Talk:Charles III/Archive 9

Titles prior to his ascension

I see that his Duke of Edinburgh title is noted in the paragraph, should it not be on a bullet point and would it be OK to have a paragraph with all his titles and styles? Dbainsford (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dbainsford Technically his titles did not supercede his already held titles. as Prince of Wales in England his style would not reflect Edinburgh. The duchies of Cornwall and Rothesay also take precedence over Edinburgh.

King Charles is no longer the Duke of Edinburgh. When someone assumes the throne the titles they hold (outside PoW titles) are amalgamated into the crown. Technically, the Duchy of Edinburgh is now dormant until Charles awards it, if as planned, to Prince Edward. AjCassells (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, awful sentence there, I meant to say "Technically his new title (Edinburgh) did not take precedence over his current ones." AjCassells (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes I know both that titles merge with the crown and how Edinburgh was the junior title to PoW, etc. But should it not be part of the bullet points to say he held those titles? Dbainsford (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dbainsford No, as the bullet points aren't his titles, it's how he was styled at various points in his life. The paragraph is his titles, and the bullet points his style. AjCassells (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

That is confusing, in previous versions of The King's titles it mentioned the start date of when he inherited his father's titles Dbainsford (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dbainsford It should not have. It is incredibly pedantic, I accept that. However at no point has he ever been styled the Duke of Edinburgh (outside a recitation of his full style which is about forty titles long). Previously for example George V have been known very briefly as Duke of Cornwall and York (or applicable subsidiary duchy) however he was then exclusively styled the Prince of Wales from the same day.

I am waffling a bit, but my point boils down to the Duchy of Edinburgh should be noted in his full titles page, as it is, but there were no dates to which can be attributed the style, Duke of Edinburgh. AjCassells (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The bullet points arent a list of his titles, but a list of the different styles he was known by. The most senior title is the one a person is called. Because at no point was 'Duke of Edinburgh' the most senior title Charles held, he was not styled as such. EmilySarah99 (talk) 07:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The bullet points are gone now because they have been confusing people for years. Enough is enough. This thing can only properly be explained in prose. Surtsicna (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

What's stopping there from being prose in addition to the bullet points? EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

We do not need both confusing content and clearly written content. Clearly written alone will do. Surtsicna (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@Surtsicna This is a woeful decision, I'm sorry to be so blunt. You've just nullified the Style section of a Wikipedia wide standard for Royal styles. I would thoroughly recommend you reverse the change, it is unfathomable that we should present less information which is standard across EVERY other person with a Royal, or even other styles. AjCassells (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The "standard" was not agreed upon anywhere and has ever been the source of endless confusion. We are not presenting less information. We are presenting it correct and clear. Surtsicna (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Is this "standard" Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty/Style guide? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@Surtsicna What else would you call the format of every single article of a reigning, or past reigning monarch post 1600 if not standard? What you're doing is enclosing the titles in a paragraph without, as I have found many times when quickly attempting to check a date, an easy laid out method of seeing when the styles were relevant.

There is no benefit to the change, and drawbacks to it. Will you be updating the other 1000+ articles with this new standard? AjCassells (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Will you please address the fact that this "easy laid out method" leads to inaccuracies and confusion? See the very next thread on this page, not to mention the countless good-faith edits and edit wars by people thinking, for example, "1952-1958" for the Cornwall style to be incorrect since he did not cease being duke of Cornwall in 1958. It obviously means that the vast majority of our readers are left thinking that he indeed ceased being duke of Cornwall in 1958. Yes, I will be editing the articles for the benefit of our readers, not for Wikiroyalists, as this user put it. Surtsicna (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

There was no old "standard". There's an essay setting out a poor precedent that some articles have misguidedly followed. That essay should be modified to provide a better example, and if it is confusing people to believe it's part of the MOS, a Wikipedia guideline, or otherwise some sort of standard to be adhered to, it should perhaps be renamed or deleted. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Coronation

Will his image change when he’s in his coronation/ robes 2006toyotacorrola (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

As stated above, if they are freely liscenced, they will be used. EmilySarah99 (talk) 07:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

We would, I hope, in keeping with previous sovereigns use his coronation portrait (photograph) WiltedXXVI (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Father section

In the section of the Infobox in regards to the King’s parents, wouldn’t it be more consistent to refer to the late Duke of Edinburgh as “Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark” as that was his birth name? It’s usually convention for parents in the section of the children’s article to be referred to by their birth name to reflect their own background.

Albert, Prince Consort, is referred to in all of his children’s infoboxes as “Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha” as that was his name before he became Prince Consort.

Similarly, all other British royal consorts are referred to by their first name in their children’s infoboxes. Prince William, Duke of Gloucester, for example, has his father in his infobox as “Prince George of Denmark” despite him being the Duke of Cumberland. All female Royal consorts are similar: “Alexandra of Denmark” in the Mother section of Edward VII and all her other children; “Mary of Teck,” in George V etc.

I understand Prince Philip was commonly known as the Duke of Edinburgh, however I think a change here wouldn’t cause any confusion. AKTC3 (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It most certainly isn't inconsistent. Not sure where you got that idea from. Elizabeth II's father in her infobox is "George VI", in his infobox it's "George V" etc. I don't think I've ever seen an infobox preferring a different birth name to the most commonly known name. As far as I can see, Albert never ceased to be “Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha” as well as being Prince Consort. DeCausa (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Neither George VI not V married into their family, but their wives did. Notice how Elizabeth II’s mother is “Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon” and not “Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother” and George VI’s mother being “Mary of Teck” and not “Queen Mary of the United Kingdom.” Their maiden names are used here. And as far as Prince Albert is concerned, his officially title afterward was The Prince Consort until his death. Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was still his title before marriage in the same way Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark was. Prince Philip married into the British royal family. And it’s the same with Prince George of Denmark, who was known as the Duke of Cumberland. I have never seen an infobox section in regards to parents where at least one of their parents are referred to by their birth name/name before marriage, showing who married into whom’s family or that parent’s background.

If you want more evidence of this, in Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark’s infobox, his father is referred to as “Henri de Laborde de Monpezat” and not “Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark.” The former was his birth name, showing he married to the Danish royal family as the husband of Queen Margrethe II. Wouldn't his more common name be the latter? Prince Henrik’s mother is referred to by her birth name in his infobox as well.

Further evidence:

Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands’s father is referred to as “Claus von Amsberg,” his birth name, despite being commonly known as Prince Claus of the Netherlands.

Beatrix of the Netherlands’s father is referred to as “Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld” and not Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.

Princess Estelle, Duchess of Östergötland’s father is referred to as “Daniel Westliing” and not Prince Daniel, Duke of Västergötland. AKTC3 (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

You've mixed up a multitude of issues. Prince Philip didn't have a "maiden name" so all that is irrelevant. Elizabeth's father isn't listed as "Prince Albert of York" or "Prince Albert, Duke of York". He's George VI. It's exactly the same for Philip/Charles. I don't think you'll get consensus support for your idea. DeCausa (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The idea is to use the highest-ranking title/name one held in their own right. Philip was a prince of the United Kingdom and duke of Edinburgh in his own right. Surtsicna (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Firefox: Signature has black background

For me, both logged-in and logged-out, but only on Firefox, the signature in the infobox is displayed over a black background, making it impossible to read. It is basically just a black box with some smushes. Both Safari and Chromium render correctly, that is a black signature over the light blue background of the infobox. I don't know what causes it, but it is very strange. --Lommes (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Renders fine on Google Chrome as well. Lommes, you should probably bring this up on WP:VPT and they might be able to figure out what's going on here. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox 106.0.5, and it's fine for me. -- AxG / ✉  21:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm also using Firefox 106.0.5 and I'm getting the black background effect.Birdsinthewindow (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Done as suggested: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Charles_III_-_signature_shows_black_background_on_firefox. Lommes (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is a screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/hSNPgGT - and before someone asks, yes it persists after a complete restart of the system. I am using "106.0.5 (64-bit) Firefox Snap for Ubuntu canonical-002 - 1.0". --Lommes (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I get what you're seeing for a second when I click the image. I'm using Opera GX version 91.0.4516.106 64-bit for Windows 10 ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Religion

Should “Protestant” in the Religion section of the infobox be changed to “Church of England”? GamerKlim9716 (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

On the 16 September 2022 he said "I am a committed Anglican Christian" so the answer to your question is 'yes' or at least to Anglican. Protestant is too broad. In that same article Charles goes on to say "As a member of the Church of England, my Christian beliefs..." So Church of England is fine too. There's some media references to the Queen also being Church of scotland because she went to Crathie Kirk when at Balmoral, but there's actually no evidence she was a member of the Church of Scotland and attendance at another denomination doesn't mean that is also their denomination. DeCausa (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It's been pointed out, that we're only including 'religion' in the infoboxes here & at George VI. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

According to both Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Using infoboxes in articles and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Use of infoboxes, "which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article". The last discussion at this article appears to be Talk:Charles III/Archive 8#Inconsistencies among religion of the royal family (should Church of England be listed as a religion). There is a current discussion at Talk:George VI#Religion. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Balance

This article is fundamentally sycophantic. Praising the low carbon footprint of someone who has a royal yacht, jets etc?! Wikipedia should be ashamed to host such unbalanced stuff. 2A01:CB08:8BE:AA00:2074:2A24:8605:C5C7 (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I personally agree, but we require reliable sources to say something before we can add it to an article. Those who write about the royals tend to be of a sycophantic bent. If you can find a source that describes the problems with his lifestyle, please bring it here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Charles has a royal yacht? Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

His Mummy did, as part of a 350 year old tradition, but it was retired in 1997 and not replaced. See HMY Britannia. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

That was my point. I took the tour when I was visiting Edinburgh some years ago. Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, yes; the writers are such sycophants that they have already covered Charles's acceptance of shady donations in recent years, his marriage to Diana and its horrible consequences, and his bizarre views on alternative medicine! Not to mention criticism of the royal family as a whole which is already covered at British royal family#Media and criticism. If you can fine 'reliable' sources that include other forms of fair criticism, that's fine too. But the subject should not be bashed unreasonably and in line with a certain group's viewpoints. And to call the writers of this page sycophants is a bit of stretch; after all, nobody is banning introduction of content to this page, as long as it's fair and neutral. Keivan.f^Talk 07:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I DID NOT call the writers of this page sycophants!. Now bugger off. HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Those who write about the royals tend to be of a sycophantic bent. I didn't write these words, you did. If I misinterpreted them, I apologize, but I don't think I did. And, instead of instructing me to leave, you could have responded constructively to my comment. I leave messages concerning the article whenever I like it. So I suggest you keep your commands to yourself. Keivan.f^Talk 19:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course you misinterpreted my words, because I didn't use the words "this page" in my comment. I wonder what goes on in the minds of those who add words there to what I actually say so they can attack me. HiLo48 (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

In this case, what goes on seems to be 'elementary logic'. This article is fundamentally sycophantic. Those who write about the royals tend to be of a sycophantic bent. The article -- about a royal -- is sycophantic, this is a general sycophantic tendency among writers on such topics, but there was somehow no implication about the people who did write it. Sure. Likewise "bugger off" isn't gratuitous incivility, and the above comment isn't an an exercise in speculating about people's motives. Meanwhile, we await your constructive edits to the page, or indeed actual specific suggestions on how to improve it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Mobile editor. I feel no shame & I'm a republican. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Future preparations

Shortly before Elizabeth II died, a discussion on what should happen with her article took place but was not finished in time for her death. As a result, Wikipedia only had a half-baked response to her death on September 8. This should not happen for Charles, and we should start roughing out what should happen while we can.

I suggest we pick an image of a slightly younger Charles to be used as an infobox image, as is the precedent set by Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, George V, etc., as they are all images taken when their subjects were younger, rather than images of their older selves. I also suggest we decide on what to write in the first paragraph upon his death. I have written this, but feel free to improve upon or edit it:

Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; 14 November 1948 – [date of death]) was King of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms from 8 September 2022 until his death in [year of death].

As for the infobox image, I would propose one of the photographs below:

• 
  Charles as Prince of Wales, 1984
• 
  Charles as Prince of Wales, 1972
• 
  Charles as Prince of Wales, 2012

Please comment and discuss this. We should at the very least have a plan for the death of the king. I am aware this could happen 20 or 30 years from now, but it is better to be safe than to be sorry. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

As they say, there's no time like the present! Better to rough out what should happen now. All three of these photographs are good choices for an infobox image, but 2 has my vote. --79.66.82.129 (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Assuming Charles III's reign isn't extremely short, he will arguably be most notable for being King of the United Kingdom, not for being Prince of Wales. I would argue that it would be more appropriate for the infobox image to be of him as king (I understand these photographs don't exist yet, at least not in a copyleft form). I think Edward VII is more analogous to this situation--he spent almost 60 years as heir to the throne and only reigned for about 9 years, but he was still most notable for being king. For those reasons, I think picking an infobox photograph now is probably premature. (I'm fine with your proposed text.) Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. All other (photographable) monarchs have images of them after succession, barring Edward VIII. George V is not particularly young in his portrait either. I'm sure we'll get a good shortlist of photos post-coronation and so on. Bearing in mind this photo will appear directly underneath his regnal name and number, it should be of him as King, I think. Thgomas (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Entirely the wrong time for such a discussion, I think. Firstly, the article's barely stabilised after Recent Events, so we hardly need the extra talk-page traffic. And secondly, e(73) for a UK male is about 12 years, even not accounting for notoriously long-lived families. What're the chances of editors in 2034 feeling bound by this discussion? If they even manage to find out it exists, by a process of advanced archive archaeology. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer a picture from his reign to be consistent with most other monarchs. Peter Ormond 💬 18:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with that. The article will be stable in a few months, so there is no reason we can't discuss something that will happen 15-20 years after an article shake-up. Secondly, Wikipedia began over 21 years ago, with much the same rules as it has today. There is no evidence that we cannot discuss this now, or that everything said here will be lost forever, and it can be revised and re-revised over the years. I am proposing here just to lay the foundations of what could or should happen. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Edward VIII is undoubtedly most famous for being king and what happened after his reign. When you hear him mentioned, you don't think "Edward, Prince of Wales", and yet his infobox portrait is him as Prince. With Elizabeth, whilst her portrait was made whilst she was queen, she was still much younger than she was before her death. With George VI, his portrait dates from between 1936 and 1940(ish), with the majority of '36 being taken up by the reigns of his father and his brother. The fact is, something like Charles's reign has never happened before, and I think the portraits above are best suited to him rather than a picture taken in his 70s. I bring you back to the case of Elizabeth II, who in the public's imagination is most likely her in her 90s, and yet we opted for a photograph taken in her 30s. I don't see why Charles should be any different to his late mother. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Charles III was also the longest-serving Prince of Wales ever, so the majority of his life will (very likely) have been as Prince of Wales. I don't really see a problem of having his lead portrait after death being of his younger self as Prince of Wales the same as Edward VIII's article. But I would prefer a portrait of his younger self in military uniform, if one is available at the time of his death. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

(ec*3)I'm not for a moment suggesting you can't discuss this. Just that doing so is rather pointless. Better at least to wait the aforementioned couple of months, and better still to realize nothing said here in any way binds the hands of (likely relatively far-)future editors. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

If genetics has a strong say in it? Charles will likely reign for at least 15 years. His father lived to nearly 100, his mother lived to 96 & his maternal grandmother lived to nearly 102. So maybe, having this discussion is premature. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with the IP user's general sentiment: there's no way to bind a consensus made now (if we can even call it that) on users editing this article when Charles III does die, which may well be far (years? a decade? decades?) in the future. By that time, the world will have changed, and it would be very WP:CRYSTAL of us to try to determine what type of photograph would be best suited to lead this article at that time. Perhaps the consensus will be to use a photo of him as Prince of Wales, but how would we know that now? And while I'm still generally fine with your proposed text, it assumes that Charles will remain king until his death. It's likely he will, but how would we know that for sure today, a mere month into his reign? The more I think about it, the more I think it's premature for this to be discussed now; there are too many unknowns. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I am not trying to speculate anything; I am just using the information we have now to try to form something we can use if he were to die in the near future, contrary to what some might believe I have said. We can always revise this discussion every few years when we get new information, and I encourage this. We need to start talking about this now, so we have a foundation to build upon for his death in the 2030s or 40s. This discussion has become about whether this consensus will be carried through or not, and the original point has been lost. The text can be changed to " Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; 14 November 1948 – [date of death]) was King of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms from 8 September 2022 until his abdication in [year]. " if he abdicates. The image can have RfCs held in the future every few years. A similar set of points to this was held on Elizabeth's article, and so it is sensible to have one here. Can we just pick something to do if the king were to unexpectedly die or abdicate soon? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the "right" text and image will move with the time he has been king, and possibly also in what he does as king. At present, the first sentence should include Prince of Wales from

Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; 14 November 1948 – [date of death]) was King of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms from 8 September 2022 until his death in [year of death]. He had been Prince of Wales since 1958 until his accession as king.

I think at present, his life a Prince of Wales is more important than the current lead about being longest heir apparent. I think the picture of him should be as King from ASAP until at least 6 months after his death. By then, we will know if his environmental activism etc as prince was more important than whatever he did as king. Scott Davis ^Talk 07:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is too early to be discussing what happens to his article when he dies. cookie monster 755 19:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this statement. I also disagree with the idea of having a consensus in place at the present time. Given the difficulty of changing a consensus, future editors could easily find themselves bound by something they do not want. We managed fine when the late Queen died. I don't see the point in having the editors who deal with the eventual death of Charles bound by the dead hand of the past. Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I belive the 1972 one could be used if he’s a non-notable king, but we should aim for a reigning one if he is notable, silverlock protection should be appied after death, like whith HM the queen. 2006toyotacorrola (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I personally think that the portrait used should be one taken during his reign as King. Do British monarchs have official portraits, like US presidents do? If so, upon his death, we should use that, similar to how Elizabeth II's infobox has her official portrait. While he is alive, we should use the most recent high-quality portrait available. ERBuermann (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry i mean ‘84 2006toyotacorrola (talk) 07:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not understand the notion that upon a sovereign's death, their image should be replaced with an old image. It makes no sense, it would be best to use a current image most reflective of how they most recently looked during their reign. Her Majesty's image should not have been swapped for a younger image, but at least it's still an image of her as Queen. It is entirely preposterous to suggest that upon his death His Majesty's image should be replaced with one where he was merely Prince of Wales. A modern image reflective of his final years should be used. Likewise it is a complete nonsense that the Duke of Windsor's page uses an image from when he was Prince of Wales, it should be an image of when he was Duke of Windsor, or perhaps as Edward VIII, but that is another discussion. Timothy N-F (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

A discussion for those pages, specifically. I think in the long term, it's likely the correct decision for Liz2. It's not like we look back on earlier monarchs and assume the "most recent" is best. But it's very odd that there was a huge rush to switch from a 'current' to a 'historical' image, and even odder that the premise of this discussion is implicitly that was somehow insufficiently brisk. Better to have the discussion at the time, with deliberate speed. Not least because we'll have it anyway, and repeatedly thereafter. Much more fun and much easier than actually improving the article itself! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I started that discussion the day that Elizabeth died, and only after it was quite apparent that Elizabeth's health was in serious danger. But I don't see evidence that Charles's health in in serious danger, nor do I think it appropriate to select a photo for after his death now. If his reign as King were to end in a year, the proper photograph might be quite different than if it were to end in twenty, and speculating now about that does us no good. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk No, I am referring to this discussion, started less than two months before her death. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe this discussion to be distastefully premature. Surtsicna (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Distasteful? Really? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

At present the article should maybe just reflect the fact that the subject's alive. And in the short term, to improve it from "B-Class" with clunkingly obvious consistency and style issues, that's still arguably not really settled down from Recent Events, for what's supposedly a "Top-Importance" and "Vital level 5" topic. That seems vastly more pressing than fretting over what we might do if he falls under a bus before he's even crowned. (OK, a bus seems especially unlikely. A Range Rover driven by a close relative?) If nothing else, the huge fixation with tinkering endlessly with images ensures that we'll end up having a similar discussion anyway, come such an hour. "RfC when the article was in flux and weak condition, WP:CCC, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:IAR, yadda-yadda." The plot outline basically writes itself.

If people want to hunt down propose images that they think Editors of the Future!<booming VO/> will find it a convenience to have at their disposal under such-and-such a possible contingency, all to the good. But we shouldn't be purporting to be "deciding" what the article should look like at some entirely unspecified point in the future, in entirely unknown circumstances, much less "20 or 30 years from now." If we're going to discuss it at all, better to be clear about the terms we're doing so on. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Speculating on the death of a BLP who is as far as we know in good health is somewhat distasteful. We don't need any special "operation london bridge" plans, we'll just act appropriately when news breaks, as we always do.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

TBF, if he were in notably poor health and it were a conspicuously live issue, it would be in even poorer taste. But it's also still a matter in the domain of public affair, by the very fact of the institution, and his consent to participate in it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I see. It's distasteful if he's in good health and distasteful if he's in bad health. I don't see what you want from me here. I'm sure you know I'm acting out of goodwill and not maliciousness. This refusal to do anything here achieves nothing. It is worse than useless. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with 109.255.211.6 on the utility of the discussion I'm afraid. We won't know what image might be appropriate until we have the full span of his life in view, so this seems rather pointless—we don't even have any good pictures of him as monarch yet. Al-Muqanna (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty, not clear which of us you're addressing directly -- or all of us as a Collective Consciousness -- but it shouldn't especially surprise you that Wikipedians disagree with each other, with you, and for different reasons at that. Entirely up to you what you wish to do (though I've made a number of suggestions already). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, but at that point I think I was just getting a bit miffed at all the arguing. Of course I'll try to continue this discussion until we can achieve something, but, as I've said, I just thought it was a bit pointless that nothing was really happening. Regards, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that we should probably at least begin plans for a London Bridge-type course of action. Even if His Majesty is in good health now, death can come quickly, or it can come slowly. No matter the situation, we should probably be prepared to organize both this article and the articles of his successor and related persons. Given the vast breadth of the UK's influence, there are many articles that mention the monarchy in some way, and there are probably still some articles out there that still list Elizabeth II as the monarch, nearly two months out. I think, instead of being in poor taste, preparing for Charles III's eventual demise is honorable, as it is the act of preserving his legacy in a timely fashion. I think that there should be such plans for all world leaders, be they democratically elected with a set term of office, hereditary monarchs, or dictatorial figures. All leaders end their reign eventually, and, as one of the largest collections of knowledge on the internet, we should be prepared to display the correct information. ERBuermann (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It's certainly open to you (or any group of editors generally) to prep a LB2 "Task Force", but that's IMO decidedly outside the scope of this talk page. I'd personally suggest bringing it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Current_events/London_Bridge task force and see if there's interest in repurposing or replicating that effort. But you'll have the issue of exactly what it'll be doing. LB had even more "obvious" edits to do, as there were all those UK institutions and titles that flipped their Preferred Pronouns: won't be needed this time, unless Charlotte or Beatrice have somehow ended up at the front of the line. What it can't really do it to determine the contents of articles in detail in advance, in completely unknown circumstances. Broad objectives -- like say, "get the mon's article past 'B-Grade'" would obviously be a great thing. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that was exactly my train of thought. I do think it is a good idea to have a plan for when he ends his reign. Regards, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I personally prefer the one of him in ‘72, as it is also used in the Prince of Wales & List of Heirs wiki Ulepickid60 (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the 1972 portrait would be my first choice as well. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Titles and names

Should there be a list of HM full title in each of HM's realms such as "Charles III, by the grace of God with the United Kingdom, Canada and his other realms and territories, King, Head Of The Commonwealth, Defender of The Faith"? Dbainsford (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Not here. It's been split off to List of titles and honours of Charles III. DrKay (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes Tristan464 (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Table of realms

I am wondering if we should have a table of realms like there is for E2R. As to me saying that His Majesty is King of the UK and Realms fails to acknowledge the equality of realms and how they are distinct and individual kingdoms? Dbainsford (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

No, the current set up is best. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Should there be a section on HM good deads?

Like the prince trust winch was a. Organization founded by King Charles III in 1976. This organization was founded to help the poor disable and rejected. This shows the HM is caring winch I think we all need to rember just cause he mean to Diana dose not mean we should not forgive him . Tristan464 (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

There is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_III#Philanthropy_and_charity S C Cheese (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Missing comma

At the very top of the article, there is a comma missing from this sentence: "He was the longest-serving heir apparent and, at age 73, became the oldest person to accede to the British throne following the death of his mother, Elizabeth II, on 8 September 2022." The comma should be between the words "throne" and "following", otherwise it can be read as he being the oldest after the death of Elizabeth II (i.e., regardless of what happened before), but since the is the only monarch after her death, as written, he might as well be considered the youngest! 67.207.12.1 (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2022

BACKGROUND King Charles appointment as a visiting professor at Kellogg College, Oxford is missing from the Wikipedia article. I suggest adding the following to the 'interests ' section.

REFERENCE www.kellogg.ox.ac.uk/our-people/king-charles-iii/ youtu.be/tZpsigMUrF8 youtu.be/RurFjx7McwQ

PROPOSED TEXT As of March 2020, Charles has joined Oxford University's Kellogg College as part of the Bynum Tudor Fellowship. 82.68.25.202 (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done, this would be more appropriate as an addition to List of titles and honours of Charles III § Scholastic. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Factual error on lead in page

The lead in page to this article attributes Charles III with four wives, two of whom were dead long before he was born. They are Beatrice of Portugal, Duchess of Savoy, and Antoinette de Merode. Each was married to a Charles III, but not the one of this article. 2603:9001:3800:8355:A507:936B:3771:5020 (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you're looking at, but it's not this article. DeCausa (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Princess Diana

You should add that many people think the car crash was planned to get her out of the way so charles could marry Camila 2604:2D80:A902:E500:948B:D448:A8D7:52 (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

In this biographical article, we stick to facts. There is no space for conspiracy theories. Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Related RFC

May we have some input at this RFC. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I think to save confusion on the date of ascension we could just put 8th December 2022 UTC. Dbainsford (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

King Charles Disambiguation page

Searching for King Charles brings up a disambiguation page, which only serves to confuse rather than disambiguate anything.

I would imagine anyone searching for this is *probably* looking for the former Prince of Wales, not a former king or Albania or Sweden. Maybe there's a better way to handle this? Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 12:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest that King Charles redirect here, while the existing contents of that page be moved to King Charles (disambiguation) Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Updated Photo

There's been a few edits now changing the photo in the infobox to the following image (Prince Charles in Aotearoa (cropped).jpg) from 2019 in New Zealand / Aotearoa. They have both been reverted due to a lack of consensus, so am bringing it up here. I think this is a different discussion than the one had regarding a photo after Charles' death and having a more updated photo that, in my view, has a higher photo quality is preferable to the photo we currently have.

EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

My thought is that what we really want is a quality photograph of Charles as King and that making the photograph two years later in his prince-hood really isn't worth it. Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Form of “king” in About section

According to MOS:OFFICE, the uncapitalized form of “king” would be incorrect. The sentence, “This article is about the King of the United Kingdom,” refers to a specific individual (Charles III) and doesn’t denote a general title. The form of “king” in this context should be reasonable grounds for capitalization. AKTC3 (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom has an RFC

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Colonestarrice (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

His "religious" visits

I've just re-organised and somewhat added to the Religion and philosophy section. In doing so, I've noticed there is a selection of visits to various places (Mt Athos, Jerusalem, Newman's canonisation etc). Those sort of lists tend to accumulate as and when they happen in a somewhat WP:NOTNEWS type of way. Additionally, there's an element of WP:OR in why those particular visits are chosen - out of all the ones that could be included. I'm not very sure that they add anything to the article anyway. I'd be inclined to delete them all. Views? DeCausa (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems rather WP:SYNTH to say that because he has visited different religious sites (often in his official capacity) that it reflects his broad interest in same. I'm not going to go through sites in Serbian and Romanian but it seems to me that part of the article could do with some good hard looks. Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

You're right. I've taken that out. But what's left is just a list of visits to religious sites which increases the rationale, I think, for taking them out. DeCausa (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what visits to religious sites say of themselves about his interest in religion. I saw the late Queen at a baseball game in 1991, that the first President Bush took her to. I don't think that meant she was interested in baseball. Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. DeCausa (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Pen meme

Should the "stinking pen" meme at Hillsborough be mentioned: [1]. It came just days after footage showed him gesture in irritation at the presence of an ornate pen holder on the table during his first Privy Council meeting. 86.187.229.216 (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a big picture article. That incident may or may not have a place in the article on the accession, but it's too minor to mention here in my view. Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother mentioning the 'temper' incidents. He hasn't been quite as sharp tongued as his father was. But certainly has quite a bit of his father's personality. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Accede

Why does it say he "acceded" to the throne? Shouldn't it be "ascended"? 2600:1012:B008:B5BE:9FD:8E64:2A92:7EAF (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The Brits always use the verb "accede" in relation to the succession of monarchs - the new monarch is formally proclaimed by an Accession Council. Nthep (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Not just "the Brits". Per the U.S. dictionary, Merriam-Webster[2], it means the entering of any office or position as used globally, including The New York Times[3] and The Chicago Tribune[4]. It may just be that to the British ear "ascended" to the throne sounds more grandiose. One "ascends" the Chrysanthemum Throne or the Peacock Throne but one accedes to the Dutch or British throne. The last bit is just WP:OR from a "Brit", btw. DeCausa (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! That was very informative. TheHoit (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Quick syntax suggestion

This page is protected and I can't edit it myself, but I'd like to suggest that the current wording:

> He was the longest-serving heir apparent and Prince of Wales and, at age 73, became the oldest person to accede to the British throne upon the death of his mother, Elizabeth II, on 8 September 2022.

implies that multiple people acceded to the British throne upon the death of his mother, Elizabeth II, on 8 September 2022, of whom Charles happened to be the oldest.

May I suggest instead:

> He was the longest-serving heir apparent and Prince of Wales and, upon the death of his mother, Elizabeth II, on 8 September 2022, became the oldest person to accede to the British throne, at age 73.

96.55.138.213 (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for pointing out the issue. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, that seems worse. It doesn't solve the "problem", if one is determined to read either sentence in that manner (unlikely as that is), and it adds yet another clause to a sentence that has too many already. And has yet another usage of "accede", which this article seems much too pleased with itself to use as much as possible, as opposed to any of of the any much clearer, non-royal-wonk, plain English alternatives in at least some of them. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Camilla listed as queen consort

Does anyone disagree that Camilla should be mentioned as being queen consort in the lead? That is the usual title for the wife of a king, and the same treatment is not given to the article on George VI (i.e., Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is not described as queen consort). Векочел (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with including the half-sentence. I disagree with your edit to remove the mention, and your edit summary: Wives of kings are usually titled this way. It is not common knowledge across the English speaking world. I didn't know it. And in fact if I follow the link to Queen consort I find your assertion not precisely correct. What about immigrants, youth, and non-Britons — must they all somehow 'already know' this datum, or that Camilla would become a Queen consort because she married Charles? What is a Queen consort? Would Camilla get a different title than previous 'wives of an English king' because she was his second wife, or perhaps because they had a civil wedding? Would she keep her old title (married while Charles was prince) or would it change? Gee, maybe there's an encyclopedia that can help answer these questions! Oh wait, there is! And lookie, the George VI article does mention this, too: Three days after his accession, on his 41st birthday, he invested his wife, the new queen consort, with the Order of the Garter. There is no other link to Queen consort in the Charles III article and it's just half a sentence, so leave it in the article. Grorp (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it's still somewhat common for her to be referred to in that manner, likely for a couple of reasons. Firstly, as a reminder/disambiguation that's who's being referred to, rather than "the late queen of beloved memory", yadda-yadda. And secondly and somewhat relatedly, that "queen" has by her long precedent, somewhat absorbed the connotation of "queen regnant", so it feels like the qualifier is more necessary. (Somewhat reversing the historical ones, where the first few claimants to being ruling queen either wanted to avoid or downplay the "wife of a king" meaning, or steer hard into it.) It might "wear off" after a while. As far as the lead goes, I don't see any cause to use either term. The existing use of "queen consort" in the body seems fine to me. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Poundbury

poundbury was not designed based on the King's tastes, but rather based on the principles of new urbanism. it should link to new urbanism article since it lists poundbury as a prime example. the connection between king charles iii and new urbanism which was founded by andres duany, is explicit: Leon Krier 186.12.68.212 (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Or "New Urbanism" is a rationale intermittently deployed in defence of Chuck's twee chocolate-box retro-whimsies. Tomayto, tomahto. But I do think a link to that would be appropriate in the body section, King Charles#Built environment. Without flat-out stating an identity, but observing the connection. Beyond the existing text and mention of that individual. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox picture

Is there a reason we wouldn't rather use this image? It was taken two years later and is a much better headshot. Cliffmore (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I personally don't agree it is better. His hair and the background fade into each other, at least at thumbnail size, for one thing. I'd be happier, by the way, if people would be up front about adding it. Twice, it's been added in edits lacking edit summaries, which doesn't have a good look. Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

They're both good photos. The 2017 looks more like a candid shot, represents more of his earlier look that we're all familiar with. The 2019 is an official portrait, which matches his new "Charles III" look and even downplays his cheek mole. He looks like he's wearing the same shirt and a very similar tie. The 2019 shows his eyes kind of watery, which ages him (more than just 2 years). Wehwalt, you should assume a little more good faith on your fellow editors. If they think it's a better photo, they're not doing it to personally affront you. Isn't there an official "King Charles" photo yet we can use? Grorp (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we're marking time until a King Charles photo is available with an appropriate license. As for the image, I certainly recognize that opinions differ as to the merits. However, when it's added multiple times without an edit summary, WP:FIES is instructive, "It is a good practice to provide a meaningful summary for every edit, especially when reverting(undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit." Just saying. Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a much better option. The current pic is dreadful, poor quality.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Wish we had a free good quality image of him, as king. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree and prefer the 2019 portrait as it is an official portrait. Other articles that include King Charles also use the 2019 portrait. DDMS123 (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Using the 2019 portrait will also match with articles of previous monarchs which used official portraits. DDMS123 (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I brought it up a month ago as well, but the discussion didn't go too far. I support this photo as a more updated photo until the time that a license-able Charles III photo is available (likely after the coronation). It's not a gaurantee that we will have that photo soon, and should update as we go IMO EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd much rather have the 2017 photograph. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

any reason why? EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 23:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I just think it's a better photograph of him, that's all. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure consistency on that is necessary, or even any sort of positive. This isn't the Monarchy of the United Kingdom article, after all. In fact, arguably it's more important (albeit still not very, IMO!) that those other articles use a pic of the current monarch as monarch. For here, there's a reasonable case to be made that as we're writing about The Aristo Formerly Known as Prince Charles as an individual, we have fairly free latitude to choose from any period of his life. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2023

In the section Prince of Wales, Official Duties…

“In May 2022, Charles attended the State Opening of Parliament and delivered the Queen's Speech on behalf of his mother as a counsellor of state for the first time.”

Please change “for the first time.” to “for the first and only time.” as he will no longer be a Counselor of State at the next State Opening of Parliament but the Monarch. 184.8.88.2 (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Does it really matter? Drmies (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because just leaving as first time implies that there will be future times. 184.8.88.2 (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done But with slightly different wording. Thanks for pointing it out. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• Royal Coat of Arms of Canada.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Title in lead

Should we use the title "King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms" in the lead or "King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the 14 other Commonwealth realms"? Personally I think it id unnecessary to use the full name of the UK. Векочел (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it's best to keep it short too. Adding the extra bit makes the sentence less clear in my opinion. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, though it might be useful if we can work a link to the United Kingdom article into the lead of this page for the benefit of any readers who are unclear as to what constitutes the UK. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Best to keep it as is "King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms". We don't need a link to the UK. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Spelling out the full name leads to a strong run-on phrase vibe, and what's worse, as Celia implies, leads the brain to wander off down the ambiguous associativity direction. ((UK of GB and NI) and RoC) or ((UK of GB) and RoC). And [[United Kingdom]] would be text-book WP:OVERLINK, especially in a lead. So of the three there's really only one choice. You'd need a complete restructuring to avoid it (and I'd suggest, not). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2023

I will change `protestant´ to `anglican or Church of England´ EYC5322 (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. No you won't unless you have a source. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

House of Windsor

Unless King Charles III chooses otherwise (and so far he hasn't), I assume the royal house name will remain Windsor. All the more so, now that the succession is no longer male-preference. Thus avoiding the constant name change, every time a king succeeds a queen-regnant, which is likely to happen more frequently in the UK's future. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Sex-neutral succession surely makes no difference because titles continue to pass down in the male line. When Edward VII succeeded Victoria, he did so by virtue of his descent from Victoria; nonetheless, the House of Hanover ceased to reign because Edward belonged to his father's Royal House (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, changed to Windsor). As such, surely Charles III belongs to his father's Royal House?

That's not a straightforward answer itself, though. Prince Philip renounced his Greek and Danish titles, so I'm assuming he no longer belonged to the House of Glücksburg. So what House did he belong to? Perhaps Windsor — not by virtue of his marriage to Elizabeth II but in his own right when he was made a Prince of the United Kingdom ahead of their marriage. (I actually don't know the answer to this.) Vabadus91 (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Unless we have any reliable sources here, this is speculation with no bearing on the current state of the article. WP:NOTFORUM. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Royals demonstrably belong to the Royal House of their father. To suggest that somehow Charles is an exception is itself speculation. What is unclear (to me) is what House Prince Philip actually belonged to. Vabadus91 (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

By birth, Philip belonged to the House of Glücksburg. More specifically the Greek royal family, which was a branch of the house. In 1947, Philip instead adopted the name of the Mountbatten family. Which was his mother's house. Dimadick (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not "speculation" that Charles is of the House of Windsor, it's in all reliable sources, if you care to look. The reason is the Royal Proclamations of 1952 and 1960. The talk page isn't for chit-chat. If you have any sources on this subject then suggest them. Otherwise your speculations are irrelevant. See WP:NOTFORUM DeCausa (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The Royal Proclamations of 1952 and 1960 relate to the surname that members of the family would use, not the name of the Royal House. If they did somehow include the name of the Royal House, that would mean Charles belongs to the "House of Mountbatten-Windsor" as per the 1960 revision.

It is not unreasonable to question how Charles belongs to the House of Windsor when it is a demonstrable fact that royals belong to the dynastic house of their father, not their mother, hence why Victoria was of the House of Hanover but her son, Edward, was of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Vabadus91 (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Until we hear to the contrary? Charles III is a member of the House of Windsor. But yes, this is the first time a British Isles King succeeding a Queen regnant, kept his mother's royal house name, rather then adopt his father's. Had the latter occurred? it most likely would've been Mountbatten. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

But how is he a member of the House of Windsor? Membership of dynastic houses has always been determined by agnatic descent. I cannot find any evidence suggesting that these rules have changed.

Wikipedia's entry of dynasty cites, as an example, the Earl of Snowdon, who is in the line of succession to the British throne through cognatic descent, but is not a member of the House of Windsor because he lacks agnatic descent from it. This situation is identical to that of King Charles, his first cousin.

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh is described on Wikipedia as having belonged to the "House of Mountbatten". Vabadus91 (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Rules? The royal rule is "make the rules up as you go along". The "how" is straightforward: by royal proclamation. We have an adequate, though arguably suspect of being self-serving, primary source for this. Now, if there's criticism of this as being an ad hoc mess that doesn't follow the "correct" rules for traditional European(... ish) houses, we have to source that, and establish whether including such commentary is at all WP:DUE. (My guess would be, "not". It's an over-stuffed article as it is.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Vabadus91: I don't make up the rules. Just pointing out that (AFAIK) the royal house/dynasty 'appears to be continuing to use the name "Windsor". GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

BTW - British royal family website hasn't been updated, since Elizabeth II's passing. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It's right in the 1960 proclamation from Queen Elizabeth II: "I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor [emphasis mine]." Charles is, obviously, one of Elizabeth's children. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

And the 1952 proclamation. The 1960 one only changed the matter of surnames (and doubled down on the House). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The king hasn't revoked either the 1952 or 1960 proclamations, so they're still in force. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough — mystery solved! Vabadus91 (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Except there never was a "mystery". It was just something that you didn't know. DeCausa (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

King of Canada

trivial artificial controversy going nowhere. If someone thinks there’s a good reason to replace the current wording then an RfC is more appropriate. Dronebogus (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The exclusivity of this article to England smacks of arrogance. Anyone reading it would have no way to know that he is King of Canada in a real and legal sense without looking for the fine print. This should be included in the introduction and info boxes. 216.19.181.213 (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC) King of around a dozen other countries, in fact. Both the royalists and the republicans in those countries think that matters. HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC) "No way to know"? The opening sentence: "is King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms", What do think should be changed? UK, deleted or all 14 realms listed (rather than a click through) or just UK and Canada listed? DeCausa (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC) List them all, in alphabetical order. The current wording say that his role as King of the United Kingdom is somehow different and more important than all his others. It's not. I know that listing them all might seem clumsy, but I cannot think of another way to avoid some sort of imbalance in our description of him. HiLo48 (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC) But it is more important than being monarch of St Kitts and Nevis (sorry St Kitts and Nevis). That's just reality. Where do you draw the line? The current approach is a practical solution and, like it or not, his UK role is, globally, likely to be the one he is most assocaited with. It's also not a role exercised through a Governor-General, which does make it different. Someone else does what he does in the UK (whatever that is) in those countries. DeCausa (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC) That would probably be a violation of MOS:INTRO and MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC) It's too cumbersome to list all 15, other than in the current footnotes, which are in the introduction (on the first sentence) and (as of now) the infobox. DrKay (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC) England? Could have sworn the intro says the United Kingdom. Anyhoo, clearly listing all fifteen Realms in the opening sentence would be ludicrous. It's not really justifiable to say "UK, Canada and 13 others" either. The UK is a different case from the others, invidious though that may be. (Like Harold Mount-Windy, I don't know how people will ever get over their shock that the monarchy isn't constructed on the basis of strict equality.) However, there's a case for them being listed in the introductory section at some point. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC) This point has been argued over and over for the better part of two decades. The same crew keeps insisting, contrary to the law and numerous statements by lawmakers and constitutional scholars, that the UK is not only different, but special. And so it is that Wikipedia gives the false impression that these monarchs have legitimacy only in Britain and continue to reign as British monarchs in the second class, non-British realms simply because parliamentarians there forgot or can't think of anything better. I personally don't think listing all the countries is as "ridiculous" as others present it as. I also don't think it's unreasonable to just say Charles is monarch of each of the Commonwealth realms. Some editors will claim that term--"monarch of the Commonwealth realms"--doesn't exist. But, I've proven, with multiple sources, that it does. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC) So this is what you think the first sentence should look like: Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948) is King of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and the United Kingdom. Is that right? DeCausa (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC) That would be accurate and balanced. I'd be happy with it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC) It also has the same effect as "King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC) No it doesn't. A lot of readers will have no idea what a Commonwealth realm is, nor which places might be Commonwealth realms, and will likely ignore what they see as a piece of trivia in the text, never learning that there are major countries involved. HiLo48 (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC) Readers can find out more about the other Commonwealth realms, in the footnotes provided by DrKay. PS - Interesting, that the only non-UK Commonwealth realm with Charles III as monarch, that continues to use the "United Kingdom" in its style, is Canada. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC) Yes. I've seen it before; I know what it looks like. As I said, this debate has been going on for most of the last 20 years. And, as I also said, I don't think it's ridiculous. It's just the facts communicated in a way that lines up with other facts; which is what should be primary in Wikipedia, not aesthetics. However, I've pretty much given up saying what I want in this regard. The American, British, and republican editors, with their own perspectives on the realms' monarchy, collectively outnumber the Australians, Canadians, and New Zealanders, and certainly those from the Caribbean and South Pacific. So, yes, I'm implying I beleive "the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms" is a WP:NPOV violation. But, again, I accept that my opinion doesn't matter. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC) I'm an Australian republican. I wonder where I fit in? HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC) Not in the group that eclipses the other group, I guess. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC) What is ridiculous and verging on WP:PA is charcterising those who have a different view to you (or even those with the same view) as by being motivated by either nationality or political opinion, neither of which you can have any idea. DeCausa (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC) The baseless accusation that I am acting in bad faith is what borders on WP:PA. I wrote nothing about motivations. The word I specifically chose was the passive "perspectives", which people can end up with entirely by accident and entirely unconsciously. Editors have, just as one example, literally used "the monarchy is part of our everyday life here and it's not where you live" as a reason to put the UK in top place. So, I know I'm not off-base saying perspective is a factor in how people reach their conclusions. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC) Weasel words. "Perspectives" is just another word for motivation. You may have "specifically" chosen the word to get in your defence first, but it's clear what you're saying. Not sure what the reference to "by accident and entirely unsconsciously" is supposed to convey. How else do people acquire views, opinions, biases, prejudices, bigotries and ... "perspectives"? DeCausa (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC) Thank you for explaining your personal interpretation of "perspectives". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC) It is not an NPOV violation. You have had people arguing listing all realms they reigned over is against NPOV here, here, here, here, here, and many others times I'm not interested in hunting for. It's not that your opinion doesn't matter, it's that consensus has consistently ruled against it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC) I didn't say no one said listing all the realms is a NPOV violation. I said my opinion is that "the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms" is a NPOV violation. I stand by that. But, I already quite clearly noted that I am outnumbered; so, I don't know what need there is for reminding me what the (latest) consensus is. Being in the minority does mean what I think is worthless; it's certainly not going to make any difference to the present state of affairs. But, I suppose, if someone were to start yet another RfC on this subject, my opinion might then count for something. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC) The Commonwealth is a group of nations in "common allegiance to the British crown"; not the Antiguan and Barbudan crown, not the Canadian crown, not the Jamaican crown, not the Kiwi crown, the British crown. More than that, we acknowledge right next to "United Kingdom" that Charles is king of these places too. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC) Utter nonsense. The Commonwealth is NOT a group of nations in "common allegiance to the British crown". HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC) Readers can find info on the other Commonwealth realms, in the footnotes provided by DrKay. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC) I am curious as to where that quote comes from. From what I know of the modern Commonwealth, I'd say it is the sort of description that they would actively reject - partly because of the precise question we're discussing here. Kahastok talk 16:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC) The monarchy's website has that quote but crucially it begins "Until 1949.." Obviously there are republics (and Mozambique!) in the Commonwealth. The Comonwealth and the Comonwealth realms are not the same thing. DeCausa (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC) "King of the United Kingdom and the 14th other Commonwealth realms" is the best description. Charles is best known as the British monarch, due likely to where he actually resides (the UK & thus no need for a British governor-general), where his coronation will be held (the UK) & quite likely where (the UK) he'll one day be buried. Per WP:WEIGHT, he's best known & most recognised as the British monarch. Not the (for example) "Saint Lucian monarch" or "Bahamas monarch" etc. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC) That argument fails to address what I posted earlier, so I will repeat it. A lot of readers will have no idea what a Commonwealth realm is, nor which places might be Commonwealth realms, and will likely ignore what they see as a piece of trivia in the text, never learning that there are major countries involved. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC) Consensus has been (over & over again) to go with "...of the United Kingdom and the other # Commonwealth realms". We can't always get what we want on Wikipedia, but that's life. Some RFCs have gone my way on this project, while others haven't. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC) So your only argument is "You lost, before you even commented here." HiLo48 (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC) If you think consensus will go your way, hold an RFC. See what happens. No one is stopping you from doing so. GoodDay is just reminding you that belief that one is right is not always sufficient to get the changes you wish to see. But who knows; write a neutrally-worded RFC proposing a concrete wording change you would like to see happen, and maybe everyone (or enough to act as a consensus) will agree with you. --Jayron32 13:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC) Were previous RfCs on "this" matter actually about Charles? Or Elizabeth? HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC) Both effectively, as one succeeded the other. GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC) While their roles are the same, they are different people. Please answer my question. HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC) I did answer your question. If you're refusing to accept the results? that's not my problem. GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC) Leave as is (i.e. King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms). Compusolus (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC) Nope. You didn't answer my question. Look, I know what I and some others are proposing here is a little bit radical, in an area where conservatism is a core element, and will inevitably lead to some resistance, please keep that resistance rational. Obstinately blocking discussion is simply confrontational. (I now anticipate a response saying that's not what you're doing, and that's to be expected too.) HiLo48, if you don't like the intro to this BLP? then (as somebody else suggested) open an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC) Interesting that the British monarchy's website, in "The King and the Commonwealth" section, uses the wording, "The King is sovereign of 14 Commonwealth realms in addition to the UK"; obviously putting the other realms first. That perhaps treats the other realms as less of a piece of trivia, to address @HiLo48:'s (valid) concern about they way they're presented in this article (and others). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC) If you're choosing to push this argument 'again', then open up an RFC on this BLP. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC) Could you perhaps direct me to the discussion wherein you were appointed as the referee of talk pages? That would clarify a lot. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC) I was about to ask the same of you, concerning refereeing. Anyways, you & I have been (figuratively) at logger-heads over this topic for well over 15-years & (as before) you & I will just go in circles again. So, best to let others pow-wow over the topic-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC) I'm not the one telling people where to go and what to do and you're the one who responded to me when I didn't address you. So, if you don't want to engage with me, don't. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC) My view FWIW remains that “King of the UK and 14 other Commonwealth realms” is appropriate for the body of the article. But, the individual should list each realm separately (as it did quite successfully for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II for many years before someone changed it for no real good reason quite recently), I do like the new fn-1 pop up note there but it really is no compromise for them being listed individually in the infobox. The current arrangement doesn’t properly convey that each crown is held separately and equally and misleadingly implies that the other crowns are somehow subordinate to the crown of the UK. Listing them individually would improve the accuracy of the article Timothy N-F (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Infobox* not individual Timothy N-F (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC) What about a tweak to the wording to make that clearer? Like "is King of the United Kingdom and, separately, each of the fourteen other Commonwealth realms in their own right." Then (maybe as an additional paragraph at the end of the lead section) -- some wording on that listing them all. Oh, and something on his role as head of the commonwealth, clarifying the distinction between that and the CRs. Somehow, being HotC is the most important thing about him after his name and number for the infobox, but isn't worth mentioning at all in the opening text. Those can't both be right. (ProTip: they're in fact both wrong.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Best to leave things the way they are, intro & infobox. As @Dronebogus: pointed out, this topic is just going to go in circles again. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC) I'll raise again the example of the British monarchy's website that uses, in the section "The King and the Commonwealth": "The King is Sovereign of 14 Commonwealth realms in addition to the UK." A possible variation for this article: "Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948) is King of the 15 Commonwealth realms,[fn 1] including the United Kingdom." --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC) That'd work for me. (Except for the part where '15' is inexplicably used instead of '14'. But slightly quicker edit next time a country leaves the club, admittedly!) Or "most notably", "prominently", or words to that effect. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC) It's quite explicable. "14 Commonwealth realms in addition to the UK" implies the UK is not a Commonwealth realm, whereas "15 Commonwealth realms, including the UK" makes it clear the UK is a Commonwealth realm. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC) You're right, "14 Commonwealth realms in addition to the UK" would imply that the UK isn't a Commonwealth realm. The only problem is that the article doesn't say that; it says "the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms", "other" being the operative word. This implies that the UK is in fact a CR. I don't see the problem. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC) Timothy, we have it as "...of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms", because Charles III was born in the UK, resides in the UK (thus no UK governor-general) & most likely will be buried in the UK. Same as his mother, as she was born in the UK, resided in the UK & is buried in the UK. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC) No, not "we". That is your reasoning. We have it as UK-is-special because that's what the majority voted in favour of the last time it was put to a vote. Not everyone--indeed, few, if I recall correctly--shared your particular view. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC) We're going in circles again (over 15 years), you & I. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC) That'll tend to happen, if someone raises a new point or suggested edit (however slight) and your response is just "no let's not". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC) If this is a really big problem, then best to rip the plaster off and hold an RfC either here or on WP:BROY to settle this "issue". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Good Day, if you reread what I wrote, I don’t take issue with the wording “King of the UK and 14 other Commonwealth Realms” in the text. I take issue with them not being individually listed in the infobox as they always were for his mother before some overzealous editor decided to destroy the clarity of her article in the misguided pursuit of brevity. I don’t know how to create an RFC, but if one could be held to determine whether the majority of contributors believe each of his quite seperate monarchies should be listed in his infobox (which of course they should) then I would be pleased it has at least been voted upon Timothy N-F (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Defender of the Faith, & King infobox headers.

It seems that someone has added Defender of the Faith and King to the infobox just below Head of the Commonwealth? I think it's quite strange. It will be reversed for now due to it being unnecessary.

BillClinternet (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree, but then I rather feel the same about "Head of the Commonwealth". Given utterly WP:UNDUE weight in the infobox, both for readers, and as an eye-magnet for editors who then thing 'great place to add other secondary jobs and titles he has'! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I too am against the addition of "Head of the Commonwealth" in the infobox. But, the RFC on that matter, decided to include it. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

When and where was this RfC? I can find nothing in the archive post-kingage (and a fair bit beyond that). If we're treating some previous discussion about his predecessor's infobox as binding here, I'd think it's past time to revisit that. (As a change of pace from discussing portrait images every ten minutes...) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

This is the RFC. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's the main RFC, which further cements the consensus. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. So, not post-accession, but it did consider Chuck's case specifically, so fair enough. And at least consistent, so I see I have something of an OTHERSTUFF hill to climb on this. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The Commonwealth of Nations is a group of 56 countries. England is one constituent part of one country. You're drawing a false equivalence. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

... no-one even mentioned England. "King of England" is not one of his titles, contra occasional informal (to be kind -- incorrect, really) description as such. I'm missing how any sort of equivalence was drawn, false or otherwise. Are you seeking to suggest that his HoC role is more important than his fifteen monarchies collectively? I really don't think that's at all plausible. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"Defender of the Faith" relates to the Church of England only. (And perhaps Canada; though, here, while "Defender of the Faith" is in Charles' title, it's rather an aside, as there is no state church.) I said nothing about the 15 monarchies. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Aaaah! Thanks, makes more sense in that context. Actually it's in his long-form max-pomposity title in the UK (as a whole, not just England), Canada, and New Zealand. But we have a whole section of the article for such fluff, definitely wildly WP:UNDUE to put in the infobox, I agree. It's too bloaty as it is -- though by far from the worst of Wikipedia's infobox-bloat crimes. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Right; I forgot about New Zealand. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

BTW, recall that "Defender of the Faith" was originally granted by the Pope -- the Catholic one, for the avoidance of doubt. So it's a little more complicated than his formal role in the CoE. Much less Anglicanism generally, which is its own nest of complexity vipers. For most practical purposes, it's simply a matter of "it's part of his title because we say it's part of his title". (If we say that -- which in twelve cases "we" apparently do not.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I see, anywho, HoC will be the only title that is emphasized above his infobox picture. Thank you. BillClinternet (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

We at least agree that DotF has no place there, certainly, so we're picking those nits to little purpose. But, per my comments elsewhere, HoC has no business being there either. If nothing else, it'd be an improvement to a) drop that entirely, and b) move the "King of..." text to where that is now. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Infobox Picture as King

• 
  King in 2022

Thoughts on new infobox picture such as this with Charles as King? Cliffmore (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion above regarding two competing pictures already underway. IMHO, this is a candid photo taken extemporaneously, certainly of lower quality than either of the two official posed portraits currently under discussion. --Jayron32 17:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

There is already a discussion but it's a discussion that has occurred multiple times over the two same images, taken before Charles was king. Something to consider. Cliffmore (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but either or both of the images is better than the one you proposed, for the reason I just told you. --Jayron32 18:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

What does it matter whether the picture was taken before or after he became king? Did he metamorphose? Surtsicna (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a question, not a proposal, which is why it is in the discussion section. You can express your view without being rude. No, he has not metamorphosed but he is a 74 year old man who has aged in the last 5-6 years since his infobox picture was taken. Your dissent is noted. Cliffmore (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Cliffmore, I don't think now is the time for this discussion. Wait until either after the coronation or until the RfC above closes before starting a separate discussion. You could, however, enter your proposed image as a third candidate. Regards, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

It's the eternal-discussion. Short of some sort of self-denying ordinance (an RfC to have no RfCs on this for six months? Or until we get article quality off rock-bottom? crazy, I know...) they'll just keep coming. Adding into the existing one isn't an ideal option, as then we get into the 'close of "!"voting' issue. Likely it'd involved either extending the period -- like I said, eterna- -- or perhaps slightly less morale-sappingly, {{ping}}ing everyone that'd contributed in favour of either 'A' or 'B' just in case they like this one better. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Additional summary paragraph for lead section

OK, this is related to admittedly familiar ground on this talkpage, but stay with me! The article is, IMO, significantly under-summarised. There's 2 1/2 paragraphs in the lead section for what is a looooooong article. There's a summary-of-the-summary first para (great), a second on 'early life' (excellent), a third on him as PoW (suberb!) and-- waitwhat, we're done already? Tangentially, I have to assume that people who think "that's a perfectly normal and optimally sized infobox!" will agree with me that the intro is badly undersized, as "next to the lead section" has somehow turned into "actually next to most of the following section too".

Specifically, I suggest we add a (for now necessarily rather short) paragraph on his tenure in the "what I like to call the Top Job". A sentence on his events of becoming king and choice of regnal name, a sentence on the upcoming coronation, and that brings us up to date and about wraps it up. But! This would also be an opportune place to mention... the complete list of places he's presently kinging. All fifteen. Organised by population size, by creation date, alphabetically, regionally, or by previous status -- whatever you're having yourself. I don't think it's excessive to do so in that context. And it's implicit in the whole accession concept: those are the Platonic concepts zinging into him at the Speed of Monarchy. Severally, rather than jointly. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Slight tumbleweed on this so far, but here's a draft for such a suggested extra paragraph:-

Becoming king immediately on the death of his predecessor, Charles also inherited the separate thrones of the other Commonwealth realms. These fifteen independent countries are the UK itself, the large former dominions of Canada and Australia, and New Zealand, the Pacific islands of Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and Tuvulu, and in the Caribbean, the former colonies of Jamaica, the Bahamas, Belize, Saint Lucia, Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. After brief speculation that he might choose a different regnal name, it was announced he would indeed reign as Charles III. Though already king, he has not yet been ceremonially crowned; in due course it was announced that his coronation would take place on May 6, 2023."

And make good on any other parts of the article that might imply changes to. Thoughts? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

A better write up (if a new paragraph is required) would be something like - "Becoming king upon the death of his mother, he chose to reign as Charles III, after brief speculation about another name. His coronation is scheduled to take place on May 6, 2023 in London, United Kingdom" - We don't need to list the 14 other Commonwealth realms (which would be a sea of blue), as DrKay already has them in a footnote in the lead. GoodDay (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The first "sentence" is not a sentence. The second sentence is too long, poorly composed and gets two names wrong (Tuvula? Barbudai?). The third sentence is trivial and undue. The fourth sentence is too wordy. DrKay (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, every sentence is unnecessary and unsuitable for the lead. DeCausa (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@DrKay, Jeepers, it wasn't a "please c'n'p this wholesale without proofing" request. Sleepy typos edited. Second sentence would probably be better split, sure, I'm open to suggestions. A shorter 3rd and 4th sentences, perhaps condensing them into one, would be fine and dandy with me. @GoodDay, I very much disagree about the realms. If someone is primarily -- to a good first approximation solely, when you factor in the ex officios -- notable for being king of various places, literally not mentioning almost of those places in the body the text is terrible structuring. (OK, this isn't news, it's a broad-spectrum terrible article, but in theory we're trying to improve it, not just ThisIsFine.jpg our way through the dumpster fire.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

109.255.211.6, I think it would be ideal to have a paragraph on his accession and reign. I would take issue with listing all of the realms in the paragraph, per aforementioned concerns about WP:SEAOFBLUE and the fact that lead section needs to be concise. As you are aware, there is an RfC going on about putting all of the realms in the infobox, which would solve that issue. I would suggest the following edits of the paragraph:

"Charles inherited the throne of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms upon the death of his mother on September 8, 2022. After brief speculation that he might choose a different regnal name, it was announced he would reign as Charles III. His coronation will take place on May 6, 2023."

It provides all of the same information but has been condensed. It could still do with some tidying, but I think it's a good start. Regards, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and thanks especially for being a relative ray of positivity in doing so! I'd certainly take your suggestion over the status quo, as it addresses at least one of the key concerns (structural and timeline completeness), and nudges us towards something fuller, which clearly we're going to eventually have in time. Perhaps after we've exhausted every revert-to-the-status-quo alternative, but eventually! I forget to address the SEAOFBLUE point above my bad. Simplest fix is to do as my draft para does: don't them them at all. Several of the countries would certainly consider themselves "major examples", and I don't think in this context linking is at all essential. "A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from." You don't need to link each one to understand the key point there, i.e. this is a list of nominally co-equal and separate countries/monarchies. I'm supportive of both the existing footnote and adding the same to the IB, but I do not think it's a satisfactory substitute. Lead sections should really work as stand-alone mini-articles, and this is, IMO, clearly in the category of "if you only were able to say four paragraphs of things about this topic, what would they be?"

I will, however, put to you a middle case, swiped from @DeCausa's IB suggestion. A partial list of countries, with the "long tail" linked to the "... other Commonwealth realms". Either their suggestion of doing it strictly by population, e.g. the minor size cliff after Jamaica; or adapting my geographically structured text above, but snipping off the West Indian fragments as "... Jamaica and several smaller other Commonwealth realms in the Caribbean", or some such phrasing. Any more tolerable? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Charles III has been king for just under six months, at least wait a full year. Also, DrKay already has a footnote in the intro, so we don't need to list out the 14 other Commonwealth realms entirely or partially. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty:'s version is acceptable. It conforms with the page's intro & the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The introduction already says he became king of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms on the death of his mother on 8 September 2022. This seems to be a repeat, though his mother could come out of the first paragraph and 'the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms' doesn't need to be repeated in the final paragraph. The brief speculation about his regnal name happened over 15 years ago and wasn't really much more than trivia then. I don't think it deserves to be in the introduction. I agree with adding a sentence on the coronation. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree this might call for slight refactors elsewhere, such as in the opening para. The point of the final para is to expand on info that's not essential (and is too long) for the opening one, but is still of "top four paras" importance. Like y'now, someone primary notable entirely for kinging and prepping for that, where does he actually king. The regnal name thing was definitely still a live issue post-accession. It wasn't until the PM blurted in out at the #10 podium that it was considered in any way confirmed, and even then there was a element of "was that just a) Liz Truss Liz Trussing, or is that actually b) factually correct, and c) the correct protocol?" And will certainly be robustly sourceable as such. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there were legitimate regnal name issues, even here on Wikipedia. I'm sure we all remember the "Charles III" to "Charles, King of the United Kingdom" to "Charles III" back to "Charles, King of the United Kingdom" and then finally "Charles III" page moves on September 8th. I think the regnal name sentence is a legitimate one to have, as he reigns as Charles III. We only got conformation when the once-in-a-premiership event of Liz "Lightnin'" Truss getting a fact right occurred and the editing community could breathe a sigh of relief. So, should we include that "trivia"? I think so. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Correct, I remember it well! The usual Battle of the Palantirs. It's IMO not essential, but it's a logical part of the "how to get to be monarch" timeline. Predecessor dies (or abdicates, etc), you think up a regnal name, accession council, you're proclaimed, etc, eventually you're crowned. Just a matter of editorial judgement how much detail to include, or how compressed to make that. For example one might include the circumstance of the announcement, but not the prior speculation. Or vice versa, or both... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I've changed it because only the speculation from 2005 is in the article body, so the few minutes of speculation in 2022, if it occurred, is not cited. Even if citable, I still doubt that a few minutes of idle and trivial speculation that turned out to be wrong should be put in the introductory summary of a life of 74 years. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed the 2005 speculation (Charles III or George VII) is the more important to note. As for 2022? not overly unique or a big deal, as there was speculation in 1952 about his mother's name at her accession & so on. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, I think as of now, there is a vague consensus to include the post-accession paragraph. I'll add it now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I trimmed it down, to avoid as much repetition as possible of the info already in the lead & infobox. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the paragraph is as good as it can be at the moment. It has just enough detail without too much repetition.

"Charles inherited the throne upon the death of his mother on 8 September 2022. It was announced he would reign as Charles III despite speculation that he might choose a different regnal name. His coronation will take place on 6 May 2023."

Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The date and the fact that he succeeded his mother are already covered in the first paragraph almost verbatim. So I've removed those. The paragraph is OK without, even if it's a bit short. I agree we don't need to mention 2005 in particular though, I recall "George VII" speculation throughout my life, and indeed in the hours after the Queen's death when they discussed it on the BBC etc.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree that singling out 2005 should be removed as it implies that that was the only time there was speculation. I think that we should have a passing mention of the Queen's death, as the first paragraph in the lead should be able to stand alone (the first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it.) and should be expanded on in the other paragraphs. I said that the longer version could do with tidying and I think that's been done now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Please don't remove the bulk of the paragraph. It was discussed here and consensus is to include it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

There's no consensus on what "it" is. DrKay, Amakuru and Surtsicna all removed parts of your paragraph (quite rightly in my view in each case). The current single sentence on the coronation is probably the best reflection of what most agree on. Leave it at that. DeCausa (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

But it isn't what "most" agree on. Amakuru is in favour of keeping the parts on the regnal name speculation. I think we should include it all. You think it should all be excluded bar the coronation sentence. DrKay wants the exclusion of the paragraph entirely. The formula that makes the least people unhappy is to have a briefer version of the paragraph put forward on the 25th. I am willing to compromise, and so should we all be; we can't all stick to what we want because they are all completely opposing views. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Tim, thanks for that. The longest journey, etc, etc. @GoodDay, the 2005 stuff is entirely off-topic here. This is about the period of his reign for the purposes of the lead. @Celia, very clearly it occurred, very clearly it was more than "a few minutes", very clearly it's citable. We'd an entire afternoon of this stuff, wall-to-wall coverage in every conceivable medium. (Actually seemed like longer -- I had to check it wasn't the following day, but that's likely my confusing the talk that we in theory should have had to wait until the Accession Council and Proclamation, but instead it was just blurted out at a Downing Street presser.) Here for example is an Indi subhead: "Prime Minister Liz Truss made the announcement outside Downing Street, rather than it being revealed at the Accession Council as is tradition." As I say I'm intensely relaxed as to whether we mention the speculation per se, but I think there's a chronological logic to mention "becoming king" and "regnal name announced". (It's sorta the two main parts of the job description: existing, and having a name to be emblazoned on things. Everything else is fairly optional.) There's not a great deal more to say about his reign to date, but saying nothing at all here isn't very logical. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I would favour the somewhat slimmed down version that we had yesterday, but still mentioning the speculation about his name:

When Charles acceded to the throne, it was announced he would reign as Charles III despite speculation that he might choose a different regnal name. His coronation will take place on 6 May 2023.

In the absence of other significant detail to include about his reign so far, this is at least relevant and of interest. Note that the "speculation" was far from limited to 2005. I have added cites to the article suggesting other names from 1958, 1981, 1987, 2000 and 2018, as well as noting that such speculation existed in the few hours before we knew the name.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I remain unimpressed. Le Monde claiming that George VI's first name was Alexander is sloppy at best and the other sources are equally bad. DrKay (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

It's also trivia - why does it matter enough for the lead (especially as it's not even mentioned in the article)? MOS:INTRO DeCausa (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

If there's a consensus to include it in the lead, it's hardly rocket surgery to tweak the body accordingly -- and now done, it appears, thanks Amakuru. But if "slimming" were required, this odd an odd choice of priorities. (I note we're also back on "is there anything to be said for using the word "accede" a fourteenth time?" territory.) The above version also confuses the timeline, implying that "accession" and "announcement" were simultaneous, and so inviting the inference that we must here be talking about prior speculation. Much better to have the events at least in the right order, however many of them we choose to include. Well, I say "however many" -- at time of writing we have exactly one, moving artlessly from the previous paragraph's criticism of his views on alternative medicine straight to 'stay tuned for the coronation'. The concept of "avoiding repeating the infobox" is exactly backwards, both logically and explicitly house-stylistically. "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." (my emph.) "[...] the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored [...])." (ditto.) We should indeed avoid excess duplication between the first and fourth paragraph, but not to the point of ignoring all chronological and expositional considerations. If we wish to avoid the "death of his mother" being repeated, there might be a better case to remove it from the first. Or just use a slightly different wording in each place. Royal-article-consistency fans will wish to observe that the corresponding point in the Elizabeth II article -- (i.e., in her case, the first of two "reign" summary paras) -- we have the following: "When her father died in February 1952, Elizabeth—then 25 years old—became queen of seven independent Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon (known today as Sri Lanka), as well as head of the Commonwealth." Be odd if we couldn't be at least as informative here. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a consensus for what you want. GoodDay (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)