Talk:Charles III/Archive 5

Article name

Please change name Charles, Prince of Wales to Charles III of United Kingdom. 2A00:23C4:7A88:4C00:50C1:7DC9:9DCA:9C04 (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

We will, when he becomes king. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

If he becomes King. Famous_dog (c) 10:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: Self-explanatory Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't he be Charles I of the United Kingdom? The other Charles' were monarchs of England, Scotland and Ireland; none was a monarch of the UK. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It will be entirely up to him, as king: he will be "Charles the one-hundred and eleventh", if that be his wish. William Avery (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

More likely George VII. Never believe anything until it has been denied. William Avery (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

According to the practice so far, Laurel Lodged, he would be Charles III of the United Kingdom. William IV was the first William on the British throne, Edward VII and Edward VIII the first and second Edward, and Elizabeth II the first Elizabeth. English and Scottish monarchs are considered and the highest possible ordinal is used. Surtsicna (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

That does not exist (the highest possible ordinal). --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you elaborate, please? Surtsicna (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I suspect the "issue" is that there is no highest "possible" ordinal, because for each ordinal n there is an ordinal n+1. He's quibbling with your word choice; he'd have been happier with the "highest of the alternative ordinals". - Nunh-huh 06:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

What is used is the lowest not-yet-used ordinal. What is an "alternative ordinal"? I suspect that the "highest of the alternative ordinals" does not exist either... :) --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I think once you've listed the alternatives, a reasonable person would know enough to pick one of them. - Nunh-huh 01:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

If he does stick with Charles, he will be Charles III as Surtsicna said. But he doesn't have to: he can pick any name he likes, as with the Pope. "Recent" examples: George VI was known publicly as Albert until his accession, and "Bertie" among his family and close friends; Edward VIII was similarly known as David; so Charles could be Charles III, Philip, Arthur (unlikely) or George VII. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Or Elvis. - Nunh-huh 01:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Or, indeed, Elvis. The point is that it is wrong for us to speculate on possibilities. We wait for the event to happen - and if it happens, we describe what actually occurred. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I think he should go with King Arthur II AmYisroelChai (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Active service?

...he took command of the coastal minehunter HMS Bronington for his last ten months of active service in the navy.

Are you sure this qualified as active service? It usually indicates deployment in an operational role. I would have said 'full-time service'. Valetude (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources use the term "active service" for Charles. MilborneOne (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

RFC #2: What should be in the article lead, concerning the royal succession.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per the recommendation of the closer of the previous Rfc.

How should Charles be defined in the lead? Here are the final options.

1. ...heir apparent to the British throne...
2. ...heir apparent to the British throne [footnote = for other Commonwealth realms]...
3. ...heir apparent of Queen Elizabeth II...

GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• 1, then 2 - We should have at least one country mentioned in the lead. That's how it's done for mostly all other heir-apparent bio leads. GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• Sorry for being perverse but ... could I float a suggestion made previously, namely: "is the eldest son of Queen Elizabeth II, and as such heir apparent to the British throne" this reverses the order of the present opening sentence, but has the advantage of identifying why he is the heir (Primogeniture). Other than that I would support 1, then 2. Keep it simple, but I agree we need to identify the principal 'throne' he is going to inherit! Pincrete (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• 3 Not a preferred option from the previous RfC, but it was the sentence in the lede for a number of years without any contest and, most importantly, it does not mislead unknowing readers into believing Charles is heir in only one country. Others who have commented in the previous RfC have incorrectly asserted Charles will be king in the non-UK realms because he will be King of the UK. That is not true for at least Australia and New Zealand, which each have their own succession laws separate to the UK's (as reaffirmed following the Perth Agreement), and possibly Canada, as well (pending the outcome of an ongoing court case over the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013). It is the very fact Charles is heir to be king in more than one country that renders what's done in other bio ledes irrelevant to the lede on this page. Option 3 focuses on what makes Charles notable--his being his mother's heir--and avoids pro-UK, possibly republican, pov bias and does not mislead by omission. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• 1 or 2. Charles is not notable merely as his mother's heir apparent, just like Elizabeth II is not notable as successor of George VI. Charles is notable as and most often defined as heir apparent to the British throne. That much is indisputable. (It is also a fact that he is heir apparent to other thrones too, but these two do not cancel each other.) The sentence that was in the lede for a number of years failed to provide this information; in fact, the entire lead failed to identify his country of origin. We define athletes and actors by their nationality, yet we are not supposed to name the country of which the subject is expected to be head of state? Surtsicna (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• 1 or 2 for reasons already stated. The complexities of succession in other countries make it impractical to be dealt with in the lead. Also, if option 3 used, some people may misinterpret as also being heir to Head of the Commonwealth, for example, which is not automatic. ῤerspeκὖlὖm in ænigmate_(talk)(spy) 21:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• 1 - "Heir apparent" is a position in British law but does not exist in law in many Commonwealth countries, many of whom have constitutions or legal precedents that simply states whoever occupies the British throne is also sovereign of their country so 1 makes the most sense. Nixon Now (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• 1 as per reasoning stated by Nixon Now. Don't help me, help the bear. 23:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• 1 Keep it simple. As others imply above, there are complexities in stating more than the obvious, and if we go down the path of footnotes and explanations in the lede, it will confuse readers. I like Pincrete's proposed rewording - "is the eldest son of Queen Elizabeth II, and as such heir apparent to the British throne" - as being more logical than what we currently have. --Pete (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• 1 not either 2 or 3. As in previous RfC, and concurring with Nixon Now (' "Heir apparent" is a position in British law but does not exist in law in many Commonwealth countries...'). But if proposed change from current "... the heir apparent to the British throne as the eldest child of Queen Elizabeth II..." to "the eldest son of Queen Elizabeth II, and as such heir apparent to the British throne" is acceptable, not sure which of those two is preferable from readers' pov. And may be in either of those the word should be "son" (as at 2 June 2012[1]) not "child", to allow for the second child, Anne's continuing position after the younger brothers and their successors in the current line of succession. Note that Encyclopedia Britannica[2] avoids "eldest son/child and as such heir apparent" by simply listing "...heir apparent to the British throne, eldest child of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, duke of Edinburgh." Qexigator (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• 1 or 2 3 is confusing because it does not mention what he is heir apparent to, which is the throne of the UK. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• 2 — certainly pithy enough, and with the footnote other complexities can be indicated to any interested reader. I'd also note that Pincrete's proposal at the top is also fine, and neatly incorporates #3. -Darouet (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• 1 : Keeping it simple. The lead section and the main text would expand on the precise, official status. -The Gnome (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Even if how he is most often defined were supported by a reliable source (which it is not), it wouldn't, nor shouldn't, subdue the fact, acknowledged by supporters of options 1 and 2, that he is heir in countries other than the UK. There are different ways to inform readers of Charles' country of origin, if such information is necessary for the lede. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

It is supported by a reliable source. I have given the source and you have responded to that comment (not addressing the source, however). Please refresh your memory. The fact that Charles is defined by reliable sources as heir apparent to the British throne does not negate the fact that he is also heir apparent to other thrones, but defining him as heir apparent to the British throne does not negate it either. What is, however, subdued by this fact is the senseless "inaccurate by omission" argument. And what other ways of informing readers of Charles's country of origin in the lede sentence (per MoS) can you suggest? Surtsicna (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2018

Change Prince Henry of Wales to Prince Harry of Wales, under issueAîrborne (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

No, Henry is his actual name. GoodDay (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Head of Commonwealth

This article could mention that in April 2018, Queen Elizabeth II said she wanted Prince Charles to succeed her as head of the Commonwealth. Vorbee (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Antony Armstrong-Jones

Re [3], no reliable source says that Antony Armstrong-Jones was a member of the royal family, therefore he was not a member of the royal family. According to Buckingham Palace, he was "a Peer of the Realm and the husband of a member of the Royal Family". Firebrace (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Prince William and Prince Charles.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2018

Add |birth_name=Charles Philip Arthur George 219.79.96.63 (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done It's already in the infobox under 'full name', I don't see why it needs to be shown again. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit wars

My contribution was removed by User:Melcous. After editing and reviewing my edits keep being removed also by User:Absolutelypuremilk and User:Noq. Can we please discuss this? Please approach with good faith as my contributions definitely are. Danainlondon (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

First, read WP:BRD - you are the one edit warring. Secondly, can you explain why his patronage of this organisation (one of very many) is relevant, and thirdly, if relevant, why the name of the current sponsor (who you have declared is paying you) is relevant to this article. noq (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I have read this page. I've edited, I've reverted, now we're discussing, go team :) Charles, Prince of Wales patronage of the organisation is important particularly under the sports section because Charles acts as both a Patron and a Non Playing Captain for the team, as my source states. The current content gives the impression that Charles is no longer interested or involved in the sport of polo which is false. The name of the sponsor is important because this is the official name of the team. My association to the sponsor is not relevant, I have made sure that my contribution here is completely relevant to Charles and Charles alone. Danainlondon (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't get the impression he is no longer involved in the sport. I don't see how this is anything more than trivia - even if you weren't being paid then this would not belong in the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

"From his youth until 1992, Prince Charles was an avid player of competitive polo. He continued to play informally, including for charity, until 2005." It literally says until this date, how does this not give the impression he is no longer involved in the sport? Also what do you mean by trivia? I'm unsure we're on the same page. Danainlondon (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Just because he does not play, doesn't mean he isn't still involved. See this article for an explanation of trivia on Wikipedia. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Danainlondon: - your last edit violates the WP:3RR rule - please self-revert and wait for consensus to be reached. You reverted 3 times before coming here and then reverted a fourth time before consensus was reached - this is not following WP:BRD. The current sponsors name is not used in the domain name for the team. Pushing your employers name is not necessary (unless that is your goal).

There appears to be very little coverage about the Welsh team on google. And that is as likely to either omit the sponsors name or use a previous sponsor. noq (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Danainlondon: your association with the sponsor is relevant - you are being paid by a company whose name you are inserting into the article: that is a conflict of interest and means you should propose the change here first. I agree with Absolutelypuremilk that this feels like trivia and the statement that Charles no longer plays polo does not imply anything more. Even if the patronage were to be added back (but again, why this as opposed to anything and everything else?) I still do not think it should have the name of the sponsor. Melcous (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Information to be added or removed: To the Sports section under Hobbies and personal interests please add – Charles currently acts as the Patron for the Centtrip Wales Polo Team.

Explanation of issue: The sentences give the impression that Charles is no longer involved in polo, however this is false.

References supporting change:

Danainlondon (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The thing is if you do a search for 'prince charles polo', you get a number of hits but this patronage isn't among the first 50, so is it really that important? His own page merely says 'The Prince maintains his interest in polo and follows the sport through his two sons' continued participation.' Even if it is included, the name of the sponsor isn't relevant: 'Charles remains patron of the Wales Polo Team.' is just as informative, but shorter. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion Celia Homeford. What would you think of a contribution without the sponsor name? I still think it's important to add due to it's readability giving off different impressions - this doesn't sound like a neutral addition to me. I understand if you think the sponsor name is not important so that does not have to be included (even though my declared COI would assume I would believe otherwise). Thoughts? Danainlondon (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm OK with adding a short sentence on his continuing interest in polo (without the sponsor name). Celia Homeford (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Lead should be longer

the article's lead is too short, i just added important things which he has done over the course of the years, which has been much publicised and its impact, you can't just remove it because you don't like it or better you feel its not important, discuss it first, all i wrote was important, i see no reason why it shouldn't be in the lead, discuss before making your unnecessary edit, i don't want to start another edit conflict with you, as an administrator, you should know better, perhaps we need another one to solve this discussion for us. Monkelese (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2019

victi = victims ? 2605:E000:9149:8300:F1FB:D55A:D6E9:F38E (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your observation, it has been corrected. MilborneOne (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Commonwealth realms

Should the lede mention that Charles is the heir apparent to the thrones of all the Commonwealth Realms, not just that of Britain? Compare the lede of Elizabeth_II. Grover cleveland (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The lead was determined by Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales/Archive 4#RFC: What should be in the article lead, concerning the royal succession and Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales/Archive 5#RFC #2: What should be in the article lead, concerning the royal succession.. DrKay (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Goodness gracious. Well, I can't say I agree with the current version, but I'm not going to walk into that minefield ( FWIW -- I can't even tell what the result of that discussion was). Grover cleveland (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we should use "Commonwealth realms" because Charles is heir to all of them, not just Britain Векочел (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

But they are all called collectively and for short "the British throne". DrKay (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Prince Charles as Regent "unlikely"

Do any articles, including the ones below, have any merit or are they just a tactic to sell more newspapers?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1210550/prince-charles-title-queen-step-down-18-months-retire-prince-regent-royal-family-latest "The only reason a regency would ever be contemplated is if she became seriously ill, either mentally or physically," Royal Author Phil Dampier .... The Regency Act 1937 made way for a regent to step in should a monarch become incapacitated.

https://nationalpost.com/news/the-shadow-king-royal-conspiracy-theory-that-the-queen-will-hand-reins-to-charles-is-plausible-but-unlikely Royal conspiracy theory that the Queen will hand reins to Charles is plausible, but unlikely

Also see Regency Acts Peter K Burian (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Never trust tabloids. GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

No, the gutter press just love speculating about these matters when they have nothing else to write about. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2020

Change "He has been Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay since 1952, and he is the oldest and longest-serving heir apparent in British history" to "He has been Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay since 1952, and he is the longest-serving heir apparent in British history."

Sophia of Hanover was heir to the English throne from 1702 at the age of 71/72. By her death at the age of 83,in 1714, she was heir to the British throne. Charles might be the oldest Prince of Wales but he is not the oldest heir apparent/presumptive.

Now, if there is some definite difference between heir presumptive and heir apparent, I might be incorrect. 137.191.230.202 (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Interstellarity (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I note the deletion of my additions concerning HRH's recent visits to Jerusalem and the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem User;Clive sweeting 7February 2020 and a further deletion re Charles' Newman speech by the same person (User:Clive sweeting 27 February 2020)

I did provide edit summaries[4][5] and your second claim is incorrect: the Newman speech was deleted by someone else. I suggest you take note of the edit summaries and templates and act on them. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Not an Environmentalist

Openly supports sport hunting to destroy the environment for fun. Please remove this non-sense lying. That is like defending dumping toxic waste in the ocean as environmentalism. Traditional toxic waste dumping from 300 years ago, to give it emotional appeal to conservatives of course. Just outright lying.

For those with no education: wildlife are part of the environment and cannot be mindlessly destroyed if you are an environmentalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.214.107 (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The claims to his environmentalism are well sourced, and reflected with a number of awards. I agree that his attitude to hunting suggests that his interest may be somewhat selective, but his hunting activities are already mentioned in the section titled "Hobbies and personal interests". HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus

@Imnotverycreaatiivee: @Sessefres: @Netha Hussain: Will someone help with the coronavirus section I started? I don't know if the section is in the right place, I'm almost certain that the number on the tweet citation is wrong (I don't use Twitter), and the citation doesn't look right to me - shouldn't it look like the rest? Could someone please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Souniel Yadav (talk • contribs) 08:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Reversion

DrKay, you reverted my edit here. Please let me know why it is unacceptable.—Souniel Yadav (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

This was explained by User:Monkelese15. The claim is denied by Charles's office. Per WP:DUE, we don't favor one view or source over another when they contradict each other. DrKay (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Surname

I edited the listed surname, as the cited page on the Royal Family website specifically states that descendants with the HRH title and Prince or Princess continue to use the surname Windsor rather than Mountbatten-Windsor, in line with the declaration in Royal Council by George V that all of the male line would bear the name Windsor.

To quote the cited website - a cache of the original -

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.

My edit was reverted with the comment that "the practical effect of the above is for all descendants of the Queen to carry the name Mountbatten-Windsor".

I would dispute this, as it is direct contradiction to the declaration in Royal Privy Council.

I have not restored my edit, as I don't want to start an edit war, but consider the authoritative basis for my edit to be unequivocal, and the reversion to be in error.

Can anyone else comment either way?

Philculmer (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't misquote my edit summary please, or the source. The source reads "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." DrKay (talk) 08:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, and please forgive me for misquoting: that was an unintentional error, and I apologise. My point, however, is that the declaration in Privy Council explicitly excludes princes and princesses with the Royal Highness title from the use of of the Mountbatten-Windsor surname. The commentary on it, as you point out, contradicts this, giving the source an equivocality which I had missed, but the order itself makes a specific exception. I will see if there is another authoritative source to resolve this discrepancy. Philculmer (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Post-nominals

Does Charles really have no post-nominals after his name? His son has four. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Per MOS:POSTNOM: When an individual holds a large number of post-nominal letters or seldom uses them (common among heads of state and members of royal families), they should be omitted from the lead, and the titles only described in the main body of the article. DrKay (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps this can cause some confusion, at least for readers unfamiliar with the baffling intricacies of Wikipedia MoS (which I guess is the vast majority of readers and very many editors). I'm surprised there is no visible note or explanation for this. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC) p.s. how often does William use any of his?

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2020

facebook,twitter,amazon,google all punished yesterday for censorship used as a threat to national security. So do yourself a favour now before i report your platform to ag barrs censor report app for not informing the world and more importantly Englands people that we have a new pure bloodline king? 2A02:C7F:7E4C:A00:7CC5:9E67:890B:D584 (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2020

Please remove this:

Two days later, Charles stated in a video that he would continue to practice isolation and social distance.

and add this:

Two days later, Charles stated in a video that he would continue to practice isolation and social distancing.

One doesn't "practice social distance". 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:9064:7BC7:9C6A:DB50 (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Dylsss (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Why can't his title be translated into Welsh also?

I tried to add (Charles, Tywysog Cymru) next to his name, but was reverted due to this reason: "That has very little to do with him personally. It belongs in Prince of Wales." But why not add a Welsh translation?, His title reflects Wales and the native language of Wales is Cymraeg (Welsh), I see no reason why he should reflect that language too?, to revert due to the title having "very little to do with him personally" is the most confusing this Iv'e heard someone say, the title is very much a part of his personal life, the title (in both Welsh and English) is as important as each other, he was made a prince in Caernarfon, North Wales, he learnt to speak the Welsh language and his identity very much reflects his position of being a Welsh prince, if he were not personally affiliated with the Welsh population then I'm pretty sure that the Welsh population would have rebelled against him years ago, he's not the prince of Britain, he's not the prince of England, he is the prince of Wales. Hogyncymru (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

This is the English language wikipedia. The Welsh language one is at https://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_Tywysog_Siarl,_Tywysog_Cymru. We don't usually include translations into other languages at the English language wikipedia, particularly when the title or office is usually given in English and in this case the personal name of the individual is not translated, so it's relevance to him personally is not clear. This article is about the man. The title is discussed at Prince of Wales, where a translation is given. DrKay (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2021

Change Camilla Parker Bowles to Camilla Shand in Charles' listed spouses at the top right of the page. Lady Diana Spencer is referred to by her maiden name, so to be consistent so should Camilla. 2001:8003:DDDC:BE00:ED34:A344:E300:2D6 (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It is consistent. Both names are the names they held immediately before marriage. DrKay (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2021

Correct Prince Charles' full name to remove Mountbatten-Windsor. Per the 1960's letters patent issued by The Queen, he does not need to use it as he is styled as a HRH Prince.

Please see a copy of the 1960's Letters Patent here: http://cuhags.soc.srcf.net/info/proclp-w.html Yellowwallpaper3 (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please gain consensus for this edit before using the edit request template. DrKay (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Mountbatten-Windsor

While Mountbatten-Windsor is surname that can be used when it is necessary they don’t use that everyday or built career around that name. There was no surname on his birth certificate for example. And I checked other European royal houses in Wikipedia they did not add family name either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berfu (talk • contribs) 11:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Lead image

I was just reading through this article and I noticed that its lead image isn't really very good. His Royal Highness appears to be unusually red in the face (almost as if it has been airbrushed), with an unusual expression on his face (so perhaps not representative, under MOS:LEADIMAGE) and it generally doesn't really seem like a nice, professional-looking picture that befits the future King (although I don't think that there isn't any policy about this and I intend no offence to the photographer, it seems like common sense that we should use nice pictures, so long as they are representative, where possible). HRH is also not really facing the camera. I'm not an expert in this area, but I found this picture on Flickr. It seems like a generally better picture to use, though it is from 2012, but HRH's appearance hasn't really changed since then (I think that there is a policy about this, but I can't seem to find it). What are people's thoughts on this? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree. He seems to be quite pleased that he knows something we don't. To my mind the image is positively begging for a speech bubble. But I guess that's not allowed here. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Haha! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

That picture was once in the infobox. It was switched out for a more recent one. There is no policy as far as I'm aware determining that the lead image needs to be a recent one. DrKay (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It has now been over a week (almost exactly, coincidentally) since I first commented about this and since there have been no comments to the contrary, I have changed the lead image. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Since commenting above, I've been reminded that there was an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images about whether the lead image should be the most recent and the result was against recent images being preferred and in favor of deciding on a case-by-case basis. DrKay (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Only 10 years ago, but perhaps not this one? Carefully categorised at Commons. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Brilliant - thanks for the update. And haha, but perhaps not in this case! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2021

The sentence about Charles becoming Duke of Edinburgh should be removed. It is factually incorrect (Prince Edward will inherit the title once Charles is king) and the reference cited doesn’t even support it. 80.5.226.153 (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done The source provided says this:

"The Duke of Edinburgh was granted the style and title of Royal Highness on 19 November 1947; on the next day, 20 November, he was created Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich, of Greenwich in the County of London. These peerages are hereditary and on the death of His Royal Highness have passed to his eldest son, HRH The Prince of Wales."

Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2021

Please check your information. Charles is not the Duke of Edinburgh. That title goes to his brother Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex. 2001:8004:27D0:3625:3536:6A87:9DB2:B3D6 (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please cite reliable sources and request edits in the form 'Please change X to Y'. DrKay (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

And look at the preceding thread, posted yesterday. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2021

Currently this article shows birth name = Prince Charles of Edinburgh. This is incorrect, He was born as just Prince Charles, he has only just recently gained his Edinburgh titles after the death of HRH Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh on April 9th. Therefore, the birth name needs to be change to Prince Charles. "of Edinburgh" needs to be removed. Hngunn (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Charles was not the heir apparent from the moment of his birth. The "of Edinburgh" indicated his status at that of a child of the then-Duke of Edinburgh, regardless of what he and his father were to become, just as Prince George of Cambridge and his siblings are currently referred to as such due to their being the children of the Duke of Cambridge. The birth name as shown is quite accurate. --Finngall ^talk 23:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

What will we name this page when Charles becomes King, before a regnal name is announced?

(First off, don't worry! She's still alive.) Okay, here goes: when the Queen dies and Charles (presumably) becomes King of the United Kingdom – what will we rename this page? I know it's not super important right now, but it's good to get ahead of things and have plans in place. Wikipedians are notorious for being quick to update information, so it's near-certain that whenever Elizabeth II passes (whether that's a month, a year, or a decade from now) there'll be an absurd scramble of users trying to figure out what the heck to do, and a wave of editors trying to figure out what on earth the title of this page would be. It's best to discuss and establish a consensus ahead of time so we're not caught in a chaotic frenzy when that date inevitably occurs (I mean, if it ever does, given how long the Queen has survived thus far).

Also, I'm referring to the interim period of time following the Queen's death BUT BEFORE Charles's regnal name is announced. Obviously when his official regnal name is announced, we'd move the page to his official regnal name. (To be fair, he could announce his regnal name within minutes of the Queen's death. Obviously, we haven't dealt with this before, so it's hard to say exactly what will happen and when. No clue — it could honestly be minutes, hours, days, or longer between the Queen's passing and any sort of regnal name announcement, and a second is an eternity for many a Wikipedian.)

It wouldn't be wise to name this page to "Charles III of the United Kingdom" before a regnal name is announced — it's not a given that he'll go by "Charles III". He could very easily go by "George VII" (and, given rumors, there's a solid chance he might end up doing so). I'm not 100% certain, but I'm pretty sure he ceases to be Prince of Wales when he becomes King, so it wouldn't make sense to keep this page at "Charles, Prince of Wales" when news breaks of the Queen's death. So when that moment eventually happens, what will we name this page? Would it make sense to name the page "Charles of the United Kingdom" when it happens? It's a term that already redirects here, given that the past ones were Kings before it was "the United Kingdom". Thoughts? Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I’d personally propose that we use, “Charles, King of the United Kingdom”. It has a distinction from the other guys named Charles, as it omits the number. Although, I’m still kinda torn. Thoughts? The Image Editor (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Following the demise of the Crown, the Accession Council meets, at the latest, the morning after (e.g. if the monarch dies during the night). The proclamation of accession immediately follows the meeting of the Council. It seems pointless to move the article to a speculative title only to move it again within hours. Opera hat (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

A reminder from the colonies: The person who is monarch of the UK has many other jobs that go automatically to them. These include being the monarch of places like Canada, Australia and lots of others. We describe Elizabeth as being "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms". (I believe there are 15 of them.) So all the suggestions above for Charles being "...of the United Kingdom" are inaccurate. Of course this all highlights that there are many more articles that would need to be updated than might immediately be thought of, such as Monarchy of Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a useful discussion to have, as even if the page only moves to a temporary name for 24 hours, it will probably have millions hits over that period (it presently gets between 30,000 and 40,000 a day and Joe Biden got over 2.6m on 20 January 2021 and over 3.8m on 8 November 2020), plus, as has already been said, if there isn't a discussion now, it could be chaotic when the time does come. How does either Charles of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms or Charles, King of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms sound? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It would not be "inaccurate" to describe him as King of the United Kingdom just because he also has other titles. We have established ways of dealing with monarchs of multiple realms already in place (WP:NCROY: "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state."), and they would apply to Charles just as much as they apply to, e.g., George II, whose article is at George II of Great Britain despite the fact that he was also King of Ireland and Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg. This won't matter for long, though: as either Charles III or George VII he'd clearly be the dominant meaning and should be at the simple name just as his mother is at Elizabeth II. Proteus (Talk) 11:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to rush in to make a change? Does the health and well being of Wikipedia really necessitate that it be updated within moments of any real world event taking place? Instead of rushing in to make a fast paced succession of superficial changes, perhaps the solution should be to LOCK DOWN any edits until the dust settles and there some clear direction has emerged. After all, Charles has been heir apparent for decades and will be ascending at a time in his life when some other modern monarchs are abdicating in favor of their children. It's safe to expect that such decisions have long been decided and that there will be little delay in learning what name he's chosen. HOWEVER, if some temporary change really does need to be made, Charles of Edinburgh should suffice. Consider that, with the passing of his father, Charles is now the Duke of Edinburgh, which is a substantive title that will remain his after the passing of his mother (as opposed to his courtesy titles of "Prince of Wales" and "Duke of Cornwall"). This is probably the least complicated and most accurate solution.

In relation to your proposal for a temporary change, I'm afraid you are incorrect on both counts: "Prince of Wales" and "Duke of Cornwall" are substantive titles, not courtesy titles, and are both senior to the Dukedom of Edinburgh he now also holds; and upon his mother's death and his accession as King, the Dukedom of Edinburgh will immediately cease to exist (the technical term is "merge in the Crown"), since the Sovereign cannot hold a peerage. Proteus (Talk) 13:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Charles III (17 September 879 – 7 October 929), called the Simple or the Straightforward (from the Latin Carolus Simplex),[a] was the king of West Francia from 898 until 922 and the king of Lotharingia from 911 until 919–23. He was a member of the Carolingian dynasty. Sampajanna (talk) 08:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

So how about Charles the Slightly Less Simple? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

We can go with just his full name: Charles Philip Arthur George. It already redirects anyways, and serves as a technically accurate placeholder for like a day before the regal name is announced. WildComet (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is pretty pointless really. The time between the Queen's death or abdication and the revealing of the Prince of Wales' regnal name should be sufficiently short not to warrant an intermittent move of this article. That is IF Charles, Prince of Wales actually ascends to the throne. The Queen has already outlived her daughter-in-law so it isn't inconcievable she does the same with her son. Moreover he could simply decide to take a step aside in favour of his son, the present Duke of Cambridge, because of his own advanced age. This makes all of this discussion regarding his name just prior to his potential reign just wild guesswork.Tvx1 17:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Duke of Edinburgh Title

I see that it is being said in the article that Prince Charles will inherit the title Duke of Edinburgh. It should be noted that it is being widely reported that the title will be given to Prince Edward. See, for example, here and here. I think that, while it may be that Charles inherits the title, it is not a foregone conclusion.--ServeDotty (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Letters Patent for the title clearly states that the title goes to the firstborn male -- which is Charles. Unless Her Majesty issues another Letters Patent in the next few days overruling the original one to give Edward the title directly, Charles is the new Duke of Edinburgh until he becomes king an the title is free to be given to Edward. --Random Anon

Well technically, after becoming King he will still be Duke of Edinburgh. The title will simply become moot because it will have merged with the Crown. But as King, he will have the authority to issue Letters Patent to transfer the title to whomever he wishes, as will be the case for all honors.

At this point it would take an act of Parliament to deprive Charles of the dukedom. Surtsicna (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

How in the world is an act of Parliament going to do any such thing?

If this is the case, then you should also add the title of The Duchess of Edinburgh in the article of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. Peter Ormond (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Parliament is sovereign; an act can do anything Parliament wishes it to do. If it can remove the hereditaries from the House of Lords, alter the succession to the Crown, or even establish a republic, of course it can deprive somebody of a title! Marnanel (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Except of course, that Parliament doesn't make ANY Laws! They devise laws which are presented to the monarch in order to receive Royal Assent. (In practice, this is devolved to a Commission.) The point is that Parliament has NO powers other than those to which the sovereign agrees. Forfariano (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That's technically true, but so what? The Queen isn't going to withhold Royal Assent for anything at all. Parliament is quite capable of passing a bill to deprive Charles of a title if it so wishes. Marnanel (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

"The Prince's full title is... Baron Greenwich, Baron of Renfrew..." Baron of Renfrew title seems to be older. Should it be listed before Baron Greenwich?

I believe it at one point was announced Prince Edward would become the Duke of Edinburgh, but nothing official seems to have been done so Prince Charles technically inherited the title. Still, I would wait for an announcement on what the plan is. Collinanderson (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources for the title change: the grant of the titles to Phil the Greek, to heirs male; today's College of Arms notice that the titles are hereditary. Marnanel (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

One of the motivations for suggesting that Prince Edward might become Duke of Edinburgh (which would be a new creation, rather than inheriting his father's title) seems to have been to give the Queen's third son a Scottish title, something which he did not receive at the time of his marriage (unlike, say, Prince Andrew who was made Earl of Inverness as well as Duke of York). The 'need' for such a move is now largely moot, Edward having been granted the title Earl of Forfar as a 55th birthday present in 2019. Forfariano (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

When Prince Edward and Sophie Rhys-Jones married in 1999, they were given the titles the Earl and Countess of Wessex but, at that time, Buckingham Palace also announced that Edward would eventually one day succeed his father as the Duke of Edinburgh.--ServeDotty (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

From The Telegraph just now: "The title of the Duke of Edinburgh will eventually be inherited by Prince Philip's youngest son, Prince Edward. Under plans first announced in 1999, Edward will succeed his father in the Dukedom with the blessing of Prince Philip and the Queen." Sampajanna (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The Telegraph said it, but the Telegraph is clearly wrong. The College of Arms said otherwise. Marnanel (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

So, if Buckingham Palace said it in 1999, they were wrong? Surely, they are more of an authority on the matter because the Queen is the one who has the final say. Seriously, though, the main point I was trying to make is that it was said at some point that the title will go to Prince Edward (see my link above, about Edward and Sophie's wedding), so it might be better to hold off handing it over to Charles for the moment.--ServeDotty (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The monarchy has had its say. It said that the titles would pass to the eldest son and the title has indeed passed to the eldest son. It is not up to us to hold it off. It has happened. The College of Arms has explicitly said so. Surtsicna (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. The monarchy has said that the title will *eventually* go to Edward: when Charles becomes king, the title will cease to exist (because the monarch can't hold titles of nobility), so it can be re-created and given to Edward. But that has nothing to do with what happens *today*. The law says that when someone with a hereditary title dies, that title goes to their eldest son. Charles is Philip's eldest son, so today Charles automatically became Duke of Edinburgh. Marnanel (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem with that theory though is that it's if, rather than when, Prince Charles becomes king. There is no guarantee that Charles will outlive his mother, the Queen, or that he will still be alive (or at least capable of reigning) when she does decide to abdicate after all or that he will exert his right to ascend to the Throne when the Queen passes away or abdicates. After all the Prince of Wales is already 72 years old himself, just three and four years younger respectively than Beatrix of the Netherlands and Juan Carlos I of Spain were when they abdicated their thrones. Thus Prince Charles ascending the throne isn't a certainty at all, make the exact future of the title Duke of Edinburgh not that certain at all. I would assume that if Prince Charles does not become King, the title would pass on to this son, the current Duke of Cambridge, making its potential path to the Earl of Wessex much more complicated.Tvx1 17:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Unless there is a change in the law Charles will become king when the Queen dies or abdicates. Neither Elizabeth nor Charles have any say in the matter. Indeed even if Charles were to decide to abdicate it would take an act of parliament to allow it, he would not be allowed to do it off his own back. GimliDotNet (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Unless Charles is no longer alive or in physical condition to reign himself when the Queen dies or abdicates. Such things happen you know. The current king of Sweden directly succeeded his grandfather, not his father who had already died earlier, to the throne. So you see, Charles becoming king is not certain at all. Therefore about the title Duke of Edingburgh is either.Tvx1 19:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The potential path becomes different, but not that more complicated (unless you assume an itself much more elaborate and extensive series of predeceasements). The direct-line heirs to the throne are all male, so inheritance of the dukedom would align and the title would merge with the crown if and when any of those succeeded, at which time the original regranting plan could be put into place. If all three died before the queen (which would be unfortunate in anyone's money) then you'd get the situation of Louis inheriting the dukedom, before Charlotte then succeeded as Queen.

The current description of Duke Wills as 'heir' is I think technically correct, but something of a head-scratcher and arguably somewhat misleading. The situation is somewhat like that of an heir presumptive, except that rather than potentially being displaced by another claimant, it's likely the title will disappear before it's inherited. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

"If not without some regret" is inappropriate.

Greetings Wikipedians! The first paragraph in the section Prince of Wales says "Charles accepted the decision, if not without some regret..." The quote given here does not support feelings of regret. That is presumably someone's interpretation. In my humble opinion, it's not our role as editors to interpret what a public figure's feelings are, at least in the case of a living person, where we have to be especially careful to walk the line. I have deleted that phrase, but would be glad to reinstate it if someone can find a public statement to support it. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

1983 tour

In my opinion, Charles and Diana's 1983 tour of Australia is quite famous and notable, so there should be a separate article covering the tour. Peter Ormond 💬 16:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

If we're having his 'surname' Mountbatten-Windsor put in note-form, in his infobox, just like in the infoboxes of his siblings. Then why aren't we doing the same at his mother's infobox, concerning Windsor? GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2021

189.215.211.209 (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The surname of Camilla is Shand, Parker Bowl was of her first husband.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Future, Head of the Commonwealth - inclusion or exclusion.

An an RFC on this matter, is being held. GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2021

Charles has been invested as Prince of Wales in 1969, not in 1958. He would have been 10 at that time. Reference [3] is correct. 31.165.152.88 (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The article already says he was invested in 1969. Investiture is not the same as creation. DrKay (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2021 (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:

• Prinsen, baby, Charles, prins van Wales, Elisabeth prinses, Bestanddeelnr 903-1660 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Jimmy Savile

I'm starting to question whether the information added on Savile to this page should actually be removed or not, as in its current form it appears to be WP:UNDUE (note that it was me who added it to the page originally on 14 March 2021). Per various sources, Charles and many other public figures including Margaret Thatcher had no knowledge on Savile's private life. Not to mention that it was Thatcher who pressed for a knighthood to be bestowed upon him and invited him to spend 11 consecutive New Year's Eves at Chequers with her and her family (see Jimmy Savile#Public image and friendships for more information). Then why is it that none of this is covered in her page or in the page of any other public figures that he befriended but we have it here? And reflecting on it now, I guess it's rather unfair, especially considering the fact that Savile was getting telegrams from and was in contact with other members of the royal family as well. Do we have a similar section on the page of every public figure that he was corresponding with, including Prince Philip and Diana? The answer appears to be a 'no'. I think the original addition by me was unnecessary and the coverage on Savile's own page should be enough. Keivan.f^Talk 23:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Not trying to excuse writing to a sex offender for 20 years, but I think it's fair to say that Charles didn't know. The information about Savile's involvement with royalty and politicians (all of whom had no knowledge of his private life) should really only be on Savile's page. I'm no expert on the Jimmy Savile case but he seemed to be closer to Thatcher than Charles. So I agree with you that if information about Savile isn't on her page, it shouldn't be here either. --92.30.65.41 (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unaware of this talk page discussion when I added this information to the page. The revelations in the new Netflix doc (Jimmy Savile: A British Horror Story) note that Savile hand-wrote a basic handbook for the Royal family regarding how to act in the case of disaster, presented to Charles (who passed it on to Prince Philip, who passed it to the Queen) and that his involvement with Charles went even further than previously thought, basically acting as an unofficial adviser to him. Not sure if this means the content is now due, and it has now been removed, but thought I'd mention it here on the talk page. -- QueenofBithynia (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I wonder what Her Majesty made of that hand-written handbook of advice from a disc jokey from Leeds? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Surname

Only the descendants of Elizabeth II who don’t use HRH have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor, he does not use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.192.18 (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

English?

I had always assumed that Charles was English. Is this not the case, because his father was Greek? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting his nationality in the intro, both British and English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish. I also assume he is English. Titus Gold (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I think we can all agree he's not Welsh. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

It depends on your definition. He's certainly British, by any reasonable definition of nationality. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

What's that? Some kind of "honorary Welshman"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Non-native holder of Prince of Wales

I think it's important to make a distinction in the intro between historical and native holders of the title "Prince of Wales" and the modern non-native use of the title as part of the British monarchy. As such I would suggest simply including the word "non-native" later in the intro paragraph. Please and kindly state an opinion and form a consensus. Thanks.Titus Gold (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

That is all explained in the linked Prince of Wales article. There is no need to include any reference to this person being "non-native". That term could be applied to many royal figures around the world, historically, but generally it isn't, and so we shouldn't use it here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I would therefore propose that this is mentioned in the Prince of Wales intro rather than later on. Many people will only read an intro to briefly understand something. Titus Gold (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The opening sentence of that article says: "Prince of Wales is a title historically used by native, independent Welsh princes and since the 14th-century by the heir apparent of the English and later British throne." I don't see any need to add the word "non-native" to what seems to me to be a very clear distinction - but you could see what other editors at that article think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I hear, when he wants to "go native", he has a little 192-acre pad at Llwynywermod (...if it's not been burned to the ground, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

He went to Aber uni for a few weeks to be fair to him! Titus Gold (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Now he's got his own bridge, we'll probably see more of him and Camilla playing the slots down Barry Island. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

King Charles III

I changed the picture of him to the one of him giving the speech from the throne as the quasi-regent. It is much better and more recent than the one from 8 years ago.

Another editor said that this picture is unusual. That it is, but then it will be replaced by a formal portrait of him as king when the sad day comes (I'm talking about his mother, of course). it also reflects his change in status. Notwisconsin (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I suggested (in my edit summary) that it was "non typical" of his usual activities. It gives the impression that he spends most of his time in full military dress sat on a golden throne? I think the image should rather attempt to show how he typically looks in public life i.e. represent the past 55 years, not some future Royal event. It's a strong image and could be well used in the article main body. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

unless he passes soon, he will become King of England. The article will be primarily about that. That picture represents the first time he's done a full-on royal duty. it was him being KING for the first time. I know he's not king YET, but the only reason he's famous is that he WILL be king. The photo shows him being King. That's why I put it there.

When the old Queen dies, we should revert to the famous coronation portrait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwisconsin (talk • contribs) 20:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Simon Charles Dorante-Day

Should it be added somewhere that an Australian man of that name has been legally claiming for years that he is the son of Charles and Camilla? Obviously it is 99% false but he is extremely convinced of it and has been swabbing the courts and the royal for years to obtain the DNA. 93.67.196.108 (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

No. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

So we have a non-significant person who said his grandmother said..... Um, no. HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Given other examples, it's surprising that we do not have an article on British royal family conspiracy theories. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

LoL! We could always create it!We could also add Lady Colin Campbell's "revelations" that the Queen Mother is an illegitimate daughter of a French cook named Margaret and that HM Elizabeth II and her sister were conceived with assisted fertilization.Sira Aspera (talk) 09:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

...and this, of course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

A classsic. Oh, and Andrew and Edward Who isn't Philip's sons! There is enough for write a book!Sira Aspera (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

However, IP, no, because that's not true. It has been disproved, quite simply, rational truth does not sell tabloids and that man clearly has some problems. This is a good summary https://www.reddit.com/user/Itsjustanopinionm8/comments/qn8b6e/the_false_prince_from_down_under/ Sira Aspera (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect year of death listed (2005)

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

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

You mean King Charles III don't you?

Don't know what you mean about this "heir apparent" business 103.93.115.18 (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes we do. Prince William is now the "heir apparent". GoodDay (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

About regal naming

There is a bit of problem, here, now: a king is allowed to choose his regal appellation freely, and Charles, the Prince of Wales hasn't yet divulged his choice. As such, it's premature to call him King Charles III. It's probably going to be his appellation, but for all we know, he might very well, even by custom, choose to go by one of his other names. He might even want to do so, to break the connection with Charles I and II. Especially the latter, given his well-known debauchery.

And in fact, if he fancied it, by King Fancypants or such. Such is the royal prerogative. So let's not get ahead of ourselves. Decoy (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Less likely, as precedent only seems to cover the case of a monarch choosing one of their first/middle names. Not impossible, I'll grant. But more to the point, he is very definitely no longer "Charles, [the] Prince of Wales", and he has chosen his regnal name, and announced the fact. Short of a massive plot twist between his prime minister and his press office (in that order, oddly, but there we are) announcing it, and the Accession Council ceremoniously Proclaiming it, it's a done deal. And is certainly a done enough deal for wiki purposes. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

He has divulged his choice. [6] Al-Muqanna (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles III premature?

Although we won't have to wait long (likely tomorrow) to find out, as UK media is reporting it may be premature to call him Charles III today (Sept. 8) as it is his right to choose another name when he ascends on the 9th. He could choose George, Philip or even Arthur. Most likely it'll be Charles III, but I've seen others cases where Wikipedia has paused on naming somebody until it's official. 23skidoo (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Nope. He ascended the throne already today and Clarence House already announced he's charles III. It's official now. DeCausa (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Someone on WP:RDH says it's actually not official until it's confirmed by Parliament, but that is just a formality. 2601:648:8201:5DD0:0:0:0:256B (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Certainly Victoria and Edward VII and George VI chose differently than the first names listed in their accession proclamations, but those were different eras. I concur there's enough solid sources as to Charles III to run with it whatever the technicalities of what they might choose to do at the accession council.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The technicalities are done. it's nothing to doing with parliament - solely royal prerogative and Clarence House has made the announcement. DeCausa (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Curiously enough, Clarence House press releases aren't the final word on royal ceremony and formality. They should really get with the programme, no? (Or perhaps the UK population should...) But it's not parliament (either the body, or expected to be the location), it's the privy council, acting as the Accession Council. They're responsible for the Proclamation of the new monarch -- so he'd better have decided his name by that point -- and at some point thereafter by the reading and signing of the Oath -- so he'd really have to made up his mind by then. So unless there's the world's biggest change of mind before then, or he drops death himself before that happens, it's a done deal, and plenty done for Wikipedia purposes. Which after all, is to report what reliable sources say, not to come up with wacky theories of our own. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2022 (3)

Please can you amend King Charles’ “spouse” from Camilla Parker Bowles to “Camilla, Queen Consort”. She has not been “Parker Bowles” in years and it’s not correct. 5.151.76.251 (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is to keep it. DrKay (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Curious as to why (and when was this consensus reached - if it was a while ago it may need to be revisted now the field has changed). Her title - though not official until the 9th - has been recognized. It's a similar quandary as to why media continue to erroneously refer to the Duchess of Cambridge as Kate Middleton, despite the Palace officially indicating on the day she married William that she was not keeping her maiden name. We don't refer to Michelle Obama by her maiden name, for example (but we would if she chose to use it, of course). 23skidoo (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The name of a spouse given in infoboxes (and elsewhere) are as it was before the marriage – this is a common convention across Wikipedia. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 21:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

And do so for Michelle Obama, in BHO's infobox: "Spouse Michelle Robinson ​(m. 1992)". Makes sense, otherwise we'd have a lot of less-than-info-rmative-boxes saying things like "Mr Smith; Spouse. Mrs smith." 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Stylistic query as to pre-accession usage

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

I don't think we need to "show respect", my view is that you're right in that referring to him as Charles III when speaking of him in the past is inaccurate.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  20:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"Charles, then Prince of Wales" seems like a sensible referring style. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles is not the King of Canada

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

Source? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Canada became a republic when you weren’t looking (sarcasm) Dronebogus (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Those sneaky Canucker Rangers! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, he is. Vince1073 (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
He most certainly is King of Canada. Our monarchy is considered separate from that of the UK, but when Elizabeth died, it passed to Charles. (Though it is premature to call him Charles III as I believe his ascension isn't offiicial until tomorrow, plus he may choose to use a different name, which is his prerogative.) If the OP is indicating that Canada has now become an American-style republic, this may be in the future, but likely not until a referendum indicates public support for such a thing because it would require millions of dollars in expenses to overhaul our governmental system and also the drafting of a new Constitution and that was a HUGE headache last time around. 23skidoo (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The anon commenting may also be a far right adherent. There is currently a woman touring the country as the self proclaimed Queen of Canada. Her followers, basically Canada's version of QAnon, claim to believe her nonsense. Whatever the case, this matter is moot, the Queen or King of Canada is represented by a local Governor General as head of state, but indeed Charles is now King here. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hashtag not-all-anons-commenting. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Republicanism is more prevalent among the far left than the far right. Just sayin'.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:C1EF:96BD:8AA:DDBD (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry Mobile editor, but he is King of Canada. Just wish the Canadian Constitution would replace the word "Queen of Canada", with "Monarch of Canada". GoodDay (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't use the term "Queen of Canada." "The Queen" in the Canadian constitution refers to Victoria. Elizabeth II and Charles III come under the description of her "heirs and successors." TFD (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Name

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

Yes.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  19:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok thanks for letting me know. Rlt152152 (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we should revert the rename then, just until we have a verifiable name. - Andrei (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

A Clarence House confirmation taken from a Reuters, indeed a reliable source, is well within the guidelines of WP:V.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  20:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

(ec)Revert to what? He's 100% certainly no longer "Prince Charles", whatever else he might decide to be. We have multiple independent significant references for this, from reliable secondary sources, as required. If he changes his mind before it's formally proclaimed, then we can move it (someplace else) at that point. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

He is also already being referred to as King Charles III in media (e.g. [7]). Al-Muqanna (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm

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

Sorry, are you questioning whether only the queen can be head of state and not a king? Or are you questioning whether being head of state is the same thing as being king of those realms? Powers ^T 19:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Quoting from the linked article:

The Queen’s death is a precarious moment for some of Britain’s wider Commonwealth realm, 14 countries of which recognise the monarch as their head of state. In many cases their constitutions state that the Queen, specifically, is the head of state. In these countries, constitutions will need to be amended to refer to her successor. In countries such as Jamaica, where there is a strong independence movement, and Belize, these constitutional changes will also require a referendum, according to Commonwealth experts.

– Joe (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I should have read the article. I understand the question now. The issue is that several nations recognize Elizabeth II, specifically, as sovereign in their constitutions and those constitutions would need to be updated in order for them to adopt Charles as their king. We may need to consider different wording. Powers ^T 19:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the Jamaican constitution, apparently it's not quite that specific, but it does use "Her Majesty" throughout. So one could argue on the one hand that there's currently an interregnum, or that "she embraces he", to reverse the old 19th century grammarians' doctrine. I'm not going to try to make either case, and I think neither should the article, other than by reference to reliable sources. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Definitely an intriguing complication. My feeling is to treat the Commonwealth Crowns as instant descent due to inheriting their form from the British Crown and only include this issue if a Commonwealth Realm invokes this ambiguity (by taking an action like explicitly confirming Charles' accession on a different date, declaring a republic retroactive to Elizabeth's death, etc.) Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's any current suspicion that it became a republic by legal accident: "Charles is now King"-- Jamaica Gleaner. I'd imagine that there will in due course be a tidying up exercise, unless the monarch wishes to identify as Queen Charles when on the island. Economy of effort might be to have a combined referendum (please check your preference between "His Majesty", or "an elected ceremonial President"), but that's especially idle speculation on my part. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"This article was amended on 8 September 2022 to refer to Jamaica having a strong republican movement, rather than 'independence movement' as an earlier version said, and to Barbados becoming a republic (rather than 'independent') in 2021. The countries became independent in 1962 and 1966 respectively." CasparRH (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

There is probably some English or British law or court decision pre-dating Jamaican independence that would say that references to the King or Queen are interchangeable, otherwise the UK will have a lot of laws to change. TFD (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to those who have kept the article in decent shape

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

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

"King Charles" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

King or "presumptive king"

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

• The edit is plain wrong. Charles III became king the moment his mother died and will formally be proclaimed as such tomorrow. Edward VIII was king during 1936, but was never crowned. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Added to which, "coronated" isn't even the right word. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

King Charles automatically became king under a common law rule

Rex nunquam moritur’, which translates as ‘The King never dies

Source https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1666689/Prince-Charles-King-now-crowned-coronation/amp

The King is dead, long live the king

source https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rKAKXWXIa9gC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=uk+the+king+is+dead,+long+live+the+king+academic&source=bl&ots=lU15D89Xq_&sig=ACfU3U2AK7GqHikvA-ozzVVq4wvkxQXfTA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi6qoOSwYf6AhW1SkEAHfwiDUE4MhDoAXoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=uk%20the%20king%20is%20dead%2C%20long%20live%20the%20king%20academic&f=false ChefBear01 (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Hatnotes

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

Agreed. Charles Winsor is literally a different name. —ThorstenNY (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The hatnote currently says, ""Charles Windsor" redirects here. For the engineer, see Charles Winsor." I don't see that is useful. TFD (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Title change

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

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

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

No need to start a new section. See above. Rmhermen (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

But what if someone else who is on Wikipedia could edit the page? HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Not done. It is not clear what change is requested. Rmhermen (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Updating links to "prince charles"

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

Since they are not ambiguous, no. (There's a policy claiming that somewhere, but I can't find it at the moment.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Technically the term is ambigious since Charles, Prince of Wales (disambiguation) exists. Gust Justice (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

...And technically, they don't need to be updated since the disambiguation page is at Charles, Prince of Wales (disambiguation) and not Charles, Prince of Wales, so the links to the latter should be de facto not ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

If they are referring to them in the present, yes. If they are referring to them in the past, no.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  18:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this actually means the respective articles, but not necessarily the links themselves; that is a content issue, not a link issue. Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Moves

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

It's been confirmed by Clarence House according to sources such as Reuters. No discussion required.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  18:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Anything thats been challenged requires discussion. Pinging Red-tailed hawk who challenged the move by reverting it earlier. nableezy - 18:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I opened a request at WP:RM#Requests to revert undiscussed moves but I fully agree that this should be reverted, as Charles is not the WP:PTOPIC for Charles III. What I will not be doing is reverting the page move more than once, though I believe that this should be done pending a move request. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nableezy: The previous moves were premature, made under the assumption that Charles III would be Charles' regnal name. The most recent move however comes after an official announcement by Clarence House, and has been reported by multiple reliable sources at this stage. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not the only issue. Is it Charles III or Charles III of the United Kingdom. Seems WP:CRYSTAL that it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Charles III. The normal article title for monarchs is "X of X". DeCausa (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It was changed to Charles III and not Charles III of the United Kingdom per the form used on Elizabeth II. I would assume. Gust Justice (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

But there is a difference. Elizabeth II is the only monarch of note with that name, while there have been many with the name Charles III. 2600:1702:6D0:5160:106B:D330:4B1E:DE1A (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem with talking about monarchs like Charles III of Spain is that Charles was not their actual name. Charles III of Spain's actual name was Carlos Sebastián. Wikipedia seems to have a tendency to anglicize names; if Wikipedia started to use the actual names of monarchs, as was done with Juan Carlos I then this would be less likely to happen. Earnulf Gery (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The challenge was due to primary topic, not because the name wasnt decided on. nableezy - 18:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I seriously think we need a RFC to decide the title at this point. wizzito | say hello! 19:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I've opened up an RM at the bottom of the page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Wow, given the news coverage today. One would've thought this Charles III, would've been the most recognised by that name. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:RECENT is a cautionary tale, not a recommendation for a basis of naming conventions. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

King

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

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

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

Not correct. The constitutional principle is that he becomes King immediately. See the statement from Buckingham Palace The Land (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You're wrong. He has officially been king since the moment his mother died. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

A well-know aphorism applies: "The king is dead, long live the king!". Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. There is so much talk about this. HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

He became king, upon the death of his mother. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Lots of Wikipedia editing needed

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

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

Dukedoms?

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

The king is the font of honors. If no one holds them, they revert to him anyway. Rmhermen (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Duke of Edinburg merges with the crown. Prince of Wales becomes vacant and is not automatically given to the heir. I believe Duke of Carnwall and Duke of Rothesay is automatically inherited by William, but I am not 100% sure. Gust Justice (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The Duke of Edinburgh title has merged with the Crown and thus ceased to exist (until Charles hands it out again).

You are correct that Prince of Wales is not an automatic title. Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay *is* automatic though, so William already holds Cornwall and Rothesay. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Are separate titles, in separate "peerages", whose automaticity is legally established separately, indeed. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles was 10 before he was made Prince of Wales, William may be a while before he becomes POW 142.165.62.112 (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

At some later date, King Charles III will make Prince William, the Prince of Wales. The king also later make his youngest brother (if he chooses to) Duke of Edinburgh. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Move page to "King Charles III"

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

The PM said Charles III in her statement, Charles' own statement did not have a name included. Rmhermen (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Do we need move protection? We are creating double redirects with all the moves. Rmhermen (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

That would be sufficient. ElusiveTaker (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes. It was just confirmed by Clarence House. Gust Justice (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Source? Rmhermen (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59135132 (it's mentioned in the article) Gust Justice (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Can we do it now? HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"Usurps"? 2600:6C5D:5A00:3694:298F:A53C:E204:89BD (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

King Charles III

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

Not confirmed yet by the buckingham palace and the royal family. The PM and the media (BBC and GBNews) says it as well but it's not officially confirmed DaveHagen97 (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's up to Charles, not even the Prime MiniIt's up to Charles, not even the Prime Minister can announce/verify it instead of Charles. - JDster can announce/verify it instead of Charles. - JD 37.191.3.150 (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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

To be clear, the regnal name of the monarch is announced by the Accession Council, not the PM. We can wait the few hours until the Accession Council makes the name official. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

A spokesman for the king has now announced that he will be known as Charles III. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

BBC News reporting that Clarence House has confirmed Charles III for his regnal name. Imzadi 1979 → 18:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Regnal name

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

Yes. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59135132

(edit conflict)BBC have announced he will be Charles III. Sam Walton (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles will officially be known as King Charles III. HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

An official announcement has been made. At least the announcement was made the BBC, who are reporting it. See here, 19:27. I cannot find it on Twitter but this will do The Land (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Not on the CH twitter, and their website is self-blanked currently, all of which is going to be keeping its interns busy to update by other means. So the announcement was made by other means -- maybe another framed A3 poster, or just a PR to the media. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Did Charles become King of 5 countries on 9 September?

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

He became the king of all 15 countries 8 September UK time. In some countries that would have been 9 September local time. For the purposes of the article, I would not mention it and just use 8 September as the date. Gust Justice (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you base it on the time of where he was when he became King so 8 September would be correct. God Save The King. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, British time is used for such matters. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

How about in articles Monarchy of Australia, Monarchy of New Zealand etc.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest the local date, if reliable sources in those jurisdictions (or elsewhere) support in in those terms. (e.g. a news report dated 9 Sept stating "in the early hours of this morning", etc). Might not be clear at this point as I don't think an exact time of death has been announced yet. Absent those, go with the general sources for what we do have. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2022

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

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

But Charles inherited other titles as well, such as King of Canada, Australia, Jamaica, etc etc, we canno just write King of UK GucciNuzayer (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles III

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

There has been much speculation that he might choose George (becoming George VII). He may choose James as an homage to the scots in an attempt to scupper the independence movement (becoming James VIII), or possibly Phillip after his father (becoming Phillip II). 86.181.0.154 (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed not to rename. For information: The BBC commentator mentioned that it is expected that Charles would choose "Charles" as his regnal name. SmilingBoy (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. His regnal name has not been announced and may very well not be Charles. LiamE (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, he could as example decide to rule as a King Arthur. - JD 37.191.3.150 (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

That would be King Arthur II. 86.181.0.154 (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually it would be Arthur I. King Arthur is a mythical/legendary figure from English and Welsh folklore, and who may not have existed historically. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Or from Welsh folklore and Franco-Norman literary rivals of it. Even if he were copper-bottomed proved to have existed, what he definitely wasn't a king of England, or its successor states GB and then the UK. So he'd be "Arthur", and "Arthur I" in hindsight if there were a later "Arthur II". (Which I never much doubt there ever will be; there's likely to be grumbling even at "Charles III", given the Jacobite angle to that name.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Wait for whether they announce it. Should he be known as Charles III, the name would be switched accordingly. Gust Justice (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree. He has not been named Charles the third, and so it is inappropriate to use that. It is currently (and incorrectly) in the box to the right. Difbobatl (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Is it because, that, now he is King, we are not allowed to say just "Charles III" HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

In fact, he hasn’t even ascended to the throne yet.Tvx1 17:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

He has. The monarch acedes to the throne as soon as the previous one dies. Gust Justice (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You keep repeating this without actually reading the responses. You're wrong, just like the last 4 times you stated this. 92.34.103.45 (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles became King the very moment his mother died. It has always been this way. The official proclamation is “The queen has died. Long live the King”. 86.181.0.154 (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree. His regnal name has not been chosen and while his accession is immediate, it should remain as Charles until a name is chosen. MLHuntley (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The Prime Minister just called him King Charles III. SmilingBoy (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed. It’s Charles III BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yep. Liz Truss said it in her tribute/announcement in Downing Street. 77.100.215.194 (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

We can still afford to wait until the official proclamation.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, Charles III has just been announced as the regnal name on BBC.Tvx1 18:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

They also noted that Charles's own statement did not include what his title will be suggesting they're just interpreting as they go. It would be very odd for confirmation to be made via Downing Street. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

There's been no official announcement as far as I know. While Liz Truss did say it, it is not out of the realm of possibility for that to have been a gaffe. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

What? Why? HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Wait for confirmation from the Palace. Charles's own statement notably did not give the title he will take and it's doubtful this would be deliberately announced at the end of a Downing Street statement. This may just be the speechwriter assuming. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The BBC doesn’t have that power. We should wait for official confirmation. Eccekevin (talk)

The PM said Charles III in her statement, Charles' own statement did not have a name included. Rmhermen (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The prime minister said it on tv just now. The PM would have checked this with the Palace before making that speech, and the BBC is reporting it. Richard75 (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

That is correct, and here is a link to that effect: [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.245.185.44 (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Assumption on your part. LT would be a classic "unreliable primary source" in this case, but we can certainly say that the BBC has reported that the PM has "revealed" this. IMO not strong enough for a 'wikivoice' statement to that effect, much less a page move. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

(ec*n)The Beeb has described this as being "revealed" by LT, rather than "more bluff and nonsense from the Number Ten lectern", so technically that's a reliable secondary source. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It could have been a mistake in the PM's office, and the BBC are reporting what Truss said, not what is official from the Palace. Leave as is until there's an official statement. The Land (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The BBC is also saying this:

[9] What will he be called? One of his first acts is to decide whether to reign as King Charles III, or take another name. For instance, his grandfather George VI's first name was Albert, but he reigned using one of his middle names. Charles could choose from any of his four names - Charles Philip Arthur George.

Comments on air by presenters who've been in the studio for hours are picking up on the here and now whereas the written version is more structured. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

BBC has it in writing now:

New King will be known as Charles III

The new King will officially be known as King Charles III, it has been officially confirmed. SmilingBoy (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

That's the same BBC who announced that Elizabeth II died in 2015, btw. Until the new King officially states his name, out of his own mouth, it's still up in thr air.

Why? To reuse a very old Carry On joke, "he's very rich, he has people to do everything for him". Even the formal ceremony doesn't involve him saying it, but instead a huge mob of Privy Councilors proclaiming it for him. There's been an announcement from his office, reported in reliable sources. That meets Wikipedia's standards; yours may of course vary. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Caption

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

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

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

I agree. Some may argue that if Charles is taken as the regnal name it would be Charles iv of Scotland (iii for non-Jacobites) and various others for different factions in Scotland, Ireland.

King Charles

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

Watching BBC, they affirm that Charles is king, but do not say what his regnal name is. --Zimbabweed (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

If there was no coronation yet, is he the King? This renaming seems a bit premature. - JD 37.191.3.150 (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

He has become King - there cannot be a gap between monarchs. He doesn't need to be crowned for that to happen. The Land (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but he could simply choose not ascend. He is 73 after all. The continuity might simple become Elisbath II -> William without a gap.Tvx1 17:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

No. He can't "simply choose not to ascend". Charles became king at the moment of his mother's death. He has already ascended. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The Royal Family's Twitter account referred to him as the King. KateBergerMpls (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

FYI I've named the article "Charles, King of the United Kingdom" for now, given that no announcement has been made about what regnal name he will use. We can move to Charles III or George VII or whatever else, as and when.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is the case. Thanks for doing that. The Land (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Amakuru It sounds awkward, but it works as an interim measure until his name is announced. Alphaboi867 (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

They haven’t even announced his assencion yet. He might decide not to, given his age.Tvx1 17:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no need for an announcement, it happens automatically. He is already King. The Land (talk) The Land (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You should read some wikipedia articles on the monarchy, you clearly have no clue how the succession works 142.165.62.112 (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with this as interim title. the wub "?!" 17:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"he could simply choose not ascend" I don't think that is so; he is king as of now. He could (but probably won't) abdicate. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The comment you're referring to might be thinking of the Accession Council. In theory he might make some Udallesque statement: if asked to Accede I'll supply no regnal name; if proclaimed, I shall abdicate! But as you say he was monarch immediately, as a matter of law. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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