included within the template? My feeling is the latter three, at least, should be separated out. --ĦMIESIANIACAL 21:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, it was just the way it has been done for a while. There should be a different way of display all the standards, firstly without reducing them to tiny icons and secondly, individually and quite apart from the coat of arms. The coat of arms template is outdated and should be modified to remove banners and flags altogether, however that would require change in all article where it appears. Perhaps all the Prince's flags could be put in table form, like this: List of Canadian flags or this:Flags of Elizabeth II. Sodacan (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from 46.246.177.230, 20 July 2011
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: If "OM" is included then the post nominals of all his other honours of comparable stature will also have to be included. There are too many, so per WP:POSTNOM it should not be done. Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Gay Allegations from 2003
Why isn't there anything about this in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.14.251.213 (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Besides being a BLP, are you kidding? Diana? Carmilla? And various other pre-marriage liasons. Two children (not that that's a definite factor) - he may be somewhat "Old World" genteel at times, but without a VERY reliable source, it can't go in the article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Prince Charles, Prince of wales; or Charles, Prince of Wales
Shouldn't the article be titled "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales," instead of "Charles, Prince of Wales." Though it may be implicit with his title, being a Prince, in the sense of territorial nobility (i.e., "Prince of Wales," or "Prince of Monaco," etc.) is different from being the Royal son of a monarch and being styled as a "prince" (i.e., "Prince Charles," or "Prince William"). So, Prince Charles is both; he holds the title, or rank of "Prince of Wales," AND is also a son of the monarch, and thus a "prince" and hence, the article should be "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales." This is the case for all the other members of the Royal Family on wikipedia: Prince William is "Prince William, Duke of Cambridge," or "Prince Andrew, Duke of York," or even "Princess Anne, Princess Royal." It should also be noted that this does not apply for the wives of the married princes. So, the wife of Prince Charles is "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" and not "Princess Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall." Even if the wife of Prince Charles was referred to as the "Princess of Wales," like Diana, Princess of Wales, she would still be "Diana, Princess of Wales" and not "Princess Diana, Princess of Wales." This is due to the fact that they are married into the Royal Family and not the son (or daughter) of the monarch. A good way of looking at this is the German use of "Prince." In German, "Furst" is used as a title of nobility; in the sense like "Prince of Wales," whereas "Prinz" is used for the family members of the monarchy, like "Prince William."
Thus, the article should be about "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales," not the simple "Charles, Prince of Wales." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.190.10 (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Sovereigns don't ascend
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Could the clause Prince Charles was three years old at his mother's ascension in the first paragraph be changed to Prince Charles was three years old at his mother's accessionW4rd3n (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Prince Charles, Prince of wales; or Charles, Prince of Wales
Shouldn't the article be titled "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales," instead of "Charles, Prince of Wales." Though it may be implicit with his title, being a Prince, in the sense of territorial nobility (i.e., "Prince of Wales," or "Prince of Monaco," etc.) is different from being the Royal son of a monarch and being styled as a "prince" (i.e., "Prince Charles," or "Prince William"). So, Prince Charles is both; he holds the title, or rank of "Prince of Wales," AND is also a son of the monarch, and thus a "prince" and hence, the article should be "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales." This is the case for all the other members of the Royal Family on wikipedia: Prince William is "Prince William, Duke of Cambridge," or "Prince Andrew, Duke of York," or even "Princess Anne, Princess Royal." It should also be noted that this does not apply for the wives of the married princes. So, the wife of Prince Charles is "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" and not "Princess Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall." Even if the wife of Prince Charles was referred to as the "Princess of Wales," like Diana, Princess of Wales, she would still be "Diana, Princess of Wales" and not "Princess Diana, Princess of Wales." This is due to the fact that they are married into the Royal Family and not the son (or daughter) of the monarch. A good way of looking at this is the German use of "Prince." In German, "Furst" is used as a title of nobility; in the sense like "Prince of Wales," whereas "Prinz" is used for the family members of the monarchy, like "Prince William."
Thus, the article should be about "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales," not the simple "Charles, Prince of Wales." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.190.10 (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Sovereigns don't ascend
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Could the clause Prince Charles was three years old at his mother's ascension in the first paragraph be changed to Prince Charles was three years old at his mother's accessionW4rd3n (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from , 13 November 2011
{{edit semi-protected}}
Under the headline "Philosophies and religious beliefs" at the end of the section saying
"Sir Laurens van der Post became a friend of Charles in 1977, a relationship which led him to be dubbed the "guru to Prince Charles", and made godfather to Charles' son, Prince William. From him, the Prince of Wales developed a focus on philosophy, especially that of Asian and Middle Eastern nations, and New Age theology, praising Kabbalistic artworks,[70] and penning a memorial for Kathleen Raine, the Neoplatonist poet, who died in 2003.[71]
The following information should be added:
"In connection to this his interest in the thoughts of René Guénon and other exponents of the Traditionalist School of thought and Perennial philosophy should be mentioned. In 2006, for instance, he gave an introductory speech for a Sacred Web conference.
Not done for now, because that doesn't look like a reliable source. If you disagree, please feel free to discuss if further below and/or ask on WP:RSN. Cheers, Chzz ► 22:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Why is it not a reliable source? This is a quote from his speech:
"Temenos Academy and Sacred Web are also, of course, dedicated to an exploration of the role of Tradition in the modern world, the subject of this Conference, and, indeed, to a critique of the false premises of Modernity – a critique set out in one of the seminal texts of the traditionalists, René Guénon’s The Reign of Quantity.
Many find this teaching difficult, not least because it asks us to question our very mode of being; and perhaps because it asks us to question an ideology, in the form of Modernism, that has become so set in our minds that any other way of being seems in some sense fanciful and 'unrealistic'."
And you can verify that he actually said so just listening to his speech following the link to the video I gave in my first contribution on the subject.
The use of "The Prince Charles" in article opening
I am arguing that the short form of a British royal prince or princess in the opening of the article should include the "The" where applicable, as in "The Prince Charles." I argue that this is distinctive and meaningful as indicated on the British Monarchy's website. I would not, however, include HRH in the opening as this would be like using "Mr" which is not consistent with Wikipedia style as that is purely an honorific. The use of "The" indicates that the prince is a child of the monarch.
The use of "The" is not simply an honorific.
The royal website doesn't use it[10]. We don't need to either. It is an unnecessary distraction for the lead, and per MOS:HONORIFIC should not be used in the article body, but may be discussed as part of his title and style at a relevant place in the article. DrKiernan (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The Royal website does indeed use it, though not consistently, and this is standard practice. I think it's important to remember that the use of "The" is not required, but is meaningful to the title and does exist as part of it.
True, it is not incorrect to say "Prince Charles." However, it is more correct, or formal, to say "The Prince Charles," as this indicates that the individual is a child of the monarch. This is integral to the full princely title and I believe that the name used in the opening should be informative on this point. To the contrary, Charles' son, Prince William, is not The Prince WIlliam. I think it's useful to indicate this distinction where it does exist.
Transylvanian ancestors
"...one of the Prince's Transylvanian ancestors": any sources about this? Kreuzkümmel (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The primary source for the ancestry of HRH The Prince of Wales is the work in two volumes by Mr Gerald Paget entitled 'The Lineage and Ancestry of HRH Prince Charles, Prince of Wales', Skilton (1977). The reference to the Translyvanian ancestors is alluded to and summarised by Anthony Holden from this primary source in his book 'Charles Prince of Wales', Weidenfeld & Nicolson (1979), ISBN0 297 77662 3 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum, in which Mr Holden states:
" .......through his great-grandmother Queen Mary, the blood of many Magyar noble families,
including several of the Bathory voivodes of Translyvania, flows in his veins. In Romania,
by way of Queen Mary's ancestry, he descends from Vlad Dracul, Voivode of Wallachia (father
of the original Dracula) and thus from the Bassarab dynasty who were very possibly derived
from Genghis Khan himself".
I know that Philip is his father's name and that George is his maternal grandfather's name, but is there any significance to the name Arthur? It is not his paternal grandfather's name. Axeman (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
It's a common middle name for British princes, for reasons that should be rather self evident. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, to the point that King Henry VII named his eldest son Arthur, Prince of Wales. The King was alsom insistent that Arthur would be crowned King Arthur II in recognition and honour of the first Arthur of Britannic legend. Only the untimely death of the Heir Apparent prevented this from happening.Ds1994 (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Documentation of rumours
HansRoht left the following message on my talk page, and I've moved the thread over here, where it belongs. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The source you mention (which I assume you overlooked) denies the fact. It's unfounded, untrue and unsustained thus it serves no purpose or enrichment to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HansRoht (talk • contribs) 05:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Of course it's untrue. We are using a very reliable source to document the fact that such a rumour exists. Your reference is also a RS which examines the issue, and thus makes the coverage (and debunking) even better. We do not whitewash articles, we document what's happening in the world, including stupid rumours, especially when they are well-known.
BTW, you have violated BRD and are now edit warring by reverting without discussing "until" we reach a consensus through "D"iscussion. (BRD is not written BRRD.) I'll reset back to where this should be, and we'll now "D"iscuss the matter. Please do not revert again.
This discussion should occur on the article's talk page, not here. That's now how we do things here. I'll copy this discussion there and we can continue. When we reach a consensus, with the input of other editors, we will ALL decide, TOGETHER, what to do. Who knows, maybe you'll get your way! -- Brangifer (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand how a stupid rumour helps build a better World, this is an enciclopedia not a papparazzi magazine, sir. HansRoht (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC).
LOL! I understand you, and you're right, but "build[ing] a better World" is not the purpose of an encyclopedia, and definitely not the purpose of Wikipedia. The goal here is to document the sum total of human knowledge, the good and bad, facts, opinions, events, weird beliefs, conspiracy theories, and even (notable) rumors. This one is quite notable and persistent, and has been covered by many reliable sources, so we would be derelict if we neglected to mention it. We do mention it, but also present the debunking, which your link provides (so I've added it). By covering it as we do, we help to put the rumour to rest so it will die out. Whitewashing the article would only fuel conspiracy theories which would keep the rumour alive. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Charities
"The Prince's Charties" and the "The Prince's Charities Canada" are two separate organisations; one is not under or within the other, as DrKiernan's recent edits imply.
If having information about both together in one article is causing confusion, the article The Prince's Charities Canada can be made. I have never been certain the article The Prince's Charities was the right place to put information about The Prince's Charities Canada. --ĦMIESIANIACAL 13:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
They have the same name and logo; it is sufficient to use an all-encompassing term in the lead rather than list each charity with which he is connected. The distinction is rightly made in the body of the article or in a daughter article. DrKiernan (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
They don't have the same name, though; one is "The Prince's Charities" and the other is "The Prince's Charities Canada".
If we're going to go with an all-encompassing term (even if it is a bit of a neologism), without further clarification, it's unknown to the reader that "The Prince's Charities" is in the lead here being used as an all-encompassing term; it otherwise reads as though it is referring only to the one organisation called "The Prince's Charities". A minor addition is necessary; something like "he sponsors both versions of The Prince's Charities" or "he sponsors the two iterations of The Prince's Charities".
Alternately, mention of "The Prince's Charities" could be dropped altogether. --ĦMIESIANIACAL 15:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Then don't treat it as an all-encompassing term; simply treat it as one example of his huge number of patronages. I suggest replacing "he sponsors The Prince's Charities and is patron of many other charitable and arts organisations." with "he is patron or president of over 400 charitable and arts organisations, including The Prince's Charities." As I said, it is unnecessary to list every one, or The Prince's Charities Canada in particular, in this article. DrKiernan (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Why pick one out, then? Why not simply "he is patron, president, or sponsor of over 400 charitable and arts organisations."? --ĦMIESIANIACAL 16:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I see no harm in one example with which he is especially involved. In the same way, I see no harm in mentioning The Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme in the lead of Prince Philip's article. DrKiernan (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Admitted smoking
Should the article mention that Charles gave up smoking when he was eleven? (92.7.26.60 (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC))
Criticism
Would it not be better to place all the criticism the Prince attacks into a more coherent section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.93.239 (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Prince Charles has become a frog!
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Hyloscirtus Princecharles. This is the latin name of the new frog species, which scientists have discovered in Ecuador. Got its name from Prince Charles because he occupies years for the conservation of tropical forests and animals, and for this purpose established a special fund for helping. Fairy tale says that the princess kissed the frog, and she turned into a beautiful prince. But this time the opposite happened. Allow me to be funny, the prince became a frog. 78.2.83.247 (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
^Cite error: The named reference sur was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. No view on whether the Prince has 1 or 2 houses, just that source you provide isn't reliable by Wikipedia standards. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
