Talk:Charles III/Archive 8

King Charles' surname

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

Well, it's already in the article: as footnote 1 (to the name section in the Infobox). Given that the House name is far more of significance to a monarch, that seems about right to me. DeCausa (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It is not common for members of the royal family to use their last name. Critical Hippo (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

(ec*2) It's plausibly arguable that as he never uses a surname, he doesn't actually have one. If-he-did-ever-use-one-what-would-it-be is an angels on the head of a pin sort of question. His kids, when they did, most frequently used "Wales". This is also more-or-less the same discussion as the "name of his house" matter, which we also keep discussing here. We might want to consolidate or cross-link these to avoid duplication. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

In my view, we should avoid making any significant reference to his surname as it will only serve to confuse. As Charles is styled 'His Majesty, King Charles III' that is therefore his legal name. Consequently, he does not have a surname. Critical Hippo (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Largely agree. If we mention it at all, it might be in the context of, as Charles Mountbatten-Windsor does indeed redirect here, giving some suitably qualified gloss, on the principle of WP:R#ASTONISH. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Conceptually, is his name what he believes it is, what other people say it is, or what the law allows it to be? Wikipedia policy is to prefer reliable secondary sources, but we need to be careful to observe whether the source is actually addressing the question of nomenclature head-on, versus simply repeating a convenient conventional form of his name. TheFeds 20:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

In my view, his name is what the law says it is, or rather what he has selected within the scope permitted by law. But this is going somewhat off-topic. Critical Hippo (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Common law (more or less) says that your legal name is the one -- or potentially the more than one -- that you actually use and are known by others. The letters patent also have the force of law, but they're not necessarily the sole determinant. Also, they could be read as determining the surname of those not entitled to a substantive or courtesy title. Doesn't stop those who are as slumming it as "Wales" or "Mountbatten-Windsor". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Never in a thousand years has English Common Law ever referred to a reigning monarch by their surname. The courts have only ever refer to a monarch as His Majesty The King or by their regnal name - in this case His Majesty King Charles III (and common law is derived from court decisions and practice). I would be very interested in seeing any British court document that refers to a monarch as Elizabeth or George Windsor. 208.98.222.97 (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Not true. The High Court had a lot to say about one Charles Stuart in 1648. DeCausa (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"Reigning monarch". If and when the current incumbent is deposed and put on trial we can change the lede to refer to him as Charles Windsor or Charles Mountbatten-Windsor. Until then, his legal name is Charles III.

Wrong again. If you look at the the Court's death warrant it begins "Whereas Charles Stuart, king of England, is, and standeth, convicted". Parliament didn't depose him - he was executed as king and the monarchy was abolished after his death. DeCausa (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Deposing a king and abolition of the monarchy are not necessarily the same thing. William II, Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI, and Richard III are all kings who were deposed without the monarchy being abolished. If you want to argue that a King being tried and executed by what is ostensibly "his" own court is not being deposed, go ahead. But until Charles is brought to trial in a British court and tried for treason or otherwise removed from office his legal name remains Charles III and not Charles Windsor. A king cannot be tried in his own court- in the UK civil or criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the monarch - because the monarch is the fount of the law.[1] The act of a court putting the king on trial is in and of itself the act of deposing the king. The fact that the court is no longer his court is evidence of the fact he has lost power and has been deposed. 208.98.222.97 (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

No it's not. Charles was never deposed by Parliament and was executed as king. It's as simple as that. You're just making things up now. I think the point is here one should not make overblown statements like "never in a thousand years has English Common Law ever referred to a reigning monarch by their surname" without a better understanding or sourcing. There are reasons why Charles may not have an attributable surname. Court practise is not one of them. DeCausa (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The House of Commons indicted him for treason and created a court to have him tried and executed, so yes, he was deposed. 208.98.222.97 (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

He wasn't deposed prior to being referred to as "Charles Stuart". So very much a counterexample to your assertion. Which it's not at all clear was ever material to the contents of the article, anyway. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The death warrant signed for his execution, after his conviction, refers to him as Charles Stuart King of England FrederalBacon (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Should have pardoned himself. But of course he couldn't because as of his arrest he no longer was able to exercise any of a king's powers because functionally he was no longer king regardless of what he was being called. 208.98.222.97 (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. What edit to the article is this lengthy tangent being introduced in favour of, or in opposition to? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Putting a surname in the lead sentence of the article. 208.98.222.97 (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough then, and on that I agree. But we don't need to demonstrate that it's impossible for him to have a surname, or legally defective to call him by one to establish that. Just that it's not in any sort of prevalent use as such, and thus WP:UNDUE to mention it there. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

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

• Mountbatten-Windsor is an interesting read. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Succession boxes, concerning regnal titles

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

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2022

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

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

House of Windsor

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

Explained in 2nd para of Elizabeth II#Accession and coronation. DeCausa (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Caption of the picture

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

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

Duke of Cornwall, tenure

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

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

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

Could I suggest this being a footnote? I think it's necessary, but if it doesn't belong at this level, why not a footnote? I was involved in a discussion on Zombies (2018 film) about something like this. InvadingInvader (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Wehwalt that this is relatively trivial and doesn't merit a mention. If it is included, a footnote would be OK, but I don't think it merits inclusion at all. Since the crowns of England and Scotland were merged, only three of the thirteen monarchs have not used their first baptismal name as their regnal name (and I believe, but have not checked to confirm, that the practice was even rarer before the Acts of Union), so makes more sense to point out the exceptions instead of the monarchs who followed the common convention. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

It was very common for the English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish & British monarchs to use their 'first' name as their regnal name. The rarity was those who didn't. A footnote at best, nothing more. GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

I would presume that this inconsistency is because each new monarch, as well as being the titular head of the Church of England, also takes an oath to "maintain and preserve" the Church of Scotland. William, not having taken this oath, is C of E only. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest the religion filed is removed, it doesn’t appear in Queen Elizabeth II and so, in my view, it shouldn’t appear here. Critical Hippo (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Rosbif73. We could make this clearly by saying CoE/CoS, if the sources support that, or we can provide a note glossing it in a way that we can. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The religion field should be removed from the infoboxes as there’s hardly any benefit or reason to include them. 2605:B100:339:CE20:D909:7FCC:6367:63A4 (talk)

The UK has an established religion. Or at least sorta-established, with a formal such role in England for the CoE, a special status for the CoS, and religious provisions relating to the monarchy. So they're a good deal more significant here than they are for most people. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Interestingly, there was no religion in the infobox of Elizabeth II during her reign. I do agree its unnecessary to include and should be removed. As noted above too, that fact that there are multiple options that could be used are going to complicate things. – Handoto (talk)

An odd omission, but WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:NOTSOURCE. And for her entire reign? Or appearing and disappearing at editorial whim, in the wonderful (sic) Wikipedia way of such things? The multiple options are hardly a dazzling array, and come down to how to sum up the various oaths he takes regarding two different Protestant denominations during the accession process. We just have to make an editorial decision between them: which is what we get paid the big wikipedia bucks for. Now, as to whether it's at all WP:DUE to mention it for Wills, as his only actual religious obligation for the time being is "don't become a Catholic if you want to inherit", is another matter... but one better left for for that article. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Health status

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

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

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

Titles and Styles

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

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

It's obviously the same topic. And this is at least the third discussion on this topic opened in the last 24 hours, one of which was already shut down as a duplication.[3] DrKay (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Notwithstanding whether an RfC at one article prevents editing on another, my edit includes more than what is covered by the RfC. Including Charles' major titles and his titles as prince of Wales would be acceptable however the section was formatted. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Arms and Standards

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

Arms and Standards

As sovereign

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

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

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

As Prince of Wales

Main articles: Coat of arms of the Prince of Wales and Royal Badge of Wales

Coat of arms used by Charles as Prince of Wales

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

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

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

• 
  Personal standard
• 
  Standard for Wales
• 
  Standard for Scotland
• 
  Standard of the Duchy of Cornwall
• 
  Standard in Canada

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

possible mistake under "relationships and marriages"

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

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

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

Subtle civil POV pushing

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

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

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

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

Concise short description is concise 🫅🏼

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

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

Andrew

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

You missed the bit where you reliably sourced this (as discussed over at the appropriate article), much less established it'd be in any way due weight to mention it here. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Andrew, again

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

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

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

what's suspicious about it? That's a rather bizarre take. What dastardly conspiracy do you see?None of his siblings are mentioned, not just Andrew. Is Charles trying to convince the world he's an only child? (I wouldn't blame him)DeCausa (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

All siblings were mentioned, that's the point. Siblings are always mentioned, especially famous or relevant ones and there was a debate about it, all people who took part agreed.

No need for conspiracies, tell me why the information shouldn't be there or take your sarcasm somewhere else. Cicalinarrot (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't care because I don't think it's important one way or other. My sarcasm is staying right here until you explain what's "suspicious" about it. DeCausa (talk) 09:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

If you don't think it's important, you shouldn't take part to this conversation, maybe.

I thought it was weird that siblings weren't mentioned, considering they're also important people. I was sincerely looking for the information because I'm pretty ignorant about the royal family and even thought that I was wrong when I remembered they were brothers the first time i looked for "andrew" in the page and couldn't find it. Andrew's page mentions his siblings, of course.

The reasons why I want the information to be there are very simple: it's true (as undeniable as it gets), relevant, useful (it would have been useful to me) and there's already been a unanimous debate about why it should be there.

My suspicion is just a personal feeling about it, as I clearly stated. As you mentioned, there are reasons why someone who likes Charles could want to hide the information so... you know very well why I'm suspicious. But that's just me, I wanted to disclose it even if it's not really relevant and the reasons I've listed are all good and perfectly compliant with the site's rules. Unlike what the user who edited the line out did. Cicalinarrot (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's "suspicious" that the siblings aren't mentioned, but I do think they should be, probably in the "Early life" section after mentioning who his parents are. It's general practice if someone has notable siblings to mention them.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't that weird that they weren't mentioned, it is (again, to me) that after about a week it was removed, ignoring what had already been debated and ruled.

But, again, I'd love us to ignore what I feel about it and state the information should be there and, considering it was removed, it could happen again (for whatever reason, the author gave none, that's why I can only assume it's a delicate matter to even mention that relationship). Cicalinarrot (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

If there's consensus for it, it could be mentioned fairly naturally after the first sentence of "Early life": "His parents would have three additional children, Anne (born 1950), Andrew (born 1960) and Edward (born 1964)".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly what we had decided ten days ago and what a user ultimately wrote, before it was removed with no notice or debate by another.

Where it says "Catherine Peebles, was appointed to be responsible for early education at Buckingham Palace for him and his younger siblings." it went on "... , Anne, Andrew and Edward", with names linking to their pages that's it. Cicalinarrot (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I added the previous lines that Cicalinarrot is concerned about after finding the discussion on the talk page. Cicalinarrot also pinged me on my talk page to notify me of this "issue".

I don't see any suspicious activity going on. It's very likely that the "removing" user (User:Rutsq) was not aware of the previous discussion here at the talk page and was just doing general editing. From the user's edit summary, they removed the text as "c/e and cn", which is for "copyediting and citation needed" reasons. It is fair that the governess text was unsourced and possibly unverified. I will add in the quote that Wehwalt suggested His parents would have three additional children, Anne (born 1950), Andrew (born 1960) and Edward (born 1964).

I also disagree that this information needs to be "protected". I don't know if there is a way to protect this bit of information, besides protecting the entire article. But I also don't think this is so valuable that it cannot be changed, or removed, or altered by usual editing processes. Natg 19 (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

You are correct. Absent this concern about Andrew being mentioned, and even considering it, it's an odd place to name the trio..... as equal recipients of the nanny's services. Rutsq (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Where exactly do you want Anne, Andrew & Edward mentioned? GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I find it pretty suspicious that Cicalinarrot is only interested in mentioning Andrew and not Anne and Edward. IlkkaP (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely something suspicious here. In my opinion, Andrew shouldn't be mentioned here unless he's mentioned alongside Charles' other siblings, as the scandals relating to Andrew have no relevance to Charles at all. --88.108.44.8 (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The early life section of the article has the sentence "His parents would have three additional children, Anne (born 1950), Andrew (born 1960) and Edward (born 1964)". I think this is satisfactory enough, this article is about Charles, not Andrew. --88.108.44.8 (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You can find the reasons why I focused on Andrew in my previous posts, the main one is I noticed he wasn't mentioned because I was actually trying to understand if they were brothers myself. Then I've just been asking for all siblings to be mentioned. Not their lives, just that they exist, as is routine, not sure why people are assuming otherwise.

I'm satisfied with how it is now. Cicalinarrot (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

article description should be more specific

" king since 2022 " is sufficiently vague to be misleading; let's put things into perspective ... this ought to say "since 8 September 2022" at least until the end of 2022. jw (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

No. The article's second sentence says "He acceded to the throne on 8 September 2022". Nothing needs changing. DeCausa (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

New York Times article additions

Re the Talk:Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II#New York Times discussion, I have found a New York Times article that contains mentions King Charles III's transition from prince to king. From that discussion, Bondegezou suggested it would be relevant on Charles III article. Since I feel that such article looks like a primary source (note the WP:NEWSBLOG style of said article), I would like to imagine some precautions for said reference may be needed if this reference warrants use on this article. That being said, I can see some sections of said New York Times article that may be useful for bridging up some background information about his transition to kingship. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Ahnentafel (ancestry table)

Despite the removal today of longstanding sections of the Elizabeth II page under the ancestry table to a further degree, simply to support a users removal of this here, it may be worth extending this as was the case of the other page for his mother, as the reigning monarch. The entire point of the ancestry table is to list their ancestors, opening discussion here to see how other feel to prevent an edit war from users with strongly held views. In my opinion, it is a collapsable box, and would be of interest of readers on the page of a reigning monarch as was the case on his mother's page for a long time before being recently removed by this user. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The matter was discussed extensively at Template talk:Ahnentafel. It need not be discussed both here and at Talk:Elizabeth II simultaneously. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not supposed to just drop names of random ancestors. It is far from clear as to why a Frances Smith should be mentioned in a general biography of Charles III. Surtsicna (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The entire reason why it is having to be discussed at both places because you have removed it from there (where it has with some interruptions been on the page of his mother for many years) to further your point here on removing it without discussion. Choosing specific individuals to further this is disingenuous in my opinion. It has indeed been discussed on the template page as you have a personal issue with many of these tables and with mass deletions like these (the discussion did not lead to any real consensus), so will be good to have a discussion with others regardless AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather a vertical family tree table, of just three generations. The monarch, his parents & grandparents. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Fictional portrayals

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

Definitely needed now Charles is the current reigning monarch. He will no doubt continue to have fictional portrays and depictions now, so a section about these would be a helpful addition to the article. --88.108.44.8 (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I think we should focus on the real Charles and farm his fictional analogues out to another article if appropriate. Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, this is the most logical approach. --88.108.44.8 (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Charles III already exists, that would be the place to write in-depth about his fictional portrayals. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Does that article have to stay in that current list form, or can it become more discursive? S C Cheese (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

That'd be an editorial decision best broached at the yawningly uncreated talkpage for that article. Or else just WP:BRD it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

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

There are fifteen Commonwealth realms, so it seems wildly anomalous to list them as at present. That it then goes on to give a huge subsection on the now-merely-historical "As Prince of Wales", then basically rehash much the same information under the "standards" subsection is vastly undue. This badly needs to be completely refactored. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, for now, like with other sovereigns I would just keep it to UK coat of arms, not commonwealth WiltedXXVI (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

A gallery may also be useful, as it would allow all 15 arms to be displayed in a compact format. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I would agree to that. I would propose a format similar to other monarchs whereas the arms are put in order ie.

As Prince of Wales 1958-2022, As sovereign 2022-, As sovereign (in Scotland) 2022-

Then below those of the commonwealth realms;

Canada

Austrailia

New Zealand

etc... WiltedXXVI (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Would it perhaps make more sense to include his arms as Prince of Wales separately somewhere, then for the main gallery to simply list the arms alphabetically, so:

Antigua

Australia

The Bahamas

etc.

Perhaps the date could go in the gallery title, to save repeating it? A.D.Hope (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps if we put the UK at the top (as it is his primary realm)? then we do the commonwealth (in alphabetical order), then at the bottom "As Prince of Wales" so:

UK, UK (Scotland)

Antigua

Australia

The Bahamas

etc..

Historical:-

As Prince of Wales (1958 - 2022) WiltedXXVI (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

My inclination is to simply use an alphabetical list. It's fairer, ultimately. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

This topic was previously discussed at Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 33 and the gallery was deleted as unsourced original research per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coats of arms of Elizabeth II. It's undue excessive detail that is not supported by sources. No other encyclopedia would publish a gallery like this in a biography of the king. DrKay (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

On that regard, I suggest that the only arms to remain on this page are that of the Prince of Wales, and the UK and UK (Scotland) arms, perhaps we can look into putting the other arms on a more appropriate page in the near future. WiltedXXVI (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The issue seems to be with unsourced attibutions of arms rather than with a gallery per se. I don't really see an issue with having a gallery of sourced coats of arms, whichever they may be. Singling out the UK arms because they're perceived to be the 'main' ones doesn't seem fair. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

That deletion decision seems very idiosyncratic to me, but those are made by the people that turn up, so fair enough. Maybe we need to first determine which arms are 'dominion' and which are 'personal', making sure we have sources to establish we have the right one in each case. And maybe the title should rather be coats of arms of the Commonwealth realms or coats of arms of the monarch of the Commonwealth realms to hopefully made the scope clearer. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure this article is the place to get into that issue. Sticking with the two UK arms and Canada, which we can verify are royal arms, might be simplest for now. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Link in lead sentence

I suggest we change the way the links appear in the first sentence. They currently read Charles III is the King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms.

I suggest this is changed to: Charles III is the Monarch of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms. This reads slightly better in my view as it links the word 'King' as being the parent word of both the UK and Commonwealth realm links. Jèrriais janne (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

apologies, wikitext incorrect. that should read King of the United Kingdom Jèrriais janne (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Redirect & About

In light of his current position, it is inappropriate for "Prince Charles" to continue redirecting to this article. That redirect should probably point to the Prince Charles (disambiguation) instead.

Additionally, as the title of King Charles III of England has previously been claimed by Charles Edward Stuart "Bonnie Prince Charlie", and given that this article is in English, there should be some clarification in the "About" tag that this article is not about the grandson of King James II.

1.126.111.213 (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

It is included, on the linked disambiguation page. DrKay (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I think he's probably still the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term. TV presenters are still at the point of calling him that and having to correct themselves, never mind what the general reader thinks. But if you disagree, the best venue is likely WP:RM, as essentially the meat of what you're seeking to do it to move the disambiguation page to the unqualified PC title. If that flies, then of course we'll make the necessary adjustments here. And that was already discussed a couple of weeks ago, and the consensus was WP:TOOSOON, so I suggest leaving it at least a few months. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Religion

I don't see why we should include Charles's religion in the infobox. I don't think it's really a defining characteristic. The religion parameter is allowed for royalty, but even then it's used, for the most part, only when it's absolutely neccessary to understand their life and reign. It's important for Kings Henry IV and Louis XIV of France, some of the Stuart and Hanoverian kings, and few others. IMO it probably shouldn't be used for the British monarchs after George II, definitely not those after Victoria. Векочел (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's there, because the British monarchs are head of both the Church of England & Church of Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Given that Charles is the titular head of the Church of England, and that in at least one of his realms (Northern Ireland) sectarianism is still a real part of modern society, it would seem this is still an important charactaristic that certainly defines some aspects of his role. Dauwenkust (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

This treatment was not given to Queen Elizabeth before she passed, nor for any British monarch since Queen Victoria. And his religious beliefs are certainly not as consequential as, say his environmental advocacy. Векочел (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Environmental advocacy can stem from religious beliefs. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Supreme Governor of the Church of England is pretty much the reason. Well that, and that the monarch must be a member of the C of E. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

It is extremely significant that Charles is a member of the Church of England. For if the British monarch were not required to be a member of the Church of England then Franz, Duke of Bavaria would be King. As such, it is essential that his religion must be included in the infobox.

1.126.111.213 (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

And it is. If he were a Catholic, by law he'd be out of a job. For exactly the same reasons of the aforementioned Stuarts and Hanovarians. And while there's plenty of Sectarianism in Scotland too, he's most definitely not the head of the CoS. He does have a defined role, and his oath in regards to that is a part of the accession process. The Windsors do also tend to pitch up at a CoS church when on their holidays (i.e. as much of the year as they like), so you could argue they're a little bit Presbyterian, or that they're just visiting Anglicans. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Seen him taking some kinda oath, concerning the CoS on Sept 10. FWIW - Who 'is' the head of the Church of Scotland? GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The Church of Scotland doesn't have a head, but the Moderator of the General Assembly usually fills that role when a representative is required. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

See Presbyterian polity for the gory details. It's not directly comparable to the CoE, which having an episcopal structure, has a need of a singular 'head', by way of a pope-replacement. (Though actually that's actually essentially split between the 'governor' and the (senior) 'primate'.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

If we are going to list the religion for Charles, we should be consistent with the other British monarchs. I don't recall the religion parameter ever being listed for Elizabeth II when she was queen. Векочел (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as far as I can see, yes we should. There's several sentences in the article body about her religion, so it's by no means infoboxing-and-running. But that's a matter for this article and its talk page, not this one. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Infobox: DOB - Do we use "United Kingdom" or not

I think we may eventually require an RFC for all the British royal bios, concerning their birthplace & deathplace, in relation to the Kingdom of Great Britain (shown as "Great Britain"), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (shown as "United Kingdom") & the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (shown as "United Kingdom"). Note - I've removed "United Kingdom" from Charles III's infobox & from William IV's infobox, so as to bring them in line with the rest of the British monarchs. But, we still have inconsistencies across the other British royal bios' infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Jimmy Savile content missing

I have noticed that there is no information on this article about Charles' friendship with the now disgraced Jimmy Savile. It used to be mentioned in this article, but was later removed for an unexplainable reason, even though it is something Charles has been criticised for and has been covered by reliable sources. Meanwhile Andrew's article is chock-a-block full of mentions about his connections with Jeffrey Epstein. It's true that Savile had a lot of high-profile connections outside of Charles, but I don't see any reason as to why information about him can't be mentioned here at all. Charles has been criticised for his connection to Saville on several occasions, and this should be mentioned here alongside other things that Charles has been criticised for. 88.108.44.8 (talk) 11:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I would not be against this being reinstated into the article; it seems notable enough and covered by numerous RS. -- QueenofBithynia (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it's undue. Savile was never convicted; the revelations only came out after his death; Charles hasn't been accused of sexual abuse. Andrew's case is different: Epstein was convicted; Andrew and Epstein continued to be friends for at least 3 years after a conviction; Andrew has been accused of involvement in the abuse. The cases are not comparable in these terms. It is appropriately covered at Jimmy Savile, where Charles's assocation with him is put into context by mentioning other celebrities that Savile befriended. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

(Noting that this IP has since been blocked for evading a block, sockmaster unspecified.) --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the various contacts where their respective charitable interests intersected amount to any sort of "friendship". Of course vast numbers of people claim or have been described as "friends" of Charles - very very few actually are. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Royal cypher of Charles III of the United Kingdom.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Signature

As seen in clips of his Accession Council, King Charles's signature has now changed, as it includes the capital "R" meaning "Rex", or "King" in Latin, after his regnal name. I don't have any idea how to make the change in the infobox, and have no competency in that respect, but I suppose this should be done as soon as the appropriate image is obtained. Affeninsel (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

We've been looking for a good image of a document signed by him since the Accession Council. Once one shows up, I'm sure a signature change will rapidly follow. Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Wehwalt Rideau Hall has released a signed letter with the King's new signature at https://twitter.com/GGCanada/status/1574856998302191630. I'm not familiar with the signature extraction process used by wikipedia so I will defer to a qualified editor to add in the updated signature. JustAnotherEditHere (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

and other Commonwealth realms (more...)

In the info box of Charles III, when you click on that more... link, you will be redirected to Style of the British sovereign. But in the info box of Elizabeth II when you click on that, you will be redirected to List of sovereign states headed by Elizabeth II.

Well, it's clear that the word more after Commonwealth is about the commonwealth, not about the title of the monarch. So the Elizabeth II article is redirecting correctly. Aminabzz (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Currently, we've no List of sovereign states headed by Charles III page, however. We used to have both infoboxes' "and other Commonwealth realms" linked to a collapsed list of those other realms. But mobile editors wanted it changed, because the collapse mechanism didn't work for them. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Currently that'd be just a recap of Commonwealth realm, as Chaz hasn't had any time to mislay any more in his tenure so far. Give him a li'l while! That's already covered later on in the infobox saga. A little too later on: it suffers from the traditional Wikipedia vice of 'everything's important, let's cram it all in, so nothing's important'. Seems logical that in connect with his 'style', you be redirected to an article on styles. Logically the Liz2 article should do the same, IMO, but that's a matter for that page. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Accession time (and date)

With apologies for mentioning this again rather shortly after it being dragged off into the archive, we now have sources on the TOD of his predecessor (3:10pm). So we at least know who was monarch at local 00:01 on September the 9th in the various realms, local time, according to the standard speed-of-monarchy. That's not usable as a source for when the reigns are reckoned as beginning, but it at least scopes out what we might be looking for, and gives as a degree of narrower framing of what we can properly say. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Why links to Charles III of Spain?

Why is there a link to Charles III of Spain as the very first line above the body text? I am pretty sure that 99,9 % of visitors are seeking information on Charles III of the United Kingdom and not some past kings. In my opinion, link to the For other uses, see Charles III (disambiguation) is enough. IlkkaP (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be a relic of this discussion as well as the unfortunate practice of shoving hatnotes between the reader and the text he really wants to get to in most biographical articles. Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

But it's not an additional hatnote, as very clearly we'd in any case need to the standard DAB one, as a minimal service to the reader who does not want to get to The Artist Until Very Recently Known As Prince Charles, but (say) to a historically important monarch who rules half of Europe for half a century. That it should be a two-parter is presumably rationalisable as Charles III of Spain being the clear "secondary topic" (as it were) of the term. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:1HAT tells us to stick to one hatnote whenever possible. The question would be, does there really need to be two dabs? And if so for how long? Granted, he was Prince Charles for getting on to three quarters of a century and that may be slow to fade. Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

There is only one such hatnote. Unless (as I say) you're double-counting a one-liner single hatnote with two links as a two-parter (as Samurai Jack might say) in a way that's somehow excessively distracting to a reader that's impatiently scrolling past this already. Or objecting to us having a redirect hatnote and a DAB hatnote, which very clearly serve different roles, can't sensibly be combined, and would be a navigational disaster waiting to happen to omit either of. Compared to our flabby leads and permascrolling disinfoboxes, this is honestly looking for a "getting to the good stuff as soon as possible" fix in all the wrong places. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

They really aren't different. They're two dabs. One includes a statement that Prince Charles redirects here that is purely informational, but the bottom line is that they are both dabs. Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

A hatnote for a DAB of the actual page title is entirely different from a redirect notice from a different title. Different conceptually, different navigationally. And would be whether or not we get rid of the additional link to CarloTres. Unless you have some bespoke, non-standard, non-MOS scheme for somehow combining the two, or want to get rid of one of them (again, plainly contrary to the MOS), I don't see any alternative. Nor frankly, any practical need for one. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles III of Spain might very well be ”secondary primary topic” among all the other Charles IIIs, but I question the need for “secondary primary topic” here.

The second line regarding whether Prince Charles should redirect here is a separate topic and I am not questioning it (but probably that redirect could be removed at some later date). IlkkaP (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Certainly the redirect might be removed at some time in the future -- though on the basis of Prince Regent, don't hold your breath! If we have to have two hatnotes -- and I think we do -- and CarlosTres is indeed the 'secondary primary' (which other editors essentially argued, at first blush persuasively), then the double-linked reference to DAB seems helpful to readers, and has no appreciable downside as far as I can see. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The downside is the space between the top of the article and actual text. Which is why multiple hatnotes are not favored. Is there a clever way to combine them into one note? We do not need to know that "Prince Charles redirects here", and as far as I'm concerned, we can lose the Spanish king, who's Carlos anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not a downside of two hatnotes with three links as against two hatnotes with two. I don't think it's reasonably possible to combine the two into one. If you omit either you're borderline stonewalling people looking for other Chaz3's or Prince Chucks. Minority though they may be, that would be needlessly navigationally dreadful. Smooshing them into a single For other such, see Charles III (disambiguation) or Prince Charles (disambiguation) or the like would be rather awkward and unnatural as a construction, and non-standard enough to be confusing to those somewhat used to (what passes as!) a 'normal' hatnote. But maybe I'm just not being clever enough: suggest away! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The link is there because Charles III of Spain is a significant historical monarch, and if readers end up here when they're looking for him, they only need to click one link instead of two. This is standard practice when there's a primary topic plus only one other major topic, with a dab page covering other minor usages.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2022 (2)

In the list of his godparents in the "Early life, family and education" section, please change this: "the King of Norway (his cousin by marriage, for whom the Earl of Athlone stood proxy);"

to this: the King of Norway (his great-granduncle by marriage, for whom the Earl of Athlone stood proxy);

as Haakon's late wife Maud was the sister of Charles' great-grandfather George V. 2601:241:300:B610:2160:3AE9:4350:3CE3 (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Done, with an addition[4]. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Reference to Camilla

Why has Camilla been changed back to Camilla Parker Bowles yet Diana is referenced by her maiden name of Spencer? Camilla should just be Camilla Shand. This would match Diana by using maiden names. It’s also how Elizabeth the Queen Mother is referenced as Queen Consort on George VI’s page. 5.151.76.251 (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

it's the name at time of marriage. DeCausa (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It's consistent with the Edward VIII infobox, where his wife is referred to as Simpson, not Warfield.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Camilla Parker-Bowles is also the name she was best known as. WiltedXXVI (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2022 (3)

Regarding the phrase addressed in the previous edit request, please change this part of the note: "for whom the Earl of Athlone stood proxy"

to: "for whom Charles' great-granduncle, the Earl of Athlone stood proxy"

as the Earl was the brother of Mary of Teck, who, as mentioned immediately afterwards in that section, was Charles' great-grandmother. 2601:241:300:B610:2160:3AE9:4350:3CE3 (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Keivan.f^Talk 04:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Ancestry charts

@EmilySarah99: Hi. I've had to revert several of your edits, which were mainly concerned with expanding the ancestry chart on this article, as well as various other articles covering Charles' siblings, sons, and grandchildren. In short, Wikipedia is not a genealogy website, so there's essentially no need to create extensive lists of a bunch of people that neither Charles nor anyone else in his family have ever met. Considering the fact that the royal family drives its power and prestige from its heritage, a limited number of ancestors have been added to each page, but I don't think anyone would be in favor of adding more to those lists. Additionally, while adding ancestry charts to articles, sources need to be provided, which you did not when adding them to articles on Charles' grandchildren. Nevertheless, I decided to put it up for discussion to get some third opinions. You're welcome to explain the rationale behind your edits. Cheers. Keivan.f^Talk 04:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

All good. I think I'm just confused as some pages have great-great gandparents and others only great grandparents. In all fairness I am quite new to all this, so thank you for your feedback, I'll take it on board. :-) EmilySarah99 (talk) 05:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Extensive genealogies are often unnecessary where the ancestors are all notable enough to have their own article. So people curious can click through to those, and so on. It can also undesirable when the article is already large, and there's the issues of WP:LENGTH and WP:DUEWEIGHT. Where a genealogy is independently notable -- that is, lots of good sources right about it in its own right --- it can have its own article, like the family tree of Sinhalese monarchs. It's not an exact science, so one just has to play it by ear. Either by discussing major edits ahead of time, or being WP:BOLD but phlegmatic if it all gets changed back. Or so I try to tell myself! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

"KC3" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect KC3 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 3#KC3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

infobox picture

the info box picture has been changed over and over again. and there's no consensus for it so this is a talk section just for it, I'm taking a page out of the book of The Talk sections of Olivia Newton-John and Mikhail Gorbachev and doing a !vote section.

Cast your !vote

• 
  Option 1
• 
  Option 2
• 
  Option 3
• 
  Option 4

I have compiled a gallery of all the candidate images, Just sign under your choice(s) 4me689 21:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Addition of option 3 per section below, and personal addition of option 4 (the current infobox image). U-Mos (talk) 05:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Option 1

1. Shwcz (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
2. I agree option 1 so his majesty isn’t grinning insanely. JaySDEA (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
3.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  13:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
4. Surprised that Option 2, with such an inane grin, is even in the running. Moonraker (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
5. I agree with Moonraker. Dougie8va (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
6. The image looks good. HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
7. blue background on previous image is overpowering imo Benica11 (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
8. just think he looks better in this picture Thinker21 (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
9. per Benica11 and Thinker21. Leiho7 (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
10. though all these choices will be temporary until he gets an official picture as King, this is much better for the incoming millions of page views in the interim. El Dubs (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
11. better angle and colors. Yeeno (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
12. ibid above InvadingInvader (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
13. has authority and gravitas that the other lacks. Jheald (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
14. A much better picture than the side-on grin, at least until we have a non-copyright photograph of him as King. El Dubs (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
15. I agree with option 1 Ralexander4220 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
16. Option 1, a more neutral facial expression, however, it should be changed once coronated. Maranello10 (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
17. The better of the two until an official portrait post-coronation. Yeoutie (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
18. This image is more suitable as a placeholder portrait than the other options. Lord Stephenson (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
19. I think this is the best out of the available, the rest just dont portray the regality necessary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragsonragoon (talk • contribs) 03:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
20. Suggesting no change for now. Current picture is perfectly sufficient; what would be an appropriate change is to a picture of Charles during his reign, taken after the mourning period for Elizabeth II concludes. No rush for that. U-Mos (talk) 05:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

    As there is clearly no stable current version, expressing my preference for option 1 for the time being. U-Mos (talk) 07:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

21. IMO none of the options are ideal, but I’d pick Option One as the best of a bad lot. Hopefully we can use this one until a better image comes along of Charles as King. TheScrubby (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
22. This is the best by far, though none of the options are good. It's far better because this one shows him facing the camera, as opposed to looking like someone walked by and took a picture. Also, it avoid having a picture of him with a blue tie, blue jacket, and blue background. DFlhb (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
23. Best of these four. Doops | talk 10:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
24. Appears more statesman-like. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
25. This is the best of the four options, but like others I think should be changed upon coronation. AlloDoon (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

    Coronation might be nine months away. I assume we'll have one before then, but until then, we're stuck with the constraints of acceptable quality, and acceptable licensing. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

26. Looks the best to my eye, and also the most idiomatically Wikipedian. Don't feel any urgent need to replace with a 'kingly' one -- don't expect a free image to be available anytime soon with a crown, a visible monarchical aura, etc. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    Image 1 is not idiomatically Wikipedian at all. It has all the traits we usually reject, including being blurry, having a lot of distraction in the background with trees and people and suchlike, and is also several years old. I don't love the blue background and facial expression in image two, but it's many times better than he trainwreck that is image one.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

27. This option (1) represents Charles III the best of all the options. Compusolus (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
28. Looks more regal than the other options. The blue in Option 2 is too distracting, as are the diagonal curtains resulting from the image rotation. — Goszei (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
29. This one. The other ones are taken in some rooms and in some of them either the angle or his face expression is a little bit odd. Ентусиастъ/Entusiast (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
30. Option 1 looks better than others. Blazin777 (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
31. Best of the options. Option 2 makes him look like an end-of-the-pier comedian - 3 and 4 are just dire. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
32. While none of the options are really ideal, option 1 appears to be the best here. Option 2 isn't the worst, but the misaligned background and the fact that his shoulders are positioned awkwardly doesn't make it that great. – Handoto (talk)
33. I pick no 1 as that is the only picture that he is not grinning like the Joker in an old Batman movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.147.20 (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
34. Option 1 until an official photograph as king is available. Option 2 is genuinely horrendous. Would be good with the other two options as well instead of 1, but 1 seems to have the highest support so adding my vote here Ha2772a (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Option 2

1. --Marbe166 (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
2. much clearer and better photo, can use until an official royal photo of some sort comes out  — Amakuru (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
3. --Ladderstuff2 (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
4. much more official looking in my opinion —Cooluncle55 (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
5. AlanTheScientist (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
6. The best of the two. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC) Self-stricken – QueenofBithynia (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
7. Both are good, but this one is the better. As noted above, there will probably be an official (public domain) image released shortly anyway. 23skidoo (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
8. I guess it's an attempt to correct where he was leaning in towards Biden in the original, but it looks absolutely bizarre to have the curtains crooked behind him. --B (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
9. As above, useful as≈ interim prior to official image Epsilon.Prota (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
10. Definitely the better of the 2, a lot clearer than the first one
11. Although an outdoor portrait would be nice, 2 is definitely the better portrait, it wouldn't look out of place on a postage stamp ;) Samatarou (talk)
12. More recent, good quality. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
13. Better Picture. --Lucthedog2 (talk)
14. --Llwyld (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
15. His cheeks aren’t so red here Someonefromohio (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
16. Until a coronation picture is obtained, at which point that may be better. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:511C:AF18:1F68:CFEB (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
17. It's simply better. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
18. The second image is brighter, better quality. @JaySDEA: please could you self-revert your change (if this hasn't already been done). I tried to undo but inadvertently only removed the caption. Please participate in the discussion here. -- Hazhk (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
19. He looks better in option 1, but there are people in the background so it looks unprofesssional. This one is barely better though, he looks like he's posing for a school photo. Can't wait until we get some official portraits. EmilySarah99 (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
20. Ebbedlila (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
21. More professional photo, plus sharper than Option 1. Also, taking into account this is supposed to be only temporary until a valid photo comes along taken as King, it would only make more sense to keep the status quo and keep this photo as it is. --WR 19:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
22. He looks distinctly different from option 1 now. This is the most recent of the 4 choices. Uhooep (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
23. This is better than the rest of them and much clearer than the rest. D Eaketts (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
24. HIghest quality option of them all.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk?

Option 3

1. Neither. This poll gives the false assumption to we must pick either of the above pictures. That's not true. I'm sure there are many other alternatives. I'm not supportive of either of the presented options. Option 1 just lacks overall clarity and the prominence of the blue background in option 2 is just too much.Tvx1 15:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

   @Tvx1: if you have another option for us to consider, please transclude it above and we'll consider it. Simply saying "I don't like either of these" doesn't really help much... we have to put something there!  — Amakuru (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

   There is no policy making the inclusion of a picture mandatory. If there is no decent picture, having none is most certainly an option. Anyway, having just looked at commons for a minute, I found a much better picture from 2019. Clean portrait, not a bright background.Tvx1 19:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

   Sure, we don't have to have a picture, but it would be unusual not to, particularly when the commons category is full of them. To be honest I still prefer #2 over #3 or #1, I don't know why but to me #2 just looks a lot crisper and clearer on my screens, particularly at the resolution we're using here. The others look slightly out of focus and the contrast is less pronounced. People say he has an "inane grin" above, but I don't see that. He's just smiling, which isn't a show-stopper on an encyclopedia article even if it might be rejected as a passport photo....  — Amakuru (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

2. Not bad, but the bottom should be cropped a bit, especially for the infobox. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
3. Decent enough.Mwinog2777 (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
4. Like this one the most. Seems to be the best angle with him facing toward the camera, and he has a nice smile here. BhamBoi --BhamBoi (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Option 4

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

Other

All of the options listed are of Charles Prince of Wales, I suggest using a picture of King Charles III, which by definition must be after 2022-09-08 24.130.100.108 (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Beshogur (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

That's definitely going to be the ultimate plan, but I don't think any public domain or copyleft images of him are available since his accession...  — Amakuru (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

He's been out-and-about since talking to the public since, so maybe some royalist snapper will come by and donate their work. Or his office could helpfully send one in, with the correct rights. Or a really bad one of the former, to motivate the latter! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

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

I agree to this. Skippingrock (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Titles and styles

I edited the page according to the consensus reached at William, Prince of Wales, but the "Titles and styles" section also needs to be separated and sourced. Hanna.paml (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I say leave the King's page as is. Separating the titles and styles, in my opinion, makes the section look messy. GandalfXLD (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Poundbury

The article says Poundbury was built according to the King's "architectural taste". Perhaps it would be better to replace this part with "following the rules of traditional architecture" or simply "following traditional architecture", given that the town was designed by architects like Leon Krier who applied their own theories regarding traditional architecture. The current sentence seems to imply that Charles said stuff like "I want a tower there that looks like this and a palace here made like this, etc." FilBenLeafBoy (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

No, to his "architectural tastes" is exactly right. There's no such thing as "the rules of traditional architecture". Neo Gothic? Mock Tudor? Palladian? Arts and Crafts? "traditional architecture" is in the eye of the beholder and there's certainly no rules for it. DeCausa (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Probably New Classical architecture in Wikipedia money, but what our main source for this actually says is: "He is known to be an advocate of neo-traditional ideas, such as those of Christopher Alexander and Leon Krier [...]" Just adding a mention of that might be somewhat helpful, but creates its own problems, as they'd be perplexing terms in isolation, and if we link to NCa, or to neo-traditional or neo-traditional architecture, then that creates a fair bit of WP:ASTONISHment trying to relate the contents of target back to the original context. Better sources (both here and there) might be helpful. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, New Classical architecture might be clearer. Or perhaps New Urbanism. I'm not sure, but what I wanted to say is that while discussing the buildings created under the patronage of someone, it might be better to mention the style they follow. From what I know Charles did not design Poundbury himself, but chose the architects according to their theories. For instance when discussing George IV's Brighton Pavilion we say that it was built in an "Orientalist style" or perhaps "Indian revival" even if it was obviously in line with the king's tastes. We stress on the style as it gives more information to the reader. FilBenLeafBoy (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I take the point, but these descriptions are potentially rather vague and subjective, and we have to be able to source what we say. i.e., rather than applying our own vague, subjective judgement, we wheel in someone else's. I'm not quite sure how to concisely sum up the source we currently use in a more useful way, and I'm not sure how great it is in the first place, which is why I wonder if we can't get a better one. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Looking at this again, I think on reflection part of the problem is that we actually have very little in the article on Poundbury, so there's very little to summarise in the lead. Maybe we should expand the former somewhat, but in any case I think we should replace the sentence in the lead with a more general one summing up the "Built environment" subsection generally. What about something on the lines of:

"A critic of modernist architecture and urban planning, Charles has been an advocate for more traditional forms, including as a patron of several projects through his charities."

That still has the slightly vague "traditional", but I think it makes sense in the broader context of that section at large, rather than purporting to be a systematic school of architecture. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2022

Vlklng (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Please replace “created” with crowned.

he was created Prince of Wales,

New:

he was crowned Prince of Wales,

 Not done: The usage of the word "created" is correct. Titles like "Prince of Wales" (as well as peerage titles) are typically described as being "created" by the monarch. See, for example, Prince of Wales#List of princes of Wales (English or British heirs apparent), which includes a listing of when each titleholder was "created" Prince of Wales. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

(ec)I sympathise, as 'created' is peerage-jargon, and not the most helpful wording for the general reader. However this particular change won't work, as his 'crowning' was actually much later, at his inauguration, and is slightly misleading as it's not the same as a coronation as a monarch, including for example in states with ruling princes. "Made" might be better, or "given the title of", if you want to spell it out really explicitly. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

create is correct here, as invest (someone) with a title of nobility.IlkkaP (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

"Correct", but as helpful as using the word "accede" ten times in an article intended for the general reader. That is, not in the least. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Not knowing how these things work, I would honestly find the statement "he was created Prince of Wales" a little confusing. Was he born as the Prince of Wales? Was he created so he could have the title of Prince of Wales? I do honestly agree that "given the title of" or maybe even "made" would make much more sense, especially to those who don't actually know how the process functions. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

In principle we could wikilink "create" to help with this. Though I think this is a bit of a cope and cop-out, and far from the best approach. We don't even seem to have any great targets for the link: there's a section Peerage of Great Britain#Creation of peers. But this isn't a peerage, and it's in the "UK" era, not the "GB" one. Our articles in this whole area tend to suffer from the same vice: 'we know the "correct" terminology, so we're going to insist on using it without ever actually properly defining or clarifying, and as for people that don't, well, silly them!' A transwiki link to Wiktionary is an option of last resort. But honestly, "better wording" is the better fix. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia is written mostly in basic level of English. In my opionion, in English Wikipedia we can use words like "accede" and "create", as it is after all an encyclopedia. IlkkaP (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure, we can use those words. But it's neither helpful to readers nor good style to use them to excess (in the first case), or in the most obscure of its senses (in the second: 1(d) in Oxford Languages's, the last of those, with '2' being a BrEng colloquialism) out of all context. This is not a hypothetical concern, given we have two editors right here being confused by our present wording. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

MOS:JARGON says that if a technical term is used, a parenthetic explanation may be given to explain the term's meaning. We could do something like, ...he was created (given the title of) Prince of Wales. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

This page has 76 million page views, and two editors have raised the issue with using ”create”. The same verb is used on hundreds of articles regarding British nobility. I don’t see a reason to explain it further. IlkkaP (talk)18:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

And what's the normal view::comment ratio, that leads you to conclude this is a strong indication that the present text is perfect in every way? Frankly excess use of bare jargon is a common vice on WP. Just because few people trouble to stop and point out each and every instance is far from an argument in favour of insisting And no, more than two editors have "raised the issue": two have apparently been outright confused by it, and two others have suggested stylistic improvements on it. Of the five commenters -- or of the 76m page-viewers if that's the better denominator! -- only you are arguing to keep it. Furthermore, MOS:JARGON says "Some topics are intrinsically technical..." That excuse really doesn't apply here. Being given (or indeed, inheriting) a title is not "intrinsically technical". It's an entirely mundane and familiar concept, and one that almost all our sources will describe much more clearly than we choose to do. To ignore that practice in favour of the "official" terminology is an indulgence that runs counter to all Wikipedia style and sourcing principles. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Duke of Cornwall (1952-2022)

Charles was Duke of Cornwall from 1952-2022. He became Duke of Cornwall immediately upon the death of his maternal grandfather, George VI, and held that title until it passed to his son, William, upon Queen Elizabeth's death. It is factually incorrect to say that Charles only held the title from 1952-1958. When he became Prince of Wales in 1958, he did not lose his Cornwall dukedom, rather it became one of his subsidiary titles. This in why Camilla was able to be referred to as the Duchess of Cornwall until Charles's accession to the throne even though she was legally entitled to be known by the principal title of Princess of Wales. Similarly, in current practice, although William's principal title is Prince of Wales, he still holds the subsidiary title of Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge. Like his father before him, William also currently holds the title of Duke of Rothesay, which is his principal title in Scotland. Johnnorris10217 (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously. It rather turns on whether it's intended as a list of all the subjects titles, or of their usual style. Practice seems to be the latter, albeit the format could stand to make that a good deal more transparent. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

This is why prose is more useful than the misleading bullets on which we insist because Wiki tradition. Surtsicna (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

As the IP said it's been discussed before - the problem is conflating "titles" and styles". It's resolved at William, Prince of Wales#Titles, styles, honours, and arms - don't really see why the same solution can't be adopted here. DeCausa (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

There's no agreed solution at William's article. That section is being edited constantly. There were 3 edits yesterday, 4 edits the day before, edits both days prior to that, etc. The section is not stable and is counter to the current consensus at the RfC. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The solution (at least briefly in evidence) at the Wills article is much clearer, but unfortunately also much wordier, to the point of outright redundancy. I don't think we need separate subsections for "titles" and then for "styles". Just to make clear that we're listing the titles as they appear in that person's useful formal style. Cases where a title is 'lost' will be very much the exception, and can be noted as such. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The tables in List of titles and honours of Charles III and List of titles and honours of William, Prince of Wales offer an alternative that make the end dates (or absence thereof) clear. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I think of the two, listing by style is better, as it's the more informative of the two, and better corresponds to notability -- i.e. how sources would generally refer to him at each time, if they were being sufficiently formal about it. Listing both is, as I suggested above, a lot of duplication in what's already a long article. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Bullets aren't misleading. It's people not understanding that Duke of Cornwall was concurrent with Prince of Wales and Duke of Rothesay, that's the problem. While the King was known as Prince of Wales primarily throughout the world, he used different styles in the United Kingdom and in Devon and Cornwall it was Duke of Cornwall, which is why the bullets show the titles use ending in 2022 and not 1958 when he was created Prince of Wales. GandalfXLD (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Bullets can be misleading where they're used to imply some structure that the writer might have in mind -- and may or may not even be correct, and may or may not be sourceable -- that of which the text fails to the actual intended meaning. The "bullets" showed styles ending in 2022 because you incorrectly edited it to read that way. It was rather rapidly reverted because it had no source, didn't conform to the format of principal style, and lacked any context that would even clarify your preferred interpretation, for example in the way that the "style in Scotland" appears. The trouble is that there's a lot of use of styles that really doesn't make "official" sense, and would be hard to demonstrate to be the "common" use. The Cornwall title also got some extra use to avoid the awkwardness of saying "The Prince of Wales and..." For example, Town&Country: "On their first wedding anniversary, the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall spent time in Balmoral, Scotland." If you have a good source suggesting systematic use of the Cornwall title specific to there (and Devon), it might be added on that basis. If not, better as-is -- but with better explanatory and scoping context. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't matter to me how it's done. As long as it's consistent across all the 'royal' bios. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Make that a bit more concise and you will have a fine user name. Surtsicna (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Might even work as a WP:FANCYSIG. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The King's Royal Cyphers

Would it not be better to have both cyphers in their coloured versions or both in their stylized versions? It looks a bit odd to have one coloured and one stylized. Personally, I prefer the stylized versions. GandalfXLD (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

But by keeping it as it is we get to see both a coloured and a stylised version. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I would at least change the tudor one to the same style that the late queen has on her page, at the moment it looks like the one given by the college of arms, but with alot more yellow. WiltedXXVI (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Great-grandfather was a King of Greece

Should we mention in the lead that the patrilinear great-grandfather of Charles III is George I of Greece? Nxavar (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Why? Doesn't seem lead-like. His patrilinear great-great-grandfather was Christian IX of Denmark. Where do you stop? It's pretty commonplace for European monarchs to have an array of monarchs and royalty as ancestors. DeCausa (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK this is typical for royalty, and in this case we are talking about 20th century monarchs. Both should be mentioned. Nxavar (talk) 08:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

He's also a great-great-great-grandson of Christian IX, through his mother's side. GoodDay (talk) 09:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Can we add Christian IX then? Nxavar (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Not sure we really need to mention that he his related to random royalty, we have an ancestry section which those intrested can pursue. MilborneOne (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

In agreement with MilborneOne. Charles III is related to several current monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Dynastic change?

Actually, we may have a dynastic change because of this lineage, from the House of Windsor to the House of Glücksburg. Dynastic lines follow agnatic succession. The House of Tudor was replaced with the House of Stuart, which was then replaced with the House of Hanover, which was then replaced with the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, its reigning English branch renamed to House of Windsor in 1917. Each time a (peacefull) dynastic change happened, a Queen was succeeded by a King. Nxavar (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Not really relevant to the origianl point but because of the 1917 declaration Charles III belongs to the House of Windsor. MilborneOne (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I read an excerpt of the proclamation in the article of the House of Windsor (ephasis mine):

...all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor...

Nxavar (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

(ec*2)Which in turn was replaced by a later order-in-council, and all of which are different from the name of the House, which is a matter (like much else in 'protocol' and 'tradition') are entirely down to whatever fiat the current regime wishes. (And different again from the actual topic of this section, which is why I attempted to split it out -- oh well, wikipedia gonna wikipedia.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

According to a 2009 snapshot of the official website of the UK royalty he is of the House of Windsor according to a non-binding decree of his mother. Nxavar (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. He might yet make a late-breaking decision to change it... just as he might have done even without his predecessor having been female. Seems unlikely, as the 'dynasties follow the male line' principle is unlikely to have the same sort of 'optics' as it might have had in the past. I suppose conceivably it might be changed to 'Mountbatten-Windsor', but that's fairly wild speculation. Unless we have a number of reliable sources similarly indulging themselves, I can't see a way this could possibly make it into the article. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK, it's still the House of Windsor. But, I do understand where you're coming from. FWIW, my guess is it'll stay Windsor, now that the succession is gender-blind. Otherwise, the name would keep changing, every time a king followed a Queen regnant on the throne. The 2013 succession act, kinda ensures a greater frequency of queens regnant. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

What I called "queens decree" is in fact a Privy Council declaration. The statement that he is of the House of Windsor may be just the website's opinion. In referencing the decision of the Privy Council the website says:

It was therefore declared in the Privy Council that The Queen's descendants, other than those with the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince/Princess, or female descendants who marry, would carry the name of Mountbatten-Windsor.

and

The effect of the declaration was that all The Queen's children, on occasions when they needed a surname, would have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.

If the Privy Council decision does not comment on what happens after the possible ascension of Charles III, he is in fact, judging from the surname, of the House of Mountbatten. Nxavar (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

No this has been well debated and considered previously. It's not the websites opinion. It's the House of Windsor unless and until Charles issues a new proclamation changing it. The surname is Mountbatten-windsor, but that's a different issue. DeCausa (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

And that they are separate is pretty clear -- even if we were to try to OR this -- from comparing the 1917 and 1952 proclamations and the 1960 declarations. All mention both the "House and Family" on the one hand, and the "Name" on the other. And in all three the former is "Windsor", and only the surname is varied to M-W in the 1960 one. And more importantly, we're not going to OR it, so lacking reliable sources saying that it's changed, or even that it might be about to change, this is going nowhere. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The fact that this requires debate proves that there is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issue by the royalty, apparently in an attempt to have their cake and eat it too: not break tradition in how these things go but then again not really follow it. A similar situation happened with the second marriage of Charles III: the Queen and King consort did not attend the marriage ceremony (because of the queen's role as Supreme Governor of Church of England) but did attend the "Service of Prayer and Dedication" at the church that followed. And we are the victims of their games, as usual. Nxavar (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

But it doesn't require debate: it's open-and-shut, as above. That royals are the original Cakeists is surely not exactly news. But unless you can find sourced discussion of this piece of cakeism in particular, it's of no relevance to the article, and if it's not relevant to the article, WP:NOTFORUM. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I would call it (possible) WP:OR. It's probably in an article on some newspaper or magazine of the time when the Privy Council decision was made, but until a specific reference can be given we cannot include it in the article, that is correct. Nxavar (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

What is possible WP:OR? That his mother's proclamation made Charles of the House of Windsor and Elizabeth's descendants have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor? Just because it's news to you, it doesn't make it so for everyone else. As the IP says this open and shut . Firstly, you'll see a full explanation and multiple citations for it at Elizabeth II#Accession and coronation. This has been written about multiple times by many writers. It's not a secret and is well known to regular editors of this article. Secondly, his House and the surname point are already in this article. "until ... we cannot include it in the article". That ship has longed sailed. DeCausa (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Would it not be appropriate though for this biographical article to mention at least that the man's name officially includes the surname Mountbatten-Windsor? Relegating that information to be buried in the talk page seems to me blatantly uninformative.Ramseyman (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Not really. As the monarch doesn't usually use a surname it's only of academic interest whether or not he actaully has one, and if he does what it might be. DeCausa (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Officially, schmofficially. Frankly we already humour "officially" -- AKA, self-serving primary sources -- rather too much. And indeed, this is already in the article: "As the reigning monarch, Charles does not usually use a family name, but when one is needed, it is Mountbatten-Windsor." Cited with... yes, a primary source. If we were a bit more consistent about these things, we'd try to find a reliable secondary source discussing him actually using it, and judge whether that was of sufficient notability for inclusion. Note it's not his "name at birth", and it's not a name "protocol" is happy with the riff-raff using as a matter of course. And secondary sources tend to follow royal "he doesn't have one, except if he wanted to" policy, So it makes no sense to give it any more weight than those do. OTOH, the House of Windsor should really include it more prominently. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Normally, yes it would be a change in dynasty, but His Majesty belongs to the house of Windsor regardless, so no change. WiltedXXVI (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

AN RFC was already held on whether or not to use surnames in the intro or infobox & the result was - no. As for the Dynasty's name it's still the House of Windsor. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Residences and finances section needs rewriting

Residences and finance section of the article is not very well written. It is not updated to reflect him inheriting residences and other assets from his mother, and income and assets related to the Duchy of Cornwall being transferred to his son. Furthermore, there is old information regarding amount of income and unnecessary trivia (for example, “A neighbouring family said the proposals flouted local planning regulations, and the application was put on hold temporarily while a report was drafted on how the alterations would affect the local bat population.” is not relevant enough to be included in the article in my opinion).

Maybe moving information about residences to the biographical sections, and leaving this section only for finances (as in her mother’s article)? IlkkaP (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• King Charles III in 2022.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Main Photo

I thought I should give him a photo of himself in 2022. Michael May II (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I applaud the initiative, but please keep in mind Wikipedia's policy on using non-free content (here WP:NFC). The image you uploaded is considered NFC and would need proper rationale for use. Leventio (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Future picture

I know this might be a little early and his coronation does not start until May, but should we use his coronation photo as his main photo, after the coronation? BigRed606 (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

If it’s freely licensed, yes definitely. Dronebogus (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Infidelity of Charles towards Diana.

Why there is no mention Charles had a relationship with Camilla before marrige with Diana? And that it caused many problems during the marrige? Why is Diana blamed for infidelity when Charles did so the whole marrige? Lisbet69 (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

By November 1986, Charles had fully resumed his affair with Camilla Parker Bowles (née Shand). Short of a diagram, I think "fully resumed" is pretty clear on this point. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you reading a different article? Your comments do not appear to relate to this one, where the relationship with Camilla is mentioned often. DrKay (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2022

Please change to king Charles the third as he is no longer a Prince 82.30.134.176 (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Done six weeks ago. If one or more instances in the article have been missed, then we will need specific details, bearing in mind that some uses of 'Prince' are deliberate and correct (such as those referring to before he became king). DrKay (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The hatnote of course also starts off with namedropping and linking Prince Charles (disambiguation), maybe that's m'IP colleague's concern? Of course we absolutely have to have that, but IMO we've made the context for it excessively terse and misleading. Apparently some editors thought it was unacceptable to have both a redirect notice and a DAB link as separate hatnotes -- notwithstanding that the MOS says that's precisely the circumstance for having two. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Premiership of Liz Truss

I don't understand--and would therefore ask for clarification--why the subsection I created on Premiership of Liz Truss was deleted. The stated reason was "Honestly, this has nothing to do with Charles" with no further explanation provided. It is very hard for me to understand how a meeting at which Charles was present somehow has "nothing to do with Charles" and would ask for clarification as to what you mean. Moreover, handling the relationship with the prime minister--especially during times of transition like is presently occurring--is one of the core duties of a constitutional monarch such as Charles and is one of the key reasons why the UK retains a monarch. Far from "having nothing to do with Charles", the King's audience with Truss represents a core example of the King performing one of his key constitutional duties. It is also especially notable because it is the first major example of the King's reign of his performing such duties. I welcome discussion on this, but in the absence of strong clarification of why this content was deleted, I intend to reinstate it in 24 hours. Usually I wait a week, but this change seems so especially egregiously in error that a shorter time frame is called for. If I'm missing something please let me know. Dash77 (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

You're referring to this edit [5], in which I removed the text Charles greeted his first British prime minister, Liz Truss, at their first regular audience on 12 October 2022 as Truss found herself increasingly embroiled in controversy. Eight days later, on 20 October 2022, Truss announced her resignation, becoming the shortest serving prime minister in British history.

The article is about Charles, who had nothing to do with the fact that Bozo the PM happened to be replaced by Lightweight the PM -- who happened then to resign -- right around the time he happened to take the throne. Further, there was nothing remarkable about the fact that he duly carried out his constitutionally dictated duties related to those developments in precisely the way his mum did. If he'd deviated from these long-established practices, that would be worth noting in the article, but as it is he simply did what all his predecessors did like clockwork for at least 200 years. Do you plan to include sections on his first meeting with the Privy Council, his first time bestowing knighthoods and whatnot, and so on? Stuff like that belongs in a detailed Timeline of the reign of Charles III, when and if there is one, but WP:10YEARS from now no one wanting to learn about Charles will be enlightened by the fact that he did exactly what he was supposed to do, and that (completely irrelevantly) this low-budget supply-sider sank herself only weeks after taking office.

If you want to get this article off to a good start as a mass of utterly predictable miscellany (that -- surprise! -- he greeted his first British prime minister, Liz Truss, at their first regular audience) and irrelevant discursion (that Truss found herself increasingly embroiled in controversy [and] Eight days later ... announced her resignation, becoming the shortest serving prime minister in British history -- which has nothing, zero, zip, zilch to do with Charles at all) then go ahead and restore. EEng 18:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I hear you, but I will also note that the reasons you now cite differ from the original reason you gave. Originally you said this had "nothing to do with Charles". Now it seems that you are acknowledging that it may have something to do with Charles, but we shouldn't include all the miscellany about the merely routine, predictable exercise of his constitutional duties. I'd agree to an extent with this--we probably wouldn't, for example, include details of each and every "kissing hands" ceremony during the long reign of Elizabeth II in her article. I'd agree that there needs to be something notable about any exercise of Charles' duties to make it worthy of including. However I would offer a number of reasons for including it:

The accession and coronation were or will be also somewhat predictable events, and yet we include them.

This is the first such transition of Charles' reign, making it more notable than if it were just one of many.

The article on Elizabeth II doesn't include information on all of her PM's, but most are noted, including her first--Churchill--and her last--Truss. If we mention Truss in the article on Elizabeth because she was her last PM, it makes sense to me to mention Truss in the article on Charles because she was his first PM.

Truss is herself extremely notable for more than one reason. The extreme brevity of her tenure is remarkable, and as such any events related to her departure, including those involving Charles, are not quite as routine as you suggest. Additionally, the photo of Truss and Elizabeth II will almost surely become iconic and remembered not just 10 but 100 years from now. Bearing in mind that Charles is not just Elizabeth's successor but also her son, anything to do with Truss and Charles is also somewhat notable. Regardless of whether you like her personally, Truss was the last person ever photographed with Charles' beloved mother. In my book that makes anything involving Charles and Truss notable.

So in sum--I definitely agree with you that we wouldn't want to include every routine exercise of Charles' constitutional duties in this article. I contend that there are multiple reasons why this meeting was notable and is worthy of inclusion. However I will wait to see if other opinions are expressed before reinstating. Dash77 (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Your reasoning will be more convincing once you sort out the difference in your mind between notability (which is part of the test for article existence) and due weight (which is a consideration re article content) -- see WP:NNC. Beyond that I'll just point out how strained it is to reason that ...

Truss happened to be the last person photographed with Liz II, and

Chuck was Liz's son and successor, so

anything at the nexus of Chuck and Truss must be "notable" (and again, see WP:NCC already linked).

EEng 20:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC) P.S. Iconic is a way, WAY overused word.

Duke of Cornwall title ending

The article makes out that his Duke of Cornwall title ended when he was created PoW which is incorrect, King Charles ceased to be DoC when he ascended to the throne Dbainsford (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Where does it "make out" what you say above? As far as I can see it says he was "6 February 1952 – 8 September 2022: His Royal Highness The Duke of Cornwall", which is correct. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes I just changed it Dbainsford (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Incorrectly, since as per several previous discussions (see recent archives) this isn't intended to denote cessation of the title but of change of his principal style. That the article fails to make this clear is because Wikiroyalists are very attached to "standard" formats and "official" terminology, rather than any actual attempt at clarity. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Well observed. I have replaced the ever-confusing bullet points with prose and am now counting the hours before this attempt at clarity is reverted. Surtsicna (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

But every other royal has the bullet points and your change deviates from the standard Dbainsford (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Sigh. What about clarity and accuracy? Surtsicna (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It's much clearer and reads better in prose, thank you.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. The same objection applies to those, frankly, but that's a matter for Another Place. Those are likely less harmful as they may largely be read only by people already enamoured of and familiar with royal trivia and "good form". But it would still be better to either have a little bit of prose glossing the 'bullets', or indeed the whole thing entirely in prose. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dbainsford:, there's an ongoing RFC on that topic. GoodDay (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)