This is an archive of past discussions about Charles III. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
FWIW, I wouldn't bother showing the date. His appearance hasn't changed much since the time of the image-in-question & it didn't immediately change, when he became king. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
@Surtsicna: I don't see the issue. Edward VIII has this format. You say it's because he reigned as a 42 year old and is 25 in the photo, yet in your edit summary you said "If anyone cares about whether he is a prince or a king in the photograph, they can deduce it from the year in the caption and the reign dates right below". Surely this applies to Edward VIII as well. Again, Edward V's caption says he was Prince of Wales at the time the image was produced; he wouldn't have looked much different if the manuscript was made when he was king either, yet you haven't taken issue with that caption either.
Third that. I mean, this thread is sort of arguing this is like an article showing a doctor before their doctorate, with a caption stating such, is akin saying they were “reborn” after becoming a doctor. It gives me a wp:GREATWRONGS vibe, like not giving monarchs their proper contemporary titles is supposed to somehow bring them down a notch. (I’m even a small-r republican and I’m saying this) Dronebogus (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Just so. Unless it's a very old photo of a living person, or shows some very contextually perplexing pic ("Victoria Smith (brain surgeon)"; "Smith in 1968 during her earlier career as a rocket scientist") there's absolutely no need for this in any article, and in the face of infobox bloat -- unfortunately not particular to this or other 'royal' articles! -- should be a prime candidate for the chop. If they weren't removed before that. I'm struggling to see the "great wrongs" at issue here. Just a poor-quality article on a supposedly Top Importance article that we're trying to improve, by agonisingly slow inches and in the face of constant setbacks. So a pretty petty wrong, outside of wikicircles. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Will you be in favor of the caption saying "Charles as king" if a good-quality post-accession photograph becomes available? Surtsicna (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
What does it matter what title he had when the photograph was taken? Does he look different now that he is king? Is he another entity? Surtsicna (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
He was the Prince of Wales, regardless of if he "looks different" or not. He isn't another entity either. In any case, this image is most likely a temporary one. In May, we will probably get one of him as king which can be titled "Charles in 2023". For now, I say we keep the image caption the same (unless the RfC above changes the image, in which case it will be "Charles as Prince of Wales, 2019). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Once again I find myself agreeing strongly with @GoodDay. It doesn't need a caption at all. What's the current caption conveying? His name, check, but I think we already got that. His then title. ("Metaphysical majesty: not shown.") And the date. All of this fails the "needs to be in an infobox" test, and fails it extra-hard when the infobox in question is already grotesquely over-long. The extra narrative would be fine in in-line pictures, but not here. Strong preference for caption: "". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree on both points, jointly and severally. But I'm hoping to recruit some fans of getting rid of useless captions, to support the fans of getting rid of silly ones. BTW, this caption, I should warn you to brace yourself to hear, is furthermore being used on other pages by way of an 'WP:OTHERSTUFF, so we should have a silly caption here, too!' argument. And I use the term "argument"... quite incorrectly. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Oh, right. And what about prince of Wales being a "fixed title" makes it essential to include in the caption? Curious too that we have Camilla, Queen Consort and yet no "Camilla as Duchess of Cornwall, 2018" sort of caption.Surtsicna (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
@Tim, you're conflating two different things there. There's substantive vs. courtesy titles on the one hand, and inherited titles vs new creations on the other. And neither are... of any relevance whatsoever! Unless you're advancing your own rule, novel to wikipedia and unclear to me even at this point what you might intend they be, on which titles have these mystical auras that require a caption, and which do not. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not advancing any "rule", but if people are going to try to create inconsistencies within Wikipedia, with contradictory reasoning as to why when it should be left alone (and has been for over 5 months), then they have to expect pushback. As I have said, those pushing for the removal of "Prince of Wales" in the image caption have been thus far unbothered by Edwards V and VIII's image captions, which use the same format. In fact, calling for a purge of "useless" image captions would mean stripping pretty much every single lead image caption on Wikipedia. That's a huge change, and seems to me to be more like "advancing own rules" than anything I've said here. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Exactly this. The article talks about a bloke called Charles III, whereas the guy in the pic was not called that at the time. The OP may wish to use dramatic rhetoric saying that this implies he has been "reborn", but the reality is that such titles, particularly when referring to a monarch, matter. And it's standard practice both on Wikipedia and elsewhere, and helps clarify things for readers. — Amakuru (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Tim, maybe apply a modicum of WP:AGF. People aren't "trying to create inconsistencies within Wikipedia" (I couldn't do that, I'm much too late), they're trying to get rid of captions that read weirdly, that further bloat already infoboxes, and that provide no useful information whatsoever. Clearly that's not every single caption in WP: I've already proposed a standard above, and it's a lot more consistent and applicable than your "fixed title" theory. Amakuru, it's a bloke called Charles, before and after. Titles aren't names, and even if they were, a trivial name-change doesn't necessarily need an over-wordy narrative caption either. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
No, I know the point of this proposal isn't to intentionally create inconsistencies, but it does create inconsistency regardless. The most glaring ones I can think of are the aforementioned Edward V and Edward VIII, whose image captions both use "as Prince of Wales" as a quick way to tell the reader that this was before their accession. That alone would be enough to oppose it because having Charles as an exception doesn't make sense. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Why should we prioritize consistency with the biographies of his granduncle and a 15th-century boy over consistency with the biographies of his wife, son, and grandchildren? As noted earlier, we do not have a "Camilla as duchess" caption. Charles is already an exception among his immediate family. The year ("2018") already tells the reader that the photo was taken before his accession. Is that so essential to underline that the reader has to be told twice in one caption? Surtsicna (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Surtsicna, there is no need for these unnecessary captions. It even occurs on other pages such as New Zealand where there is an image of Charles III and it has a caption that reads "as Prince of Wales in 2019". It's unnecessary as it is the same person and he still looks the same. DDMS123 (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
It would be fine to just say "Charles in 2017" just like how on Camilla's page it says "Camilla in 2018". DDMS123 (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, especially as the very next thing the infobox says is that he became king in 2022 - so for anyone who finds it essential to know whether the camera captured a king or a prince, the answer is immediately available. Surtsicna (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
I think it can be left out. It can also be left in. It doesn't matter either way. Just puzzled by (a) why there's a thread about it (b) why people have such strong views on something so inconsequential. Oh wait...it's Wikipdea. DeCausa (talk) 08:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
We should prioritise consistency between the articles on the British monarchs over different articles on a queen consort, a Prince of Wales, and a 9 year old boy. When (if) William and George become king, that's a different matter. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
I do not know what you base that opinion on, but Edward V is not a British monarch anyway. We can have them all consistent, however. Edward V and Edward VIII captions can do without princely titles too. Surtsicna (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Edward V was King of England. England is a country mostly based on the island of Great Britain. I use "British" for those kings as a demonym; of course I know he wasn't a "King of Great Britain". That wasn't the point. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
I've reverted your image change to Edward VIII and caption change to Edward V as it isn't a great look to change something with the sole intention of furthering a goal on a separate talk page. You and I are never going to agree on this, so I suggest we wait for others to chime in. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
So it was never really about consistency after all. What is not a good look is throwing red herrings to waste our time. Surtsicna (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
I am not. I believe you want the best for the article. It is now clear that consistency is not the issue here, however, so one has to wonder why so much time was spent on that particular argument. Surtsicna (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Your edits did not create consistency; you didn't change Charles's caption to be in line with the Edwards. I changed Edward VIII's image back because it had been the in the infobox for a long time, and changing it back to what it was necessitated changing the caption back too. That made it 2-1 to the "as Prince of Wales" image captions, so I changed Edward V's caption back to be in line with the others'. As you know, I favour the "as Prince of Wales" captions, and I would prefer them all to be in that format; again, we just need other editors to discuss this because we two aren't going to agree on this. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
the reason for keeping the detail that the picture was taken during Charles's tenure as Prince of Wales has been explained several times above. No further explanation is necessary, and ongoing discussion here seems pointless given there's no error in the caption on any of the articles mentioned and there's also no consensus for a change. — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The question of why that is important has been posed multiple times and never answered. With an opposition by four users and support by three, it is evident that there is no consensus to keep the detail. It might be time for an RfC. Surtsicna (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
No, please don't. The caption is needed and consensus has not emerged to remove it. Put another way, there is no harm in keeping the caption, but possible harm in removing it, for those who realise why this matters. — Amakuru (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Between the wish to remove the caption and the wish to retain it as is there is room for compromise in the form of a shortened caption. Surtsicna (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
I should clarify I do still support keeping "as Prince of Wales", but I'm not devoting any more time fighting to keep four words in one image caption on a B-Class article. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
On a "Vital-Importance" article that doomed to remain B-Class forever With That Attitude, one might alternatively say. As for RfCs, those are somewhat inevitable when on the one hand, we're constantly debating the intensely trivial matter of the infobox pic -- and will be for some time to come, regardless of the outcome of any of them -- and on the other, when reasonable suggestions for improvement result in a dogged defence of the status quo. (Not you in particular, but different configurations of people on different details.) So basically any time there's less than two, it's because literally nothing is happening at all. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
"doomed to remain B-Class forever with That Attitude". Not sure what you're getting at there. In my 12 years+ here I've rarely (if ever) seen articles move upwards in the quality scale in that way by day-to-day editing especially from B to FA. Usually that is a result of a one-off systematic overhaul by one or more editors focussing in a concentrated way on an article with that specific objective in mind over a relatively short period. In fact, if anything, gradual "improvements" over time normally send articles in the opposite direction. The odd "improvement" here and there is usually no more than an editor adding a personal preferenece which they think everyone else should recognise as objectively a good thing. It's one of WP's unspoken myths that articles are gradually "improved". DeCausa (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
(ec) I'd certainly agree with you on getting to FA. That's often going to need a significant amount of restructuring, and not by "peephole" changes (which themselves get nickeled-and-dimed to death with "... but then we'd have to change..." complaints). Anyhoo, just a passing observation on the "on a B-Class article" comment. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree that it would be a good idea to get this article to FA class, sameasmostotherBritishmonarchsbeforeCharles. We'd need a plan to carry it out, as this article is currently drifting with no end goal. Maybe set up an initiative on WP:BROY to make the push, because the article is around 100,000-150,000 bytes too long. Currently, it's 285,000 bytes; Elizabeth's article is around 200,000 bytes. George VI's is 62,000, and George V's is 109,000. Some sections here are almost laughably overlong (I mean, what the hell is this? Is it of any relevance to Charles that his estates get 100,000 pounds in EU subsidies? So what if the DoC "invested in a Bermuda-based carbon credits trading company"? Does that help the reader understand the king any better?) Indeed, "can we remove 4 words" or "can we have a slightly newer picture" will not get us anywhere quickly and won't stop this article sleepwalking itself to demotion. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
There's any number of Wikiprojects that might help, but strong case of, if it's everyone's responsibility, it's no one's responsibility. That'd be the best place to ask in the first instance, certainly. Even getting it to GA would be a significant step, especially as they gets additional third-party eyes on it too. We don't get there four words at a time, and the eterna-debate on the pic should best be seen as light relief at this stage. (Just be careful the laughter doesn't become too manic or existential-despairing.) But one part of that is crafting a good lead and infobox, and that is more likely to be a battle of inches. I definitely agree with you on the bloat and the rather haphazard structure. That section should be trimmed hard, or failing which, split out in yet another subsidiary article. But we digress somewhat, and we should probably split out or continue elsewhere this, too. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I suggest we either a.) set up a very minor task force somewhere and start to hash things out, or b.) go to WP:BROY and discuss it on the talkpage there. I plan to start submitting things to change or cut or restructure in order to tidy up the content in the next few days, but this beyond a shadow of a doubtneeds input from other editors. This is an article that has potential, but is held down by so much irrelevant information. It is perfectly capable of getting a higher rating on the quality scale; we just need a push to get it there. Let's do it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I certainly think that at least a courtesy notification to that Wikiproject (maybe a couple of others?) would be in order. I imagine it's unlikely to be news to them that Chaz exists and in on the throne, but your heartfelt exhortation on the topic of the quality chasm in evidence here might stir them from their torpor. Or else they might just want to start another RfC about the infobox pic, who knows. I'd also favour close attention to the "reign" section. It's not the worst, but it's rather disorganised, and getting it in better shape might aid us in coming to a consensus about what to say about that period, brief as it is to date, in the lead section. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I think this is well-intentioned, but articles which are current are always lopsided. The QEII did have a more eventful life, but this was largely before the advent of Wikipedia. Charles's article is full of trivia, a lot of which was current when it was put into the article. So I don't disagree with this push, but I think we need to identify the problem. And at least part of the problem is putting news about Charles into this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, definitely that in part. But the issues with the lead and the infobox are almost the reverse: poorly updated, stuffed full of ancient royalcruft. Hopefully he'll be less "current" after his coronation. And before the necessity of Operation Wine-Fueled Bentley... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
What would people think of setting up a small task force on WP:BROY as a place for discussion on how to improve the article? I can see the discussion potentially getting quite long so I would advise against taking up too much room on BROY's talkpage. Operation London Bridge had one on the current events WikiProject. I am aware that it might be too narrow of a subject to justify one though. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 07:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Given that this is a one-article job (plus whatever 'spillover' that implies for shoving stuff into other articles, existing or new), a TF seems rather over-engineered and potentially might just split discussion and effort between there and here. OTOH, whatever works... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to launch the force soon. WP:TF says there should be consensus amongst editors, which is quite thin at the moment; however, I don't suspect anyone will object to its creation as it is setting out to improve Wikipedia. It also doesn't need to be single-purpose, and I think it will aid in updating articles on his reign and coronation too. I encourage other editors to join, with the main priority for the time being being to improve Charles's article. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
@Cullen328:: Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit where I wikilinked those three terms to their respective pages. While I do understand that people reading the article know the basic facts about the locations mentioned, it felt weird not having a link to the union/country/capital of a reigning monarch. For example, in my case, I was reading the article and wanted to do a quick check about the UK/English anthem; usually if I'm interested in a country of a person I'm reading the article about, the link is there - either in the infobox or in the lede. I was really surprised that an article about the reigning monarch did not have his country wikilinked.
Either way, I don't care too much about this, just wanted to explain the reasons why I linked those pages, and I still think it'd be beneficial for the readers. Regards, byteflushTalk03:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
It's a bit of a long-simmering issue. There's a wing of WP that want to add links wherever they're "useful", and one that feels it's more "aesthetic" and "encyclopedic" to only have them where they're "necessary" to gloss some "unfamiliar" related concept. And we can't agree on what's denoted by any of those scare-quoted concepts... Personally I think we're maybe slightly underlinking the UK here -- it's slightly thunderingly obvious, but it's so prevalent in the article that it does seem that it'd be natural and convenient to have a link to it. Not in the lede, but likely in the infobox. Whereas we have multiple redundant links to monarchy of the United Kingdom, which strikes me as overlinking, especially in the lead section where we're supposed to go light on those. But it's never an exact science. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Infobox picture
Latest comment: 1 year ago45 comments40 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There are no policy-based reasons for selecting between the two images, so this is essentially an esthetic choice. In the previous RfC, which selected Option A from 4 options, there were 34 votes for Option A and 33 for other options. This RfC presented two options, with 20 votes for Option B and 16 for Option A. Option B is therefore apparently the favored lead image on the basis of this RfC. With regard to repeated RfCs on the lead image, behavioral guidelines advise against discussion of the same issues repeatedly in the face of opposing consensus. However, consensus can change. If an image that has not been previously discussed becomes available, it would be reasonable to start a new discussion to judge whether consensus has changed. DrKay (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
A: I find the light-coloured background on B more distracting, whereas the dark background on A does at least help the head stand out. Regardless, what is really needed is a good and suitably licenced post-accession photo. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
You can totally see the mystical aura of monarchy even in a photo. Hence why it's vital to caption pics with things like "as Prince Charles", lest anyone somehow mistake the one entity for a completely different one, metaphysically speaking. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
A. I agree with the need for an up to date image, and I've never really liked the current one, but the proposed alternative is much worse. The light green background makes it hard to even pick out his face. If someone can photoshop that out in favour of a neutral background, then I might support, but otherwise this is a dreadful alternative. — Amakuru (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
A. They're both good pictures, but the background on B just seems a little too much, too bright I guess. Although the overall lighting on the A is not the greatest, the lighting on B looks too artificial. Personally, the more-natural lighting on A is preferable. Scapulustakk22:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
A Hasn't this been gone over 10 times already? There's not enough distinction between The King and the background in image B. --₪MIESIANIACAL22:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
A also per Scapulus, and per my comments in the previous discussions of this. In B, Charles's hair seems to fade into the plants (ferns?) behind him. The features in A also seem more distinct.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
B looks to me like the better picture of the two. I can't really understand the complaints about the background being distracting since it's in very sharp focus. PraiseVivec (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
B has a way better resolution, and if we could replace it with A, I'd like that, but ultimately either one can work. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
A Let's wait until we have a valid picture of Charles as King. There's no need to keep switching pictures of him before his ascension. Cassiewtf (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
B since it is the official portrait. Image A is of him "attending church with his family" and his expression in that photo looks kinda funny. B's image quality is also higher. Some1 (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
A I don’t see how Option B is less distracting; the background is so bright his hair looks to blend in with it, which is quite jarring in my opinion. Option A has a better contrast with him and the background. I don’t know why people are adamant as to change the current photo for a photo just two-years older. I think it’s best to wait for a more appropriate official portrait in due time, perhaps a coronation photo when it comes.
B Option B looks more authentic and believable. Option A looks like it is a screenshot or something similar from a larger picture. Option B gives a more realistic look to what King Charles III looks like. Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
B – A's background is a bit better, but that's outweighed in my view by B's higher resolution, better exposure and more natural facial expression. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
A There is not enough contrast between him and the background on option B. Also the image itself is too similar to be worth the time to change it in my option. Dobblesteintalk21:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
B Background is better. In photo B, he looks as if he's trying to pose for a photograph, whereas in action A, that looks like a random public photo-shoot by the media. Golfpecks256 (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Strong yes, this has been gone over ten times already. "Someone uploaded a four-year-old image" really isn't the sort of development that should trigger an eleventh. As ominously foreshadowed in several of the comments, it's not like we won't be doing this all again soon anyway. Likely repeatedly. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC: List of realms in the infobox
Latest comment: 1 year ago68 comments17 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Charles III is king of 14 independent countries in addition to the United Kingdom (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, The Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu, the Solomon Islands, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Lucia, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, and Saint Kitts and Nevis). Should they be listed in the infobox? DrKay (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment. My attempt to add a footnote listing the realms[1] was reverted[2]. A minimal footnote of less than 20 characters of code ({{efn|name=realms}}) is neither intrusive nor excessive. It is a compromise between full inclusion and full exclusion. DrKay (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment I don't see all or nothing (other than, I assume, the UK) being the options. (The latter is so misleading it's untenable.) The two variations that have been bandied about for years are "mention all the Commonwealth Realms" and "the UK and 14 other Commonwealth Realms". Since reading the wording on the British monarchy's website, I'm now of the mind that the compromise is "Charles III is king of 15 independent countries,[n1] including the United Kingdom" or "Charles III is king of 14 independent countries in addition to the United Kingdom.[n1]" Or something along those lines. It 1) doesn't spell out every Realm, 2) doesn't impose an unverified second class status on the non-British Realms, and 3) avoids use of the term Commonwealth Realm without explanation of what a Commonwealth Realm is. (I now believe, with some basis in my own experience, that most readers probably assume "other Commonwealth Realms" just means all the other member-states of the Commonwealth of Nations.)
As to the infobox: I can't think of anything that's workable other than "King of the United Kingdom and 14 other independent countries", with a drop-down listing them. --₪MIESIANIACAL09:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Support DrKay's version - As this is about the Infobox, DrKay's (efn) version, suffices, as (unlike his mother), Charles III's reign began in the other Commonwealth realms at the same time. If/when any of the 14 other Commonwealth realms become a republic? Then we can change to the old drop down method, which used to be used in Elizabeth II's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment If this article is moved from draft space, then use the same method as Elizabeth's article. Otherwise, a footnote is fine - and better than nothing. BilledMammal (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment I'm ok with the present version and I'm ok with DrKay's footnote. A few additional (albeit inconsistent) thoughts. (1) The UK is different and can be justified as beng singled out in this way. It's the only realm where he actually fulfills the role, however ceremonial. In the others it's the Gov-General. (2) But it is somewhat bizarre to have the article on a G7 Head of State (i.e Head of State of Canada) not refer to this status in the opening sentence. (3) It's not strange at all to miss out Tuvalu though. Clearly many of these roles are frankly not significant enough to be in the first sentence. (4) But where to draw the line? Somewhat arbitrarily, I'd be happy to draw it at a population of 1m+ and list the realms up to and including Jamaica and leave the other Carribean Islands and the Pacific islands (other than PNG and NZ) in the footnote. That's a list of 6 - not too bad. But I think there's little chance of that getting traction. (I also missed the RfC on this on E2 so don't know what those arguments threw up). That's my 2p. DeCausa (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Strong great-lady-goddess-eris no. The infobox is cruft-filled and over-long as it is. Very last thing is we need of a laundry list of fifteen (use the word, dangit, not the bare digits!) items to have it scroll beneath the fold... beneath the fold, beneath the fold. "An infobox is a panel, usually in the top right of an article, next to the lead section [...], that summarizeskey features of the page's subject." (my emph). If only. I think a footnote would technically fly by the MOS, but it'd be essentially the same footnote as we already have for the lead section (yes, that can of worms again). The key problem is that we're trying to hint at this at the top of the IB, but can't bring ourselves to actually just say it straight. His primary notability is he's King of the [[Commonwealth realms]]. Say that at the head of the infobox, and not "Head of the Commonwealth". That latter is a tertiary side-gig, and not officially part of his main role: get rid of it. Or "Monarch of", or "Head of state of", Have a footnote as well the link to the CRs article if you want to belt-and-braces it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Correct, but not really a relevant objection. It's a perfectly accurate description that he is "king" (note sentence case) of each of the "Commonwealth realms". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
On the contrary, an entirely accurate and "acceptable" description. Even the official site uses extremely similar wording, as has already been pointed out. I'll be happy to clarify any of the above on specific request. If you really need an executive summary, the most important single take-away is: no to a list of fifteen countries in the infobox. HTH. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
The RFC question isn't about changing "King of the United Kingdom" in the infobox. It's about how to show the 14 other Commonwealth realms in the infobox (with a footnote, without a footnote, or drop down form). Again, I don't know what you're arguing for. But as for "King of the Commonwealth realms" bit (which isn't what being asked in this RFC)? you & I are in disagreement. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm fully aware of what it's about. I addressed that very specifically in my original comment, and again for your benefit immediately above. I made an additional observation about a clearly related manner. Related exactly because descriptions like "Sovereign of 14 Commonwealth realms in addition to the UK" (to quote the official site), or more concisely "king of 15 Commonwealth realms" (per my suggestion) are a another way of communicating the same information. "We're in disagreement" doesn't seem at all helpful. In fact, we seem to agree that a) it's a description, b) that it's accurate, and c) that you don't like it for some unspecified reason. De gustibus, etc. I'll be happy to help you with any other particular point, but if this is just going to continue on the basis of "still don't like it" indefinitely, some refactoring seems likely to be needed. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
There's no such title as "king of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms', either. So, "there's no such title" is a red herring. "King of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" is a description. So is "king of the Commonwealth Realms", which, as you know, I've proven has been used, numerous times, outside of Wikipedia. --₪MIESIANIACAL21:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Correct. However, when you try to reuse the same false claim you've used dozens of times before, I'm compelled to post the same correction. --₪MIESIANIACAL21:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
You're not going to drag me into repeating circular arguments with you. We've been over this topic, multiple times over multiple years. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Support listing all fifteen realms in a footnote. Oppose listing them all directly in the infobox, and strongly oppose listing only the largest of the realms, primarily because of the difficulty of drawing a line that is compatible with NPOV and WP:WORLDVIEW. Agreed that the UK warrants being singled out, for historical reasons as well as DeCausa's point about being the only realm in which Charles doesn't delegate to a Governor General. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't agree that having some of the realms is contrary to WORLDVIEW (cf. UK only?) and especially not NPOV. DUE is part of NPOV and per MOS:LEADREL "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." Leaving out Tuvalu but including Canada is entirely justified by that and to have them all is the NPOV issue. DeCausa (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Sure, DUE allows us to omit things of lesser importance. My point is about the difficulty of deciding where to draw the line. We'd have to determine the relative importance of the realms according to published reliable sources. It's pretty unlikely that we'd find multiple sources all using the same metric to determine that importance. And even if we somehow managed that feat, omitting some of the realms from our list would inevitably be a source of conflict and endless edit wars. Nah, if we list any realms we have to list them all. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with listing all fifteen in a footnote, which is very much different from the issue of what -- for example -- the lead sentence should say. (Though perhaps somewhat comparable to whether they should be mentioned anywhere in the intro.) It might be a bit of a laundry list -- though it might be a little more structured than that -- but that's not a deal-breaker in that context. I think that an editorial decision to highlight some of them does have WP:WORLDVIEW implications. Given that any partial list is necessarily going to be a subjective exercise, it's hard to make it beyond reproach, pure and innocent as I'm sure DeCausa's motivations actually are. How could we possibly exclude the state providing the most recent Superbowl halftime show! Or whatever other such objection one chooses to construct. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment Short answer: no. Because it's not consistent with how the infobox for his predecessor, Elizabeth II, has been set up. If you remember Elizabeth's infobox did list the countries but people believed it to be too space consuming for the infobox alone, so a separate list was created. In Charles's case neither listing them, nor creating a separate list is necessary because the number of the realms has not changed since his ascension. Keivan.fTalk15:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Support as part of a footnote, though I would strongly prefer a dropdown/collapsible list (as GoodDay suggested) over a footnote if possible. However, outside of the footnote or list, I would recommend put the UK at the top given that Great Britain is where the British Empire is headquartered. It's important to mention these, but listing them out is not going to be possible as it would severely inflate the infobox. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
My bad....Commonwealth I mean (just got out of an 19th century history class lol). Charles still does a vast majority of his living and working in the UK. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
It is, but that's the Commonwealth as a whole (the Post-Imperial Support Group, predominantly republics), as distinct from the Commonwealth realms (that Chuck is actually head of state of). The realms don't have a single headquarters as such. If the UK falls into an oceanic trench overnight without a single trace, the Monarchy of Jamaica (let's say) passes to the next available Hanovarian, and the Commonwealth have to meet and decide, "welp, where to put our offices now?", and who to appoint as a new head. The latter not being hereditary -- supposedly. On the "collapsing infobox" idea, I'd support that iff it meant that the default size of the whole thing was... actual infobox-sized. That we keep the current eternal-scrolling right-sidebar of shame and add even more stuff to it gives me the horrors. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Not for succession-law purposes I'm not. Hanoverian, Saxe-Cobur-Gothic and Windsoresque are equivalent for that (and largely for most other "dynastic" purposes, beyond the self-serving self-id of the "House"), whereas No Stuarts or Tudors Need Apply. 109.255.211.6 (talk)
I agree that the default position should be a collapsed box, but the ability to expand it to show all 15 countries is essential Timothy N-F (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Why essential? Collapsed box: looks terrible, needs a click to be visible, is more infoboxbloat. Footnote: looks less terrible, needs a click to be visible, is formally distinct from the infobox. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Support as part of a footnote. I would say to follow the example of a list link as done at Elizabeth II, but that link is to a wiki article showing the variation over the 70 years of her reign. Here, a simpler footnote seems more appropriate. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Support - as a dropdown/collapsible list like how Elizabeth II had in this revision. If not, I also would support it in a footnote. I've added a mock up of what it would look like in the article; if it makes this section too cluttered, feel free to remove it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
My qualms about cramming ever more bloat into the IB aside, that looks surprisingly unaesthetic. I think the trouble is that it's a long two-line caption -- because of the awkward wording -- combined with that markup flipping the justification from centre- to left-. Having said that, the footnote version is more visually intrusive than I'd have liked too... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the title is off-centre, but I don't think that's too much of a price to pay for the extra information it provides. I tried playing about with centring the title, but obviously it can only centre the bottom line, and that looked worse. Best leave it as is; it was the norm on Elizabeth's page for years. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
(ec, restoring lost comment)A (much) shorter caption would help the visuals, but then we're having that argument all over again. Unless you can split the [show]off from it entirely, or it into two parts... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
The drop down version looks good when using computers, but it makes the whole thing bloated when you view the page on your mobile, which is why it ended up being removed from his mother's article as well. Keivan.fTalk05:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Disagree that the browser version looks good (FHD 14" screen here), but to be fair GoodDay's tweaks did slightly improve it from time of my comment above. But if the only options that are "!"electorally viable within the system are a) a footnote, b) the dropdown, or c) neither (just the current caption text and links), I'd favour the first of the three. Makes sense to have a common footnote between the IB and the lede, and looks slightly better too. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
The version presented in this preview down the bottom of the page is in my view the only acceptable option. Anything which doesn’t set out each of the 15 realms individually in the infobox suggests false priority to the crown of the UK over the other crowns. Each are held separately, and losing them all individually in the infobox as suggested here makes the article most accurate. This infobox layout should also be reinstated for Elizabeth II’s page, although that isn’t a discussion for here. I’m not totally sure the dates for each reign are necessary, but I don’t object to them either Timothy N-F (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
The reign dates are probably in there for "consistency" with the very few comparable other such articles, and future-proofing for when they successively republicanise. I'd omit as intrusively redundant. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Aside from your implying that it is inevitable that all of the Commonwealth Realms will eventually fall to the folly of republicanism, far from a forgone conclusion, I agree. I'm not really opposed to dates being included or omitted, but short of another realm deciding to abandon the Crown within his reign, I don't think they're really necessary Timothy N-F (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
For reference I browse Wikipedia almost exclusively on my mobile, and it is not in fact cumbersome, particularly if it’s collapsible Timothy N-F (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Browsing on mobile might have the side-effect of leading to you not notice how wildly oversized it is in its browser-layout form. And maybe even makes more sense in that presentation: "I didn't get the essential info from the lead I was supposed to, but here comes the oversized infobox that has all the info that section omitted." But still very much at variance with the style guide, and how the hierarchy of information and structure is supposed to work. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Although I almost exclusively browse on the mobile, I have done so on the computer too and I must disagree in the strongest possible terms. Although a large infobox, it is not oversized or out of place (particularly since it's collapsible). Further, the infobox is the most logical place for this information. His Majesty is rather unusual amongst subjects of Wikipedia articles in that he holds not 1, but 15 distinct and equally noteworthy roles. He is no more (or more importantly) the King of the United Kingdom than he is the King of Australia or Grenada, he is king of each equally and quite independently. Listing his position in the infobox as King of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth Realms implies that his substantive position is "King of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms", which although technically true on some level, is really only one fifteenth of the whole truth since this is only his title in the UK. Worse still this can erroneously imply that somehow he's king of the other Commonwealth Realms because he's King of the United Kingdom, or that these realms are somehow subservient to the UK, none of which is true, he holds all 15 offices entirely independently from each other. I'm not opposed to the information being made more clearer in the opening paragraph, but it simply must be displayed in the infobox Timothy N-F (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
The RFC is about restoring DrKay's footnote in the infobox or not. It's not about changing "King of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", to something else. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I know, my point is that because of the way that title is used, clarity is lost if the collapsible list of all his crowns is not included Timothy N-F (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I think the information is as clear as it gets whilst also being concise and to the point. I would concede to a footnote for “Commonwealth realms” in the infobox, but the mobile version doesn’t have a collapsible function, and it looks frankly awful. The title itself becomes disjointed and off-center, and makes the infobox longer than it needs to be. I disagree that clarity is lost; a simply footnote would do just fine IMO. AKTC3 (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Candidly I think the "longer than it needs to be" (or indeed reasonably ever should be) ship sailed a loooong time ago. But as you see, there's quite a bit of pushback on even the most modest of efforts to trim it back a little. I wasn't aware that the mobile version didn't render the "collapsible" function at all; that's rather unfortunate, as I was rather hoping it might be a feasible compromise to shove some of the existing material under such a thing. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
But it currently isn't all that clear, and that is precisely the problem. The current infobox provides undue weighting to 1 of his 15 realms, as though that realm is more important than the others, or worse still that his other realms are somehow subordinate to the UK. Neither of these conotations are reflective of fact. Accuracy has been obliterated in favour of brevity, which benefits no one, particularly in an encyclopedia. It would be good if the list was collapsible on mobile, but even if that isn't possible, it needs to be reinstated. Anything else is unacceptably detrimental to the quality of the article. Timothy N-F (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
It needs to be because it must be. I think you're just argument-by-assertioning around in circles at this point. No, there's no implication of "subordination". The UK is the "more important" in the context of this topic, not in terms of its objective standing in general. The IB+footnote accurately reflect the facts; the IB isn't the place for lengthy attempts to bombproof the facts against their possible alleged connotations. Now, the lead section is, and IMO we need more on that there. Per the MOS, that is the place to do it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Except Timothy didn't argue the tautological "it needs to be because it must be". He argued "it needs to be because puts forth information more accurately".
"King of the Commonwealth realms" is not a "lengthy attempt to bombproof the facts". It's a succint statement of the facts minus the pro-UK bias. One can claim "King of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" puts the UK in a special place because it occupies a special place in the context of this topic. But, it does not read that way; it never has. It wouldn't be so ceaselessly contested if it did. --₪MIESIANIACAL00:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
OK, if I were to more charitably praise Timothy's comment with faint damns, it's not as merely reduplicatively reasserting the same thing as the below. Stipulated. But following up "only acceptable option" with a boldface "needs to" is teetering in the same direction. But to return to the material topic: I think there's some crossed wires here. I'm entirely in favour of "King of the Commonwealth realms". I'm against a fully enumerated list of 15 monarchies in the infobox. If it's at best marginal for inclusion in the lead section, which is intended to much less highly selective, and indeed the current consensus seems to be not to do so, it's clearly excessive in the IB. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
"King of the Commonwealth realms" is unacceptable, in either the infobox or page intro. To the matter of the infobox (which is what this RFC is about), the version -"King of the United Kingdom an other Commonwealth realms"-, with DrKay's footnote, is best. Why the footnote for the other 14 realms, rather then the drop down version? Because mobile editors have problems with the 'drop down version. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
As far as I can make out, each of the "Commonwealth Realms" has a Royal Style and Titles Act which has wording similar to "Charles the Third, by the Grace of God, King of <<country name>> and of His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth" (The Antigua and Barbuda version, just the the first one on the list). Some with the addition of "Defender of the faith" etc. None of them include the term "Commonwealth Realm".
On this basis I'd like to suggest that the info box says "King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Realms" The United Kingdom as the initial & anchor realm. Territories is interesting, I wonder if it refers to the Channel Islands which are constitutionally not part of the United Kingdom, but a remnant of the Duchy of Normandy ... but let's not go there. Kiore (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is he the third (III)?
Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments8 people in discussion
Not an expert, but I understood that he should be referred to as King Charles, since he may be the third of England, but he is not the third of Scotland. (I don't know about other parts of the UK). Buyani Nyoni (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
See MacCormick v Lord Advocate, a court ruling that states that the numbering of monarchs is a royal prerogative. Therefore (and analogous to Charles's situation), Elizabeth Ii was always the second in Scotland, even though Scotland never had an Elizabeth I. Aoi (青い) (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Going back to my source, she says that I had remembered her statement about King Charles wrongly, and that it is wrong for the reason pointed out, namey that he is indeed the third of Scotland too. It was in fact the debate and court case to which you refer @Aoi about the numbering of his mother, Queen Elizabeth, to which she had referred. My mistake. An interesting discussion (my first on Wikipedia) has ensued however - many thanks all. Buyani Nyoni (talk) 07:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
That's interesting... it suggests that if there's ever another James, he'd be James VIII rather than James III. — Amakuru (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Only if that actually happens (and that's likely a reason why it won't), Churchill's rationalisation is correct, and is adhered to by this hypothetical future monarch. The actual ruling seems to be that legally, they could pick any number they wish (Futurama skits spring to mind). In Charles's case, there was significant speculation he might choose a different regnal name entirely, so as to avoid picking at the scab of "Charles Edward Stuart (1720–1788), Stuart pretender who styled himself Charles III", as our dab page puts it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Since someone has now mentioned Commonwealth Realms, it's worth noting that Charles is definitely not the third King Charles for most (all?) of them, but nobody seems terribly fussed about this. HiLo48 (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
All of them I think, give or take bits and bobs of what was later to become Canada (and large chunks of what's now a certain large non-Commonwealth republic). It's an awkward fudge to be sure, but short of abandoning the whole conceit and numbering each separately -- or who knows, getting their own heads of states like grown-up countries -- it's inevitable. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
House of Windsor
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Has Charles made any proclamation yet that he's a member of the House of Windsor, or is he relying on the Queen's previous proclamation that the house name would be unchanged, despite Charles's father not being a member of it? And on a related note, since, in future, female heirs have an equal chance of becoming monarch, either the house name will frequently change, or they'll all be Windsors, forever. TharkunColl (talk) 08:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
According to this page on the Royal Family's website, which predates the accession, the late Queen's decisions will stand unless the current King issues new ones: "Unless The Prince of Wales chooses to alter the present decisions when he becomes king, he will continue to be of the House of Windsor and his grandchildren will use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor." So there may never be anything issued explicitly saying "yes, still the House of Windsor". And I suspect that the intention is for it to remain Windsor forever. Proteus(Talk)10:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
This succession is in effect the case the previous two (IIRC) proclamations were intended to cover. For Chuck to make one saying "yeah, what Liz said" would be extremely redundant, unless he has some nuance of this own (regarding surnames or the like) to add. As the next two heirs are the "normal" male-line case, when traditionally the House name doesn't change anyway, not much point in re-stating that, either. Maybe if the UK becomes a republic while they're still clinging on in Saint Kitts and Nevis a further change would seem politic, but other than that... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Peer review request request: depending on the kindness of strangers.
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I'd appreciate it if someone might complete this WP:PR request, which can on;y be done by an autoconfirmed user. Rationale for the request is simple: we're between two massive readership peaks for this article, and really it's in no fit state. Be good if it could be got to GA-adjacent before he gets crowned. You can create the requisite page here. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks to Tim for doing this. Obviously if people interested in the article have any thoughts on that... Ideally, thoughts that aren't just 'maintain' it B-grade forever, but de gustibus. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
New infobox image
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
hey guys, so I uploaded a number 10 picture from Flickr with him as king and was wondering if you guys would mind if I changed it, it would be great to update the article. If this does happen I will move the current ib image to a section.
Hi Youraverageeditor123, thanks for uploading the image. Unfortunately, according to the Flickr page where the image is from, the photo is licensed under an incompatible Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-ND). Second, (image licensing aside) while the image is more recent than the current infobox image, the quality of the photo isn't great, so I don't think it's a good candidate for the lead image of this article. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Currently: "He was the longest-serving heir apparent and Prince of Wales, and at the age of 73, became the oldest person to accede to the British throne, upon the death of his mother, Elizabeth II, on 8 September 2022." This reads somewhat awkwardly, and could be read to mean that he is the oldest to accede to the throne on the death of his mother. Better: "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 at the age of 73, the oldest person to accede to the British throne." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.4.229.20 (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
If we're going to have to throw more process at the problem, then I certainly also support this change. Frankly it's not really up for debate, as it's objectively true and robustly sourced that there has been this change to the RCoA, picayune though it be. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
The King's royal coat of arms
You see, what I was requesting before about changing Charles III's coat of arms was based on fact. You see, I saw on Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom was that, the 1952 version of the coat of arms was changed to the 1837 version. Because, it said that the 1837 version was reinstated upon Charles' accession in 2022. So now, the 1837 version is now the present coat of arms today. RicLightning (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Correct but unclear! But yes, it should indeed be updated to the newest version as given on the RCoA page. (I've taken the liberty of merging these talk-page sections and toggling the edit-request, hope that's OK.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
We're entirely at the mercy of those with autoconfirmed accounts on that, and they seem to be disinclined to bother . You could reactive your request and see if they're still holding out for Yet More Process. Or you could wait out the clock until you're able to make it yourself. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
There has been no announcement that there will be a reversion to the 1837 coat of arms. It has been announced that the depiction of the Crown (outside of Scotland) is changing from St Edward's Crown to the Tudor Crown, however images released so far have continued to use the 1952 harp. For example, see here. Unless there are further announcements then the escutcheon will stay the same as the current (1952-) version. As the arms used in Scotland already used the Crown of Scotland there will be no changes to the Scottish version of the arms. Ebonelm (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Aaaaah, while I was looking at the source that was (and still is) in that article, there might be a whiff of the {{verification failed}} in it. It states "It is envisaged that the form of the Crown seen in the new cypher will be adopted as the form used in representations of the Royal Arms and in Military and Crown Badges in the new reign", which seems to be not quite correctly reflected in our article's characterisation that it "will now be used". (My emph in both.) So maybe we have to wait on a firmer pronouncement or indeed an actual use of that to avoid being slightly WP:CRYSTALBALL here. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
The change in the harp didn't happen in 1952. See e.g. British coins: 1926 (female figure); 1930 {female figure removed); absence continued under George VI, 1937, 1948. DrKay (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
As I pointed out in edit summaries (of edits since undone)[4][5], the Royal Standard as flown at Elizabeth II's funeral and displayed on her coffin obviously showed a female figure on the harp, which is easily demonstrated by simple web searches for images of the royal standard. There was no sudden change in the arms: 2013 (female figure). DrKay (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it seems to be more like "from 1954" and "haphazardly". Or on some opaque basis, if not actually random or whimsical. So we'd likely need something more substantial even than a single "new CoA" (or Standard) sighting, never mind just an "it is envisaged". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
It seems it was more of a stylistic choice whether to include the female figure or not than a specific set-in-stone requirement. The 1920s was the age of art deco and the less elaborate Gaelic harp fitted better with the style ethos of the time. Valethske (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
King Charles New Coat of Arms Confirmed in his Official Coronation Invitation (Should be Updated on his Wiki page)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
King Charles' updated RCoA has also been confirmed through the coronation invitation's released this week, which show the Tudor crown, which is also adopted in his wife's impaled arms. This should be also be reflected in his wiki page. It appears that his wife's arms have been updated on her page. Source Link here: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65175984Johnnorris10217 (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Option A
Option B.jpg)
Not done - your proposed wording seems even clunkier, in my view. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
.svg)
.svg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
The redirect Charles, Prince of Wales has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 14 § Charles, Prince of Wales until a consensus is reached. Векочел (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)