Talk:Charles III/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Camilla Parker Bowles

It has been stated elsewhere that the maiden name or highest title of one's own right should be used in info boxes but Camilla is referenced as the King's wife by her name when with her first husband.

Should it not be Camilla Shand? Or is their precedence for choosing the name previous to marriage? 173.212.65.254 (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we are rigid on that score (see Aristotle Onassis, his wife is deemed Kennedy, not Bouvier) but in any event I think this is someplace we would if necessary express common sense about and describe her as she has been most familiar to the public, that is, Parker Bowles. Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Common sense, common names, and common law are -- for once! -- all in agreement on this. It was the name she was heavily predominantly known by at the time of her marriage, therefore it was her name at the time, and it's the name we should use. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles III

He became Prince of Wales in 1968 not 1958 2601:486:100:3640:809C:79E6:A69:BB3E (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

You are, I think, confusing his creation as Prince of Wales by the late queen with his investiture, which was in 1969. Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2022

Add "Not to be confused with the earlier pretender Charles Edward Stuart, also going by the regnal name Charles III" 65.102.176.191 (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

As a hatnote? In the text? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Highly unlikely confusion that does not supersede other Charles III monarchs, all of which are listed at Charles III (disambiguation) (linked at the top of the page). U-Mos (talk) 05:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2022 (2)

Change "The foundation is known for refurbishing historic buildings in Kabul, Afghanistan and in Kingston, Jamaica." to "The foundation is known for refurbishing historic buildings in Kabul, Afghanistan and Kingston, Jamaica." The "in" in "Afghanistan and in Kingston, Jamaica." is redundant. Stannya (talk) 09:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. Critical Hippo (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Critical Hippo (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2022 (3)

Please change this sentence in the lead, "Charles was born in Buckingham Palace, the first child of his mother and Philip, Duke of Edinburgh; he was the first grandchild of King George VI and his consort, Queen Elizabeth." to, "Charles was born in Buckingham Palace, the first child of his mother and Philip, Duke of Edinburgh; he is the first grandchild of King George VI and his consort, Queen Elizabeth." It should be in the present tense. 202.140.62.212 (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with the past tense? At his birth, he was the first grandchild. The sentence talks about the past.==Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it would certainly be typically to use the present tense if Philip, Duke of Edinburgh was still alive, however, as he is not the past tense is entirely appropriate. Critical Hippo (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This request is respectfully denied for the reasons listed above. Critical Hippo (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done. MOS:PRESENT applies here - "By default, write articles in the present tense" and "Generally, use past tense only for [...] subjects that are dead". Clearly Charles is not dead, so it should be present as per the OP's request. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. Critical Hippo (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Titles and styles

The purpose of the titles and styles section is to list the sequence of titles and styles under which HM was known at each period, not to list all titles and styles with their complete holding period.

The period for the second bullet point should thus end in 1958, when the title of Prince of Wales took precedence over the title of Duke of Cornwall.

I propose to change the last three bullet points to this:

• 6 February 1952 – 26 July 1958: His Royal Highness The Duke of Cornwall
  • in Scotland: His Royal Highness The Duke of Rothesay
• 26 July 1958 – 8 September 2022: His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales
  • in Scotland: His Royal Highness The Duke of Rothesay
• 8 September 2022 – present: His Majesty The King

Concisepleonasm (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The titles Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay ran concurrently with that of Prince of Wales and all ended on his succession. Reverting to how it was should be done as he used the various titles depending on where he was in the country. Otherwise, there is just unnecessary repetition. GandalfXLD (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose See above reasoning. EmilySarah99 (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Given two opposing voices and no support, I reverted. Thank you for the feedback. Concisepleonasm (talk) 08:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Andrew

No mention of his pretty famous brother anywhere in the page. Even the Alec Baldwin’s page mentions all of his (much less relevant and much less controversial) brothers. Is this really the “free encyclopedia”? Does “free” only mean that people don’t need to pay to read it, or is it also free from the interference of politics and power? Cicalinarrot (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

His brother Nicholas is mentioned in the page, albeit briefly. Which brother are you talking about? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Prince Andrew's controversies belong to – and are already well covered in – his own article. They are not relevant to Charles' article just because they are brothers.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  19:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

That’s not what I said. I said they are brothers and siblings are almost always at least mentioned in the biography, and they surely are if they’re famous. I found this out because it wasn’t clear to me and I want this information to be on the page. It’s supposed to be there, no doubt about it. The controversy, of course, belongs to Andrew’s page, but they’re still brothers. Cicalinarrot (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think I agree; normally there's a brief "personal life" section, and (in)famous sibs are mentioned and linked there, and even obscure ones will often at least be enumerated. This article has huge chunks on his personal life -- it's practically all "personal life", frankly, given that the royals are the world's biggest soap opera, and he's never had a real jobs or accomplishment in his life -- but this has fallen between those various stools. I'd like to suggest that the "Early life, family and education" section, mentioning as it already does his sis, at least passingly refers to Andy and Ned. As for the controversial angle, there may be a case to mention his reported role in "forcing out" his brother from his various official roles, and to settle the legal case against him, but I don't know if that'd be Due Weight or not. (For example, the Guardian: "After an intervention by his mother, the Queen, and his older brother, Prince Charles, Andrew last week announced he would “step back from public duties for the foreseeable future”.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes. If two first-degree relatives are each notable, their respective articles should mention each other. This is true even if the notability is for different reasons, such as the commander of Operation Entebbe and the former Prime Minister of Israel. Animal lover |666| 07:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles has three living siblings, not one. Dimadick (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Some infoboxes have a "relatives" entry but the Royalty infobox doesn't (guess because they usually have a few dozens relevant relatives). It's also already a pretty crowded infobox so I wouldn't touch that even if it was possible.

I agree any sort of mention in the early life section would be enough. Otherwise, "he has three siblings, ...".

Andrew's page mentions Charles quickly (to me, "brother to the King of England" doesn't seem like information you would avoid saying explicitly, but at least the information is there, even if in an indirect way). Cicalinarrot (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The Queen's article mentions her sister a dozen times, in a range of contexts. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Among other reasons, that is because a) they were the only siblings, b) much closer in age, c) Queen Elizabeth's accession at a young age placed her in a position of having to approve her sister's marriage, d) Charles had not been in the same position regarding Andrew, and e) Margaret's death was worthy of mention in Elizabeth's article as one of a series of unfortunate events that happened around that time. Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Few times or once would still be ok, not even once is definitely weird. There’s a considerable age gap and for what I seem to get, Andrew has never been a prominent element and the rest of the family has obviously distanced themselves from him (which, as Charle’s decision, may also be featured in here) so there’s probably no reason for a dozen mentions. Not once is not ok though. Cicalinarrot (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd say the difference lies in wether the sibling is relevant to the topic or impacted the persons personal life in any way. The late Queen and Princess Margaret's relatiionship was a topic of interest. I'm interested in waiting to see if the King adresses anything regarded Andrew. Charles and Camilla don't have the greatest approval rating but dealing with the royal nonce (accused) would certianly be noteworthy and boost the couple's image. EmilySarah99 (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It's a bit odd Early Life doesn't mention all his siblings. It's not like there's ten of them. Immediate relatives are important: at least worth a few lines. TheSavageNorwegian 14:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Added mention in early life section. Natg 19 (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Great, seems good, thanks.

...now, I was really surprised when I couldn't find the information so I started suspecting it was removed after Andrew's controversy but, crawling the page's history, there seem to be no mention of Andrew ever.

So maybe I was just paranoid. Or maybe I wasn't paranoid enough and someone has the power to even edit the page's history. Ok, it's probably too much but I'll still keep an eye on the page. Regards 93.43.142.2 (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Someone does have that power -- stewards, IIRC (or obviously by DB coup de main) -- but I suspect this is a good case to apply the rubric of "never ascribe to malice that which can be satisfactorily explained by a document having been written by a committee of squabbling rats in a sack". However good-intentioned and individually sagacious said figurative "rats" may be. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The opening/lead

When she was alive, we used "Queen of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms". For Charles, we should use "King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms". This is per WP:WEIGHT, WP:COMMONNAME & whatever else you got. We don't need to go through all this -list all the realms- arguments again. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear that all the commonwealth realms allow for a King; some are very specific in that the Queen is their constitutional monarch. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Perth Agreement and previous constitutional convention makes it pretty clear, I'm not sure which country's constitution requires the monarch to be a queen. —WildComet ^talk 20:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Jamaica likely requires amendment. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Probably not, but the queen's death may hasten their desire to become a republic. BilCat (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

For the moment they're still realms. They didn't become republics upon Charles III's accession. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that. Jamaica has been slowly working it's way toward republichood for over 10 years, and more so since Barbados became a republic last year. This may hasten the process. BilCat (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I know. By the time William becomes king, there'll likely be only four realms left. That's not a knock against Charles, but rather a nod to the mid-to-late 21st century. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Even so, they belong to the commonwealth now. Let's not make changes based on something that may or may not happen in the futre. EmilySarah99 (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The Commonwealth is much more inclusive than the Commonwealth realms -- for example the aforementioned remains a member of the former, despite no longer being one of the latter. But I very much agree, as far as I can see this doesn't at all relate to any even proposed edit. We can worry about the tweak style concerns implied by a shorter lists as and when it happens. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, @Red-tailed hawk cited an order-in-council, not the constitution of Jamaica itself as currently in force. Either way, it would be a matter of Jamaican law to determine whether a textual reference to a specific or generic queen or king could be treated as a generic reference to the present sovereign—and then a separate matter whether the text is self-amending by implication, or if there needs to be a formal process. Is this seriously at issue in that jurisdiction, and what do the relevant authorities say? TheFeds 21:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The document you're linking to is a high-level summary of their constitution, not the constitution itself. Did you mean to link a different pdf? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The full Jamaican constitution itself does seem to have a half-dozen references to "the Queen", and dozens to "Her Majesty". I don't know if there's an official, definitive, consolidated version anywhere, and I certainly don't amendment is automatic, or needs to be put to a vote. Certainly there seems to be no suggestion that "oops, we became a republic or fell into a lawless void by accident". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Both the Interpretation Act (UK) 1889, sec. 30 and the Interpretation Act (Jamaica) 1968 sec. 3 say that any reference in legislation to the sovereign for the time being includes their heirs and successors, whatever their respective genders. The 1889 UK act would have governed how the Jamaica Independence Act (UK) 1962 was read, although it may have been superceeded by the 1968 Jamaican act. TFD (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I highly doubt Charles III is being called Queen, in Jamaica. GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

He's being referred to as King, specifically King Charles, here in New Zealand, despite the Royal Titles Act 1974 stating "The royal style and titles of Her Majesty, for use in relation to New Zealand and all other territories for whose foreign relations Her Government in New Zealand is responsible, shall be—

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith—

instead of the style and titles at present appertaining to the Crown."

I'm going to guess that in the fullness of time there will be a replacement law. You're welcome to guess when that might be in those Commonwealth Realms with similar laws, I choose not to. Meanwhile let's just call him King of his 15 Realms Kiore (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The current lead is fine & accurate. GoodDay (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Presumably an amending Act would just get nodded through the NZ House of Commons on a few slow days, as and when it's deemed necessary. In the case of Jamaica, it apparently would require a constitutional amendment, which is remarkably hard to do in a low-profile manner. So presumably it either gets 'bundled' with some other proposed amendment to the text, or else it languishes there indefinitely, somewhat hilariously misgendering the next three generations of a notoriously long-lived family. Assuming they're all spared. (Including from the Republic of Jamaica.) But unless and until this receives significant coverage in reliable sources sufficient that mentioning it would be due weight, especially in an already long article, this is very much a moot point. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

See this tweet. [1]--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"Queen of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms" was never the common name for the Queen. TFD (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

TFD: It was the consensus reached for her intro, when she was alive. GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment - the footnote fails to mention he is also monarch of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, Bailiwick of Jersey and the Isle of Man, as was his mother before him. Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Those are British dependencies (as are the Overseas Territories), rather than Commonwealth realms/entities. So more accurately, the footnote correctly omits would would be a misleading tangent in this context. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

"King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms" is fine. Leave it alone. GoodDay (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• The Statute of Westminster provides that the same human being is monarch of all the Commonwealth realms. There is no way that the death of a monarch could result in more than one person becoming monarch, or in fewer than 100% of the realms having a monarch at all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Nobody's claiming that someone other then Charles III is King of the UK & the 14 other Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  The Statute of Westminster -- or at least the 1931 one, you've linked to a dab page is only law in three of the realms (by my count), and was never law in most of them. So that's quite a bit less than 100% of fifteen. And in Jamaica (for example), even if it were, it would be void if found to be incompatible with the constitution -- the one that mentions "the Queen" several times and "Her Majesty" several dozen. Even where it does remain in effect, it's in no way any sort of Imperial Act of Settlement: rather, it's three now-effectively pieces of legislation, whose (legally inoperative) preamble has wording that "it would be in accord with the established constitutional position" for the parties to agree on any changes to their respective laws. Bear in mind all the then-domination had to pass separate acts to provide for the removal of Ed-8, which wouldn't be the case if it were as straightforward as suggested above, which several of them, notably Ireland, kicked up a fair bit of fuss about the specifics of.

  So that the same person is fifteen different monarchs depends on fifteen separate laws, which just happen to agree on the procedure. Or are deemed to agree, even if they textually appear to suggest otherwise. And they're certainly all deeming that at present, according to every available reliable source. And almost all the unreliable ones! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Per the Perth agreement, only the UK, Australia and NZ have succession laws. In all the other realms, the sovereign is whoever happens to be sovereign of the UK. TFD (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  They necessarily have succession law -- just not post-independence statutes. Presumably -- free non-legal opinion warning! -- all pre-independence common and statue law scopes to included them applies, unless rendered void by their local constitution, primary law, or local legal precedent. So that'd generally have the effect you describe -- it duplicates UK domestic law. The change to primogeniture complicates that, it seems that some deemed it necessary to pass amending legislation, and others didn't, already having "ditto" provisions somewhere. For example, there was a Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 passed in Barbados... now rendered very moot. The Perth Agreement was just that, not a treaty, so wouldn't itself have had legal force. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

...the best place to find this out is in the accession proclamation; it includes the correct full title. Ajpajpajp1 (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

'Step Issues'?

This might be a new precedent that the Monarch married someone who was previously married and has children from that previous marriage. I have no idea about the term for a King, but Charles as a person does have step-children, namely Mr. Tom Parker Bowles and Mrs. Laura Lopes. Should they not be included in the King's article as it usually would for any other person? Jusfiq (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit dubious since they were adults by the time of the marriage. Had Charles and Camilla married whilst the children were minors, it might be worth including. Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure there is any legal link between them though. Their biological and legal father is still alive and as far as I'm aware Charles has not adopted them in any way and they were indeed legal adults already at the time of the marriage.Tvx1 15:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

If there is no evidence of custody for the children, they are no legal ties. So, in my view there is little value mentioning them Critical Hippo (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

They're adults so I don't understand why custody would be considered. Charles and Camilla only married in 2005, so it's not like he had any impact on their upbringing or personal lives (to the public's knowledge. EmilySarah99 (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Archived Requested Move (8 September)

Apologies if anything important was removed. I have tried to parse through the comments here and archive anything non-important or finished to try and limit the size of this talk page, which has been growing considerably. Noah^Talk 13:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I archived the closed page move just for the sake of navigation on this page. If you need to see the discussion or the result, check either Talk:Charles_III/Archive 6 or the permalink in the template at the top of the page. Noah^Talk 00:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Relevance of Alba Party's Republicanism?

At the very end of the overview, it reads, "The commencement of his reign was met with calls for a republic from minority parties in Scotland..."

The minority party in Scotland in question is Alba, which has no MSPs, 2 MPs (neither elected as Alba MPs) and no councillors. They are so niche, I don't really think they are worth mentioning in the overview. EcheveriaJ (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Concur. Republican groups in England are more notable for example! 2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:E960:A530:34DA:C224 (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the whole sentence is undue and have removed it from the article. QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Alba are fairly high-profile (for reasons we needn't dwell on here), they're just rather spectacularly electorally unsuccessful. So it's not impossible such "calls" are worth a mention, if they're robustly secondarily sourced. Leaving the Alba angle aside for the moment, a recent time article ("What King Charles III Means for Scotland’s Future in the U.K.") has this: "In a 2020 poll, 70% of Scots aged 16 to 34 supported breaking away from the United Kingdom. And a separate poll by the think tank British Future in May found that more than a third of Scots overall said the end of Queen Elizabeth II’s reign would be the right time to abolish the monarchy and become a republic, higher than the quarter of Brits overall who said the same." 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

i think thats fine. theres no harm in this. BUT ADD A REFERENCE! 180.95.31.141 (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

References to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon should be amended from 'Queen Elizabeth' to 'Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother'

To avoid confusion between Queen Elizabeth II and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, references to Queen Elizabeth (insofar as they are references to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon) should be amended to Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.

Please tell me what you think? Critical Hippo (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Queen Mother would refer to the mother of the soverign. Meaning Elizabeth II would be the queen mother, but a Queen Mother is usually the widow of a king, which Elizabeth was not. I am also unsure of the use of the term posthumously. Upon the death of Her Majesty this is even more confusing. I would wait to see what other media refers to these women as, and follow their example. Let me know what you think. EmilySarah99 (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

That's really a debate for a different venue, as at present the ship's sailed off to Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. As far as this article's concerned, it depends on the context. For example, "King George VI and his consort, Queen Elizabeth": I think that's already pretty clear, but you could copper-bottom it with "the former Liz B-L" or "the then QE". Changing it to " King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother" would be... strange. So I'm afraid we're likely to have to deal with them case-by-case. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

NO. Queen Elizabeth II is Queen Elizabeth II. you see? II.

so 'Queen Elizabeth' will refer to Eliza Bowes-Lyon, and 'Queen Elizabeth II' refer to our former queen. 180.95.31.141 (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It thought Queen Elizabeth referred to the earlier queen who reigned over England… Tvx1 11:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

...I believe the concept of the Queen Mother (when applied to a female consort) only applies after the Soverign that the consort is married to passes, and only applies to the end of the consort's life. Ajpajpajp1 (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Were Mary, Alexandra and Adelaide, the other consorts in the past two centuries who outlived their spouses, referred to as Queen Mother? Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Wehwalt I don't think Adelaide was. But Alexandra and Mary definitely were. EmilySarah99 (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Did any queen ever abdicate and live on as Queen Mother? Tvx1 11:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tvx1 I'm not sure, considering there haven't been many queen regnants. Within the British monarchy, no. Interesting to think about, but I don't see how it's related to the topic at hand since Elizabeth II hasn't abdicated, she had died. EmilySarah99 (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Only queen consorts become queen mothers, and queen consorts can't abdicate. I guess that if a king were to abdicate, his consort could become known as the Queen Mother if she was indeed the mother of the next monarch. This has never happened in the British monarchy.

But this is straying into WP:NOTFORUM territory; no further replies please unless they relate to changes to the Charles III article. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Royal house

While Charles III is officially of the House of Windsor, if one uses patrilineal succession (the historical method of counting royal houses), he would either be a member of the Houses of Hesse, Mountbatten, Glucksburg, or Oldenburg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.145.28 (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It was originally the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, before it was changed to the House of Windsor on 17 July 1917. Critical Hippo (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That was the Queen's ancestral House. Philip's House was Glücksburg so in the normal patrilineal way, Charles would be Glücksburg too. However, the Queen by proclamation in 1960 changed the House name of her successor so it wouldn't be Glücksburg and retained Windsor. Over the year's there's been a campaign by IP's on various articles to emphasise the Queen's descendants as Glücksburgs. Not saying that the OP is part of that though. Just mentioning it for info. DeCausa (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

You would be right normally, but in Charles' case there was a royal proclamation specifically making exception to that. "Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor" https://web.archive.org/web/20160423165659/http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#1960 WanukeX (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

That was the Queen's will though. I have no doubt that the King will follow (especially considering the roles his uncles and aunts had in WWII), but there is a possibility he may choose otherwise. EmilySarah99 (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice though, that on the one hand, "name" is different from "House", and on the other, that in practice they haven't. Rather it's been largely Mountbatten-Windsor, with side-trips to Wales. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

He could change the name of the royal house, but likely won't. Given that due to the change to the succession (effective 2015), there'll be more queen regnants in the UK's future, then there would've been under the male-preference system. GoodDay (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

In theory clearly yes, but that's presupposing there's not a British republic (or breakup, or disappearance into a climate-change-induced sinkhole, etc) by 2126 when the then George IX (having usurped that article as "primary topic because British") dies and then or sometime thereafter a female descendent inherits. That's quite an extreme case of crystal-balling, so not plausibly relevant to feasible content for the article. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

George VII surely, not the ninth? Carcharoth (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. Stoking a runaway circle of rampant Georgian inflation, or getting my Georges, Edwards and Henries the wrong away around. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually George IX would be more likely. George VII would be 113 by 2126. More plausible that his grandson reigns by then. Tvx1 11:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I know on the page for the king William-alexander of the Netherlands, it lists both his office house membership as well as his agnetically inherited house membership. I think we should we do the same for King Charles. A middle ground would be to list his house membership as the "official membership" even if we don't list his agnatic house.

Further more this doesn't equate to Charles being the member of the "same house of Windsor" as the Queen's and her parents, but rather it is entirely possible that this is a new house of Windsor which is a Cadet branch of Mountbatten family with just the same name. Hdbbfj (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hdbbfj I like that idea. EmilySarah99 (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Prince Philip renounced all of his Greek and Danish titles on February 28, 1947 before marrying Princess Elizabeth of York. The Windsors are not a cadet branch of the House of Oldenberg because Philip no longer retained any entitlement to the succession of that dynasty nor the titles associated with them. The title of Prince was bestowed upon him by George VI the day before his wedding. Neither would it be a cadet branch of Mountbatten anymore than it would the House of Edinburgh, unless Charles III should choose to vary the current arrangements. He has given no intention to this as yet.

The status of the House of Windsor is clearly described here by the official Royal Family website https://www.royal.uk/royal-family-name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.255.58.67 (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure, that's perfectly clear and 'official'. But we strongly prefer WP:RELIABLE sources. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

No, he was created Duke of Edinburgh the day before his wedding, but he did not become a Prince of the UK until c. 1958, when his wife the Queen appointed him. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I had to stare at the at our own article on Phil for a while before I quite understood it, but evidently he got a knighthood and an HRH one day, and a dukedom the next. So my fellow IP might be thinking of the HRH style, normally associated with being a prince or royal duke, but slightly confusingly done separately on that occasion. But it's not clear to me that has any significance for this article, twisty as this discussion has become. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

2nd sentence contains the word “acceded” whereas it should be ascended. Eh?!

2nd sentence contains the word “acceded” whereas it should be ascended. Eh?! 76.84.164.80 (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Acceded means to assume a position or office. Noah^Talk 18:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Whereas ascended means taking things a step further. DeCausa (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Either is correct here, which is better is arguable. "Acceded" is the narrower, royalist-wonk word, so some will feel it's more "correct", but it's also a much more obscure one, so may less helpful to general readers. "Ascended" is a perfectly feasible and idiomatic construction, but (even more) peacockish if anything. Arguably, with NPOV hat on, neither is ideal in that respect. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The correct word is 'ascended'. Oxford Languages has a special entry under 'ascend the throne'. Critical Hippo (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

As I said, "ascended" would (also) be entirely idiomatic. By no stretch of the imagination is it the correct, somehow mandatory usage. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Someone better tell the Accession Council meeting this morning to change their name then. And Buckingham Palace obviously doesn't know what it's talking about either. What was Parliament thinking when it passed the Accession Declaration Act 1910? DeCausa (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

My impression is that Charles ascended to King at the moment of his mother's death. The role of the Accession Council is for the government (parliament/privy council) to acknowledge the new monarch has acceded to the throne and declared it's loyalty to the King. A constitutional monarchy only "works" if the monarch and the parliament recognise the legitimacy of each other. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Don’t thinks so. If you look at the mainstream sources he acceded to the throne and he did so at her death. “Ascended” is just a more flowery version and isn’t much used for the British crown. DeCausa (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd say it's used quite a lot for it; just try googling it as a set phrase -- "ascended to the crown" -- and see how many pages until the first non-Commonwealth hit is. (Even granting that's hugely polluted by recency too.) I'd agree that it's generally used by it, as self-describing jargon. And it's definitely more peacockish, if much of a muchness on floweriness for me. Strongly agree this isn't a distinct event or phase -- the Accession Council is just the supposedly instantaneous speed of monarchy being reduced to the pace of cod-medieval ceremony. (It includes the death of QE2 being "announced" -- that's not exactly hot news either, in the time of Twitter.) Obviously in some bizarre hypothetical case, where the monarch refused to take the oath, or the privy council boycotted it and conspired to install someone else, there'd be a small problem, but no lack of accession as such. Also, the privy council isn't the same as either the government (i.e. the cabinet and junior ministers) or the parliament (i.e. the body of MPs, some of whom are PCs, some are ministers, some both, most neither). If either of the latter wished to contest the succession, they'd have to do it via another venue. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

But it's "ascended the throne", not "ascended to the throne". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Both "ascend the throne" and "ascend to the throne" are in general use; Merriam-Webster (American, granted) gives the "to" in brackets in its lemma and the Royal Family's own website uses "ascend to" [2] ("The Queen's grandmother, Queen Mary, aged 81 was the first Queen to see a grandchild ascend to the throne"). Al-Muqanna (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

however the person who wrote that article was probably just a writer for their blog so the person will not be perfect. maybe the person did not mean to put 'to'. therfore, without confirmation such as MORE articles containing 'to' this is invalid. atleast from what i believe 180.95.31.141 (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2022 (4)

There are navigation boxes at the bottom of the article, under External links. (when you are in edit mode search for s-reg ) Please change the list of boxes indicating which countries Charles is king of so that the countries listed are in alphabetical order as the current order makes no sense. All the countries are supposed to be equal so the UK shouldn't have precedence (and the order of the rest of the countries doesn't make sense either). 208.98.222.3 (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Critical Hippo (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. Critical Hippo (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Critical Hippo (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I think The Bahamas is usually alphabetized under B instead of T though. 208.98.222.3 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

S-reg issue

I've undone the S-reg edit on the basis that it should be in a list set out in case one of the countries ends ties. In my view it also looks neater. Critical Hippo (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2022

The infobox says his active service was 1971–1977, whereas it is stated in the main body of the page that it lasted until 1976. The infobox needs correcting to say active service 1971–1976, not 1971–1977. 213.205.196.171 (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. Critical Hippo (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Critical Hippo (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Regnal Title succession boxes

Can the succession boxes for regnal titles be put in alphabetical order? All the realms are constitutionally equal and Charles became King of all of them simultaneously. 208.98.222.68 (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2022 (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. Critical Hippo (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

...heraldic titles have precedence based on the date of the establishment of the order (oldest first.) Ajpajpajp1 (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Second Carolean Era

Should we have a page for this specifically for Charles the 3rd or shall we just redirect the Second Carolean Era to the Carolean Era, if we do create a page for him, i could turn the Carolean Era into a disambiguation page. What do other members think? D Eaketts (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest "Reign of Charles III". I doubt "Carolean" is going to be the usual term unless he puts Carolus on his coins as did the earlier Charleses, which I doubt he will.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

If 2nd Elizabethan Age never really caught on after 70 years, you'd have to have a whole WP:CRYSTAL mine to have expectations for 2nd Carolean Era. DeCausa (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

If one is especially keen on covering the possibility of someone hearing in out of context on Sky News and being confused, a redirect from Second Carolean era to Charles III#Reign should be more than sufficient. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, i will definitely redirect it then to Charles III#Reign instead. D Eaketts (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

There have been several Charles II (disambiguation), so "second Carolean" could refer to any of them. (note that this is the third Carolean on the island of Great Britain, because there were Charles I and Charles II... and they were separated by Cromwell, so not a contiguous era)... So "Second" also misleads as it leads to Charles III and not Charles II. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but (as noted in other comments), the Chuck I one is the Carolina era, Chaz 2's was simply the Carolean era, and "Second Carolean" was the term used, not "Third Carolean", or "Second (or Third) Caroline". They may be silly and even misleading, but we have to be guided by what the sources say, even if the sources are simply reporting the words of silly people setting about misleading people. Maybe the redirect should instead be a small redirect page -- though that has its own issues, like whether it satisfied WP:DABMENTION for any of its possible targets. (As the equally silly Elizabeth the Great seemingly fails to do.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The Prime Minister did refer to it as "Our new Carolean age". El Dubs (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

PMs say... all sorts of stuff. The Former Guy is still trying to astroturf "Elizabeth the Great", usurping two other more likely targets -- I wince to see we're even partially humouring such flummery. What we have to do is not to simply take such "official" pronouncements at face value, but to give due weight to what's in a balance of reliable secondary sources. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

...it would not surprise me that "Carolean" will come into use when the Royal Mint uses "Carolus" on the next minting of British coinage. Ajpajpajp1 (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

...as the Latin name is the Royal Mint standard. Ajpajpajp1 (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

...which goes back to when the Romans were minting coins in Londinium. Ajpajpajp1 (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Isn't the term usually used in regards to British history Caroline? I've only come across Carolean in English when used regards to Swedish history. 2001:8003:1C20:8C00:35CD:52E1:D698:59C0 (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I read somewhere that "Caroline" referred to Charles I and "Carolean" to Charles II. I have no idea why, or which of those would logically apply here. I don't think we should use a throwaway remark by Liz Truss as definitive evidence of anything, and also doesn't seem like we need to obsess over this, just as we didn't with the prior "Elizabethan" era.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I read it somewhere too: Carolean era. But as it's Wikipedia, who knows if it's true DeCausa (talk) 10:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Yup, and we have the Caroline era article to (try to?) prove it, too. It could as well be the Second Caroline era -- or the Chazzy era, the Chuckesque era, etc. If there's one thing the English language doesn't lack, it's redundant doublets and other synonyms. (That James Nichol quote springs to mind.) And if there one things it does lack, it's any regular organising logic. We just to see which, if any, of these stick, and give them due prominence accordingly. Including where "due weight" is "complete silence". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Consistency in reference to Charles III as Charles

Reign > Accession and coronation plans > P4 S1

 The King gave his first speech to the nation on 9 September at 6 p.m. BST, in which he mourned his late mother and proclaimed his son William the Prince of Wales.

Media Treatment > Guest appearances on television > P1 S1

 King Charles has occasionally appeared on television

Residences and finance > P1 S4

 Highgrove House in Gloucestershire is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, having been purchased for his use in 1980, and which King Charles rents for £336,000 per annum.

Suggestion: Change "The King" & "King Charles" to "Charles" to retain uniformity, consistency and relevancy. Kyran (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Mvqr (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Note

 Upon the death of his mother, Prince Charles became King Charles III and therefore inherited the royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom.

Is not within the scope of suggestion as the written titles provide context.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2022

Change "Charles is the oldest person in British history to assume the throne at the age of 63." to "Charles is the oldest person in British history to assume the throne at the age of 73." 192.157.92.83 (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The matter is under discussion just above, and you are welcome to participate. Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Fix was  Done by Apache287 at 03:59. [3] Note that this request was about the incorrect age, not the inclusion of the sentence. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 18:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Minor tweak relating to relevance

Media Image -> Charity Donations -> Para 2 -> Sent 2

The funds were said to be in the form of €500 notes, handed over in person in three tranches, in a suitcase, holdall and Fortnum & Mason carrier bags.

How is the brand of bag relevant?

Suggestion: Remove "Fortnum & Mason" Kyran (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Even with a Royal Warrant, the detail is completely arbitrary.

Larger possible edit, does it matter what the "tranches" are at all? Can we not just say "...handed over in person in three tranches."? "in a suitcase, holdall and carrier bags." is seemingly also irrelevant. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this is also irrelevant, however I do believe that there is assisting context in these words as they highlight the physical nature and assist in comprehension of the transaction. I am largely on the fence but slightly favor keeping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty77asdf (talk • contribs) 02:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I should note that I made the first change, but would like others to consider my new suggestion. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm fairly opposed to this change. Firstly, a F&N carrier bag looks quite a bit different from a Lidl carrier bag, or a disposable carrier bag, etc. Secondly, the detail is very evocative of the socioeconomic detail of the setup. It's also been extremely widely reported, so I think it edges into "why are we removing verified information"? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done The edit has been made so the edit request can now be closed. Critical Hippo (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion: add it back, per the above. Very odd edit indeed. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2022 (2)

Age error in last sentence

Charles is the oldest person in British history to assume the throne at the age of 63.

He is 73 years old. 2600:8801:B007:3600:C10F:D821:C3F9:509C (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The matter is under discussion just above and you are welcome to participate. Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Fix was  Done by Apache287 at 03:59. [4] Note that this request was about the incorrect age, not the inclusion of the sentence. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 18:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Rewording second half of lead para about his time serving as Prince of Wales, heir apparent etc. - RESOLVED

Cuurent phrasing that has evolved:

As Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay from 1952 to his accession, he was the oldest and the longest-serving heir apparent in British history, and the longest-serving Prince of Wales, having held the title from 26 July 1958 until his accession. Charles is the oldest person in British history to assume the throne.

Issues:

1. Although Prince Charles redirects here, it doesn't mention the former common name.
2. Oldest heir apparent and oldest to accede is being discussed above.
3. “As Duke of Cornwall … he was … the longest-serving heir apparent” seems to imply causation.

Proposed rewrite:

Commonly known prior to his accession as Prince Charles, he was the longest-serving heir apparent in British history, and the longest-serving Prince of Wales, having held the latter title for nearly 64 years from 26 July 1958 until 2022. Charles is also the oldest person in British history to assume the throne.

Charles was Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay from 1952. The (duchy of Cornwall and)? title Prince of Wales was conferred on his son William, the new heir apparent, when Charles was proclaimed king.

For most of his life, HRH was widely known as the heir and Prince of Wales, I believe this should continue to be prominent in the lead. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 18:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe "Commonly known prior to his accession as Prince Charles" is redundant. Everyone knows he was a Prince and his name is Charles. Critical Hippo (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I propose the following:

Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948) is King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms. He ascended to the throne on 8 September 2022 upon the death of his mother, Elizabeth II. Charles is the oldest person to ascend the British throne, having previously been the longest-serving heir apparent and Prince of Wales in British History.

In my view there is no need to discuss his titles as Duke of Cornwall or Duke of Rothesay as these are discussed in Early life, family and education. And as Charles is now King, and these titles are subsidiary title, they are not really of enough significance to warrant being included in the lead. Critical Hippo (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Or if you would prefer clauses can be switched around:

Having been the longest-serving heir apparent and Prince of Wales in British history, Charles is the oldest person to ascend the British throne.

And if you think age should be included:

Having been the longest-serving heir apparent and Prince of Wales in British history, Charles is the oldest person to ascend the British throne having done at the age of 73.

Also I've concluded 'previously' should be removed from my proposal. Critical Hippo (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, too detailed and contains a lot of ready-mentioned information. I think the paragraph written now has the simplicity and important information to warrant itself as a lede, but also qualify for a good wikipedia format. Hi3d 2 (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily everybody knows, for those readers outside the British Commonwealth, or those who speak English as a second language but don't regularly consume Anglosphere media. I wish I could ask an average American or Chinese person if that adds value. I'm easy about cutting his duchies from the lead. Your shortened version is a great alternative option, @Critical Hippo. I boldly committed mine already, if you want to revert mine, or boldly switch to yours pending discussion I don't mind. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 18:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

If @Hi3d 2 agrees? Which clause type would you prefer.

1) Having been the longest-serving heir apparent and Prince of Wales in British history, Charles is the oldest person to ascend the British throne.

2) Having been the longest-serving heir apparent and Prince of Wales in British history, Charles is the oldest person to ascend the British throne having done at the age of 73 Critical Hippo (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll body switch to mine, as the tense issues are driving me crazy. Critical Hippo (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

If it's understood (and explained elsewhere) that he is no longer HA and PoW, you could even omit the first “having been”:

The longest-serving heir apparent and Prince of Wales in British history, Charles is the oldest person to ascend the British throne having done at the age of 73.

⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 18:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think 'Having been the longest-serving heir apparent and Prince of Wales in British history, Charles is the oldest person to ascend the British throne etc.' makes sense, as EDWARD VII was the oldest person to take the throne but not the longest serving heir-apparent Hi3d 2 (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Edward VII was just shy of 58 when he took the throne? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 19:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I thinking with Having been, the sentence structure is undermined. Also I've changed it. Critical Hippo (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree, that message was directed at tp message from you. Hi3d 2 (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmm fair point. I'll have a think. Critical Hippo (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Prehaps the inclusion of the word 'also'

"Having been the longest-serving heir apparent and Prince of Wales in British history, Charles is also the oldest person to ascend the British throne having done at the age of 73." Critical Hippo (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Good point, “also” makes it clear that they are two separate things. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 19:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, with the fast pace of concurrently-written replies, I've gotten the indentation and post order a bit out of whack. @Hi3d 2, I interpreted your post as agreeing that my version is too detailed. By “written now” did you mean the version status quo ante, not the most recent @Critical Hippo proposal? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 19:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hi3d 2 unfortunately I do not agree that your edit is suitable, it contains significant issues of tense. Critical Hippo (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Something like this?

Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948) is King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms. He acceded to the throne on 8 September 2022 upon the death of his mother, Elizabeth II. As the longest-serving heir apparent and Prince of Wales in British history, Charles is the oldest person to have acceded the British throne.

Critical Hippo (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Or the issue can be more simply solved by the addition of 'also'. Which I think produces a higher quality sentence. Critical Hippo (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

That is to say

Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948) is King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms. He acceded to the throne on 8 September 2022 upon the death of his mother, Elizabeth II. The longest-serving heir apparent and Prince of Wales in British history, Charles is also the oldest person to ascend the British throne, having done so at the age of 73.

Critical Hippo (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

To make the decision easier, I have consulted the expertise of Grammarly Premium. The outcome is that clarity is judged 'very clear'. Critical Hippo (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hi3d 2 @Pelagic Are you happy with this one? Critical Hippo (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

True, is … having been is more correct than was. He is (still) the person to have done the thing. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 19:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, not quite sure I understand. Do you mean you think the sentence should include 'having been'? Critical Hippo (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

No, sorry, I just meant that you are right about was not being great. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 19:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

But the latest version (“The longest serving…”) is more direct. I'm quite happy with that. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 19:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you content if I update the article with the sentence? Critical Hippo (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am. And if others disagree, I think that version is still a good “checkpoint” to compare new proposals against. Thank you, @Critical Hippo! ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 19:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Wonderful finding a solution. Thanks. Critical Hippo (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The solution doesn't make sense, the structure is very hard to understand. I believe we should remove the prince of wales info entirely from lede as it is given to the heir apparent anyway. The subtility contains no issues now and the lede paragraph now should contain no disputable info. Hi3d 2 (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions @Hi3d 2.I am pleased you have now decided to come to the table. It is the view of @Pelagic and I that this makes perfect sense. As I've said it has also achieved a clarity rating on Grammarly of 'very clear'. For now the edits I have made are the status quo; in order to proceed we may need to obtain another opinion. Critical Hippo (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Grammarly is a robot and is not perfect. Please tell me how it is very clear to put 'The longest heir apparent in history' without any clarification of who the 'the' is reflected towards. Hi3d 2 (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The sentence makes sense. The longest heir apparent and prince of Wales in history serve as an introduction descriptive clause (if that makes sense). For example 'The biggest chocolate cake, it won the county prize.' Critical Hippo (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you need to mention that it makes sense shows that it isn't as clarified as the paragraph written per below. Hi3d 2 (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The only way to make that sentence have complete clarification is to have 'As the' on the front of the sentence, but that also wouldn't make sense because it would suggest that because he was the longest serving heir apparent, he is also directly the oldest person to take the throne.

Also don't see the need in having Prince of Wales mentioned in lede as Prince of Wales concequently goes to the heir-apparent anyway.

Please tell me why the following paragraph wouldn't make more sense and/or why it is less clear than the one you wrote.

Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948) is King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms. He acceded to the throne on 8 September 2022 upon the death of his mother, Elizabeth II. He was the longest-serving heir apparent in British history at the time of his accession in 2022. Charles is also the oldest person in British history to assume the throne, at the age of 73. Hi3d 2 (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Tense issues again. Critical Hippo (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Like I say, we should await another opinion before any changes are made. Critical Hippo (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Just stepping in here.

I have been watching this page get scrutinized with many different versions over the past few - though I do understand what hi3d 2 is saying, as the English level is more advanced and harder to understand on the current version than the amended version written by hi3d 2.

As per the tense issues, I don't see any from my eyes, as all tenses have been confirmed with contradicting phrases. I do support the new version written. ContributeEditArticulate (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Interesting perspective thank you. Just to confirm you mean the one by @Hi3d 2? Critical Hippo (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. ContributeEditArticulate (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

In my view the one by HI3d 2, with all due respect, lacks flow. It is bitty, that is to say it is much like: and then and then and then. While reading their version I found myself forgetting what was being discussed. Critical Hippo (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

How about this version, it has the free-flow that you want?

Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948) is King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms. He acceded to the throne on 8 September 2022 upon the death of his mother, Elizabeth II. He was the longest-serving heir apparent in British history as well as being the oldest person to assume the throne, at the age of 73. Hi3d 2 (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

What about

Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948) is King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms. He acceded to the throne on 8 September 2022 upon the death of his mother, Elizabeth II. He was the longest-serving heir apparent in British history and is the oldest person to assume the throne, at the age of 73.

We need to distinguish between past and present tense. He was the longest serving heir apparent but he is the oldest person to assume the throne. Critical Hippo (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually

Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948) is King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms. He acceded to the throne on 8 September 2022 upon the death of his mother, Elizabeth II. He was the longest-serving heir apparent in British history and is the oldest person to assume the throne, aged 73. Critical Hippo (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright, that sounds good. though at the end can we add 'at the age of 73'? Hi3d 2 (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I suppose so. Critical Hippo (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

perfect, great to have an agreed version Hi3d 2 (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Glad we got there eventually, lol. Critical Hippo (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Yup, lmao Hi3d 2 (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2022

The term used should be acceded not ascended. 86.27.144.113 (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. MadGuy7023 (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

New Image

The current image is a crop from an image of the King shaking hands. It's also slightly on an angle. I don't think it's good enough.

Charles Prince of Wales.jpg

Who supports changing it to this instead? It's a nice, straightforward photo cropped from one of just him on his own, five years ago. I think it's rather nice, and certainly better than the one of him from last year.

Aubernas (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

There is already a discussion about this at #infobox picture above. Al-Muqanna (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

To add a footnote to Charles III's intro and infobox to clarify his succession of the throne was on BST

I would like to ask on a consensus of adding a footnote to Charles III's intro and infobox to clarify that his succession of the throne on 8 September 2022 was in British Summer Time. Why? Well, the commonwealth realms of Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu, and the Solomon Islands were all in the early morning hours of 9 September 2022 when the succession happened. Even Monarchy New Zealand issued a press release dated 9 September 2022 stating "The Queen died earlier today...", which could cause even more confusion, as Charles ascended the throne right after his mother's passing. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Right now we're in a situation where on Oceanic pages we'll have references to 9 September, and on other pages it'll reference 8 September. Just sticking with 8 September (as that's where it happened) is wrong because the "Accession of the King of New Zealand" did not happen on 8 September.

I do prefer just formatting dates as "8 September 2022 (UTC)" on general pages, and "9 September 2022 (NZST)" on NZ pages. This clarifies why there's a difference, however I'd still support a footnote instead. It surprises me that there is not a general feature on Wikipedia for handling events and time zones. Surely some template and view feature could work together for such things to make it specific to the reader's location (if they so choose) El Dubs (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

In New Zealand, the Accession of the King of New Zealand, did happen on 8 September, BST. On the other realm's monarchy pages, I'm all for having the local time in brackets. EmilySarah99 (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm in favour of 9 September for four countries - excepting Australia. Happy to have a footnote clarifying, or just the timezone in brackets. It has just occurred to me that in Western Australia it was, in fact, still the 8th, which is a complicating factor. StAnselm (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@StAnselm: This consensus is to put a footnote to clarify Charles III's succession of the throne at 8 September 2022 at 4:30 P.M. British Summer Time in his intro and infobox due to the above countries times when he ascended the throne there. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It might be a bit early to say that we have a consensus. I'm still confused about whether you're saying Monarchy of New Zealand should have 8 September (with a footnote) or 9 September (with a footnote) in the infobox. StAnselm (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@StAnselm: I know it's to early, my bad. I was talking about Charles III's infobox and intro. Something along the lines of "Charles ascended the throne on 8 September 2022 at 16:30 British Summer Time, which was 9 September 2022 in the monarchies of New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and most of Australia." If someone has a better way of wording it if consensus is reached I feel like we could work with it. Regarding your above comment, I feel like there really isn't a consensus needed for the individual monarchy pages, as those only concern that country so it eases the situation there. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that wording. StAnselm (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

We don't actually know the time, do we? He spoke to the PM at 16.30. He became King some time in the afternoon. Don't know how long he spent privately before the call to Downing Street. The Land (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@StAnselm: It was not 8 September in Western Australia, the proclaimation was made at Buckingham Palace and Twitter at 1:30am in Western Australia, which is the earliest time you can go by barring any official information to the contrary, in any case, you would take the timezone of Canberra (3:30am) as it is not only the capital of Australia but also the location of Government House, which is the Australian Monarch's official residence. Maranello10 (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Official proclamations all use the United Kingdom date in the text. That should be sufficient and clear; it fixes the date and time for everybody. 91.125.135.116 (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

It really doesn't. Firstly, Wikipedia:Use official proclamations does not figure in our verification policy -- just the reverse. Secondly, you're putting an interpretation on them that they won't bear. Where do any of them say he became King of Australia -- say -- on the 8th, not the 9th? Australia doesn't use BST for any purpose, so how can one speak of him acceding that was already over there when it happened? And depending on the exact time, and one's interpretation of the Speed of Monarchy, you might find that difficult to reconcile that with the law, physics, and causality. We don't have an exact time, and it would be in poor taste to insist on having one at this point, perhaps. But it's pretty clearly well before 18:30, the time of the announcement, as that specified the afternoon, and indeed it's been widely reported that the UK PM was informed at _16_:30. That still leave a window of conceivably over four hours, which would be different days in different realms. But rather than developing our own "convention" on the hoof, or inappropriately using primary sources or OR, we should apply a maxim "wherefore it is not possible to speak of it". State that it occurred sometime in the afternoon BST, and nothing more until we have more in RS. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Support footnote for this article. StAnselm (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't have strong evidence one way or the other (and would be grateful if anyone does have some) but this notion of giving a different date for the accession in different realms seems a little bit like WP:OR. The date of accession to the thrones of NZ and Australia is presumably a well-defined official concept, and the basis on which subsequent events like jubilees are calculated. Absent explicit sourcing stating that his accession date was 9 September in those places, I think it would be preferable to stick with the 8th throughout. Note that Monarchy of New Zealand had always said 20 January for the transfer from George V to Edward VIII, but in the past 24 hours it has been changed to 21st (he died at 23.55 London time I believe). Using dates related to US presidents doesn't seem like a lot of clear evidence anyway... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Amakuru: Hello. This statement from Monarchy New Zealand, the organization responsible for the NZ monarchy I think strongly supports putting it in. Dated 9 September 2022, it states “Earlier today the Queen died…”. I do agree though that it should be all one date, but what gets me is that the monarchy of New Zealand has little to do with the UK as a country. Charles III is the King of New Zealand, and saying he ascended that throne on 8 September 2022 isn’t correct. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Hmm, interesting... A counterpoint to that is that the official page of the NZ governor General states the Queen's death as 8 September. It may be one of those things that doesn't become clear until later, as lot of websites haven't updated yet and they aren't really listing accession dates. I can't see a lot of evidence on NZ govt pages for when George V and Edward VIII took the throne (both similar cases, their predecessors died late at night). Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Amakuru: That is interesting. However, she said “8 September 2022 in Balmoral” which IMHO means in Balmoral time she dies 8 September 2022. However, I do agree that it is too confusing with the two different dates. However, to say the King of New Zealand ascended the throne on 8 September 2022 when the press release was released in 9 September 2022 NZ time seems off to me IMHO. That’s why I think we should put the following, or something close to the following footnote in Charles III’s intro and infobox: "Charles ascended the throne on 8 September 2022 at 16:30 British Summer Time, which was 9 September 2022 in the monarchies of New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and most of Australia." Again, it doesn’t have to be that but something to note the date was 9 September 2022 in those commonwealths. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's unfortunate a little over-specific, as indeed we don't know the exact time. Just when the UK PM was informed, and most sources are fairly coy even about that, preferring to say when it was "announced", about two hours later. They may be more explicit about this after a certain amount of time has passed, as it is supposedly a matter of state, not just of personal and medical privacy. Or maybe they'll try to go with some fuzzy fiction of a Unified Monarchy Time and avoid saying at all. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Another question is that did Charles become the Head of State of Cook Islands on 8 September? PRIME MINISTER’S STATEMENT--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, worth clarifying the timezone. The Land (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Rohsopht and The Land: Same. It seems that it just uses the New Zealand monarchy infobox. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• No, with qualification - I don't think this article needs a clarification. Although he is the monarch of 15 realms in total, I think it is fair to accept that the Monarchy of the UK is the "first among equals", similar to the Patriarch of Constantinople in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The opening line of the article supports this by singling out the UK: Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948) is King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms.. His reign did start on 8 September 2022 BST in the Oceanic realms, and I think it is self evident that it is BST on this page. I do respect the problem is the Monarch pages of the Oceanic countries may ultimately have to put 9 September if those governments' ultimately state that this is when the transition occurred, which may then require clarification here. I think this first requires determining where the sovereignty of the Monarch actually lies, whether in Australia's case for example, if Buckingham Palace supersedes Government House in Canberra, in terms of being the seat of the Monarchy of Australia. Maranello10 (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's Sept 9 for five of the realms, because they were already past midnight, at the moment Elizabeth II died & Charles III became monarch. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes obviously, this is not in dispute... I am saying right now there is nothing to clarify until the Oceanic governments determine when Charles became King for them, as I am not quite sure the seat of the Monarch is actually in their countries. Maranello10 (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Not sure I'm quite following you. Charles III became King of the United Kingdom on Sept 8, because that's what time it was in the UK, when he succeeded to the British throne. He became King of New Zealand (for example) on Sept 9, because that what time it was in New Zealand, when he succeeded to New Zealand throne. GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  I will attempt to be clearer, using your example, I am not sure if the New Zealand throne is situated in New Zealand at all for legal purposes. Government House in Wellington as shown here is only the Governor General's residence. The Prime Minister has to ask the Monarch to appoint the Governor General. It doesn't seem to be the seat of the throne. The seat of the throne and the head of state is definently not in parliament. The New Zealand throne itself, what actually changed, is probably located at Buckingham Palace, which probably means it makes absolutely no difference what the actual time was in the location for which that throne has jurisdiction. Maranello10 (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  (ec*umpteen)I don't think the 'first among equals' analogy is helpful here. He's "king of the UK and fourteen others" (Aside, does anyone else think that "14" looks very strange in this context? Granting that it's permissible either way in the MoS.) because the UK is where he lives (in four dozen palaces and castles and so on), and because of the historical background to this state of affairs. They're still separate monarchies, regardless of order of billing. And the issue is, if it's 12.01am Jan 9 on some eastern-hemisphere, and you're gripped by the urge to wonder who your monarch is there and then -- or more likely, wonder that in hindsight -- Having said that, that doesn't mean it's necessarily 'due' to get into the weeds of that, especially in the most prominent portions of this article. But the second sentence is IMO poorly worded on several grounds. It's essentially an inconsistency in grammatical number -- we went from fifteen monarchies to one "throne" in the space of a full stop, threw less-than-helpful term 'acceded' at the problem (then did it again the very next sentence, which is stylistically terrible, unless one is someone that just really likes using the word 'accede' for the sake of it), and having just raised this multiplicity of separate domains, insists on a single date without qualification or qualification that appears to be flat out wrong for several of them.

  I'd like to suggest something along the following lines as an alternative:

  • "He inherited the British throne on 8 September 2022 upon the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II."

  or else:

  • "He came to the throne on the afternoon of 8 September 2022, BST [...]" (or just "local time", which is a bit more roundabout but clear enough in practice I think).

  Does that seems like any sort of an improvement to anyone? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  I like the second option, mabye 'local time' better but maybe that's just me having to google what BST stood for. EmilySarah99 (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's a fair point about BST. We don't need need to make the lede any more niche than already is, with its determination to make people look up "accede", etc. Or maybe just adding the qualifier "locally"? The footnote we now have covers the same ground, which is a help. It's unfortunate in that rather than having an infobox with four needlessly, awkward, and stylistically terrible and contraindicated, we now have five of 'em. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I've added the footnote for Sept 9, 2022, concerning Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu. GoodDay (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

King Charles III Arms

Under King Charles III arms he is missing his Canadian Coat of Arms which he inherited upon the passing of Her Majesty the Queen.

The arms are

Coat of arms of Canada. The present design of the arms of Canada was drawn by Cathy Bursey-Sabourin, Fraser Herald at the Canadian Heraldic Authority, office of the Governor General of Canada, and faithfully depicts the arms described in the words of the Royal Proclamation dated November 21, 1921. The present design was approved in 1994.

The copyright for the arms are

Copyright 1994 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada [1]; held under Crown Copyright.
The Trademarks Act, chapter T-13, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, s. 9, protects the Arms of Canada against unauthorized commercial use Giant1996 (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a great idea to add those, as if we end up with all 15 -- and more, because of flags of territories, constituent countries, etc -- it'll be very excessive. In fact, I'm not sure what having the UK ones really adds to the article -- we have articles on those individually. Maybe should be replaced by a paragraph explaining the situation, and linking to each of those? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

If there is notable content that would just take up too much space on the page, it may be worth considering creating a "Royal Arms of Charles III" article. El Dubs (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

...there has been some discussion in royal circles of a possible change to to Royal Standard to include Wales (a dragon, gules) in one of the quadrants. Ajpajpajp1 (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

As long as it hasn’t been officially changed that is of little interest to us. Tvx1 11:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Personal wealth and assets

I understand that Charles has or will inherit Elizabeth's personal, non-Queen-as-Sovereign wealth to the tune of hundreds of millions, intact. Will that subsume his before-kingship wealth? What was his personal net worth before he was King? int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 22:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Is there something you want to change in the article? DeCausa (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Can we and should we add information on Elizabeth's personal wealth to this article? int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that would be WP:SYNTH or irrelevant without sources saying it has devolved to Charles. If it's her personal wealth then it will be dependent on what's in the Queen's will - that won't be known and will take time to emerge, if at all. Per this Royal wills are not made public unlike everyone else's. DeCausa (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It is widely understand that he will inherit her estate and what her estate approximately is, those two facts don't need to be synthesized; wills, royal or not, are a primary source and probably not preferred compared to the likely plethora of others. His wealth is relevant, and thus what he inherits is generally relevant, the question here is whether or not the assets from Elizabeth's personal estate are relevant compared to Charles' antecedent wealth. (E.g. he may've already obtained most of it.) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 16:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. Without knowledge of the will sources would only be speculating and couldn't be used. SYNTH would be (a) her estate amounts to £x (b) he is her successor as monarch. (a) + (b) = (c) he is going to inherit her wealth as well as her crown. (c) is SYNTH. "It is widely understood" isn't good enough without a reliable source that claims knowledge of her will. And I don't there will be any - but if you can produce any then we can discuss it. DeCausa (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

A citation even speculating about his 'expectations' (or current/recent past wealth) would also be viable, providing of course that firstly, it's of sufficient reliability -- multiple such would be much better. Assuming the consensus is that including such is giving it due weight. But WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, we don't have to be on the bleeding edge of (re)reporting such things. But in short... sources, sources, sources. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

8.3.2 - Not consistent with other titles as prince (somebody fix)

the title of 8.3.2 includes, after 'prince charles', '(1958-2022)'

all other page titles with 'prince charles' do not include '(1958-2022)'

get rid of '(1958-2022)' 180.95.31.141 (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Current Events - London Bridge Task Force

I wanted to let editors know and invite editors to the WikiProject of Current Events new task force The London Bridge Task Force, which will be working on improving all the articles around the death of Elizabeth II. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Prince Charles (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this is an error, that move discussion doesn't appear to have anything to do with this page, and there is already a very lengthy move discussion here? The Land (talk) 10:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The move effects a redirect to this page (Prince Charles -- which will become a disambiguation page) and so the bot has correctly notified the target of the redirect proposed for deletion. DrKay (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Archie and Lilibet as prince and princess respectively.

A discussion regarding Archie and Lilibet as prince and princess has been started here. Thank you. cookie monster 755 21:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Homoeopathy not homeopathy

Homoeopathy is the most commonly used British variant. Critical Hippo (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Dubious. Top search result for "Homoeopathy uk" is the NHS, which says "Homeopathy is a "treatment" based on the use of highly diluted substances, which practitioners claim can cause the body to heal itself." and uses that spelling in the title and throughout. In any case, as "homeopathy" is entirely acceptable in British English and extremely common (whether or not the most common or the Telegraph's style guide or whatever), and the only spelling in use in AmEng, using that spelling is the sensible choice for an international site, per MOS:COMMONALITY. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance. Critical Hippo (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Reverted to homeopathy per above.

Critical Hippo (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

You're very welcome, and thanks for the speedy action and reply. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Sentence in lead

What is the reasoning for removing the sentence stating that charles is the oldest monarch to take the the throne. I understand the problem before was tenses, but with the addition of 'At the time of his accession', I don't understand the reason to take it out. Hi3d 2 (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why others reverted you. If I'd seen it I would have reverted it as trivia unnecessary for the lead. DeCausa (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

If you state that as trivia, then the sentence in Elizabeth II's page stating 'Her reign of 70 years and 214 days is the longest of any British monarch and the longest recorded of any female head of state in history.' in the lead should be taken down. As the facts are both similarly inter-twined. Hi3d 2 (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

What's in another article is irrelevant. DeCausa (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you expand on why that in particular you find trivial? I would argue it is a notable fact simply because he beat the previous record by roughly a decade. El Dubs (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hi3d 2, there appears to be a difference in opinion relating to the inclusion of your edit. It is therefore appropriate for it to undergo discussion. Critical Hippo (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

It may wise to await Aoi and DrKay sharing their views. I believe the general consensus is that it is trivia. I would agree with that consensus. Critical Hippo (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

It was repeated. Either remove the footnote or remove the sentence from the lead. Retaining both immediately next to each other is absurd. DrKay (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

There still remains the issue of tense. May I suggest the following: "Charles is the oldest person to assume the British throne, at 73 years of age he surpassed the record previously held by William IV." Critical Hippo (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I believe that the footnote should be removed. If I remove the fn would you agree in adding the sentence DrKay? Also Hippo I agree with the sentence structure though shouldn’t we add “William IV, aged 63?” at the end Hi3d 2 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

64 sorry Hi3d 2 (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

No we don't need trivia like that in the lead. Footnote is fine. DeCausa (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

How about we take the issue to a vote? I think that would be the best cause of action to avoid any further issues. Critical Hippo (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I think adding 64 creates an overly complex sentence structure that may be difficult to follow. Critical Hippo (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright Hippo. Also Decausa you have ignored the mention that Elizabeth, George VI and other monarch have trivia in lead, so I would like to see those shortened into a fn or removed before removing this. Hi3d 2 (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Shall we keep this discussion to the scope of this article? Critical Hippo (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not a question that needs to be asked. The discussion can only be in relation to this article. Hi3d 2, stopping dragging irrelevancies from other articles into this. Each article has separate consensuses. DeCausa (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Even in the scope of this article, the addition of the sentence would add a useful piece of information right in display. As well as numerous other reasons. Hi3d 2 (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm on the fence with this issue personally, though in applying my thinking cap I shall stick to the scope of this article. I shall approach the issue like this. The lead contains the following sentence:

'he was the oldest and the longest-serving heir apparent in British history, and the longest-serving Prince of Wales, having held the title from 26 July 1958 until his accession.'

This information could be viewed as conveying the same point. If Charles was the oldest heir apparent in British history, then consequently he would be the oldest person to become the Monarch. It would therefore be unnecessary to make the same point twice.

For this reason I would suggest this edit is NOT made. Critical Hippo (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand, but they are two different things. The longest serving heir-apparent before Charles III was Edward VII, who was not the oldest person to ever take the throne, hence showing the differentiations between the two. Hi3d 2 (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems undue for the lede, certainly. Shouldn't it suffice to mention this in a later section? Also, I dislike the proposed wording as it adds to the already uses the different parts of speech of the word "accede" so often as to cause semantic satiation. I don't wish to suggest we go to the opposite extreme of "elegant variation" and throw in every possible synonym, but it reads very oddly at present. If our single goal is to ensure that if someone didn't know the meaning of the word and couldn't work it out from context they'd be forced to look it up before they got to the first section heading, then great job. Otherwise, a terrible one. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Regardless I've amended the sentence tense. I believe this issue should be taken to vote. Critical Hippo (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I've set up a vote below. Critical Hippo (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Vote: Sentence in Lead Issue

Topic: Sentence in lead, paragraph 1, referring to Charles as oldest person to assume throne.

Issue: Disagreement relating to whether sentence should be included in lead. See Sentence in lead above.

If you think the sentence should be included vote Support. If you think the sentence should not be included vote Oppose. The editor of this sentence is @Hi3d 2. Critical Hippo (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, discussions about page content are not votes. Secondly, if you want to make this a formal RfC, please would you quote the proposed sentence to make it clear what we are discussing. Thanks. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion was held above, and there was no agreed outcome so I wished to put the mater for a vote amongst the editors. Please do inform me as to correct procedure if I have made an error.

The sentence is 'Charles is the oldest person in British history to assume the throne'. Critical Hippo (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The procedure is set out in WP:RFC. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

There was no agreed outcome because nobody decided to reply to my response. Anyway I support the addition of this in the form of. "Charles is the oldest person in British History to take the throne at the age of 63" - as it also mentions the age that Charles took the throne. A footnote with other information including the previous record holder would also be applied in my opinion. Hi3d 2 (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I support in principle changing “oldest heir apparent” to “oldest to accede”. The reader has to infer that “oldest …. heir apparent” means “oldest to have not acceded or at time of accession” and not “oldest at the time he became H-A”. And now that he is no longer the H-A, it seems better to frame that fact in terms of his current status. But I have multiple issues with the current wording of whole two sentences that comprise the second half of the lead para (“As Duke of Cornwall … assume the throne.”). ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 17:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I personally think that the information should be further down in the lead, especially since the reference tends to grow, as we've seen, until there's nearly as much information about William IV, the former record-holder as there is about Charles.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Prince and princess

Harry's children are now Prince and Princess of Sussex since their grandfather is now King. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It needs to be confirmed, they are not obliged to use the title. It may be it chosen for them not to use the titles. Critical Hippo (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

YES. they have not chosen. must be confirm 180.95.31.141 (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

https://www.royal.uk/succession lists them without the title "Prince"

... 5. The Duke of Sussex

... 6. Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor

... 7. Miss Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor

Unless there's a definitive statement that the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge want them to use the title during their minority it's probably best not to especially as While Prince Andrew's daughter is listed as a Princess, Prince Edward's & Princess Anne's respective children don't. Kiore (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

It definitely needs to be confirmed. It's been well known for decades that Charles wants to reduce the size of the royal family. In addition, even if the Sussex children do get to be prince and princess they certainly won't be prince and princess of Sussex, because no such titles exist. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Not quite. The style would be "Prince Archie of Sussex". DeCausa (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

HM Charles III confirmed in his inaugural address that they will be Prince and Princess. Propork3455 (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I listened to that speech and don't recall him mentioning any of his grandchildren.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I have the text of that address in front of me and no, he didn't. The only new prince he created was William, the Prince of Wales. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I quite agree, the only titles mentioned was that of the Prince of Wales. Critical Hippo (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Billy-boy was of course already a ("courtesy") prince, so this doesn't create a new prince as such if we're just counting styles. (The difference that PoW is a "substantive" prince, not just a "titular" one, but now that princes and dukes aren't in charge of cutting off heads and defending the Marches, that just means "posher title".) But Archibald and Elizabeth W-M is now legally a prince and a HRH -- and wasn't before, one of the many things Megs can loudly complained about in their version of 'stepping back' from being Royals -- by existing Letters Patent. Doesn't mean they're being using them -- I assume not, as it'd be even more nonsensical than the current strange situation. A. would also normally entitled to a pseudo-substantive courtesy title as the first son a duke (and L. would be a courtesy Lady, IIRC), but that's been ad-hoc bodged too, even before the 'stepping back'.

So short version, as ever go with what the appropriate sources say, rather than trying to play barrack-room heralds. The sources might not get the 'rules' right, but since the royals merrily ignore them as they wish, it's the only workable approach. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Please do not spread misinformation. Nowhere in his first address did the King say that. Jusfiq (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The king never mentioned his grandchildren. GoodDay (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

HM’s Royal Sign Manual

The RSM the article has now is obsolete. Surely there’s a facsimile of ‘Charles R’ on the record by now. Can we get that updated? 2603:9000:AE04:B300:1A4:C723:F7D3:FF3E (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

where is this what are you refering to by 'hm's royal sign manual'?

is this on the page or are you talking about a royal manual that has symbols related to the british royals? 180.95.31.141 (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The only image of Charles's new signature that I am aware of is a blow up from the TV coverage of him signing the proclamation (or some similar document at the proclamation meeting on Saturday). It is not of good quality. I suggest patience. A good facsimile will come alons sooner or later. 86.181.0.154 (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I suspect they are holding off on releasing the Accession Council document to let everyone who was there sign and we will see it in due course.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

This article shows King Charles III royal signature on the ascension proclamation ChefBear01 (talk) https://news.sky.com/story/amp/king-charles-reveals-new-signature-and-appears-to-show-his-royal-cypher-12694675

Camilla’s Titles & Name

I propose to change “Camilla Parker Bowles” underneath ‘Spouse’ to either Camilla Shand as her birth name, the same way Lady Diana Spencer is written or Camilla, Queen Consort. It doesn’t make sense to have Parker Bowles when it’s neither her maiden or married name. Also not her current title. 2A00:23C4:2520:4B01:54BD:E1EE:6814:FF33 (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It's the common name at the time of marriage - hence in the Edward VIII infobox it's "wallis Simpson". DeCausa (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Already discussed, already found not to be the consensus; see the most recent archive. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The names are written as they were when they got married. Critical Hippo (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

To avoid further confusion i've added Do NOT change to "Camila, Queen Consort in Infobox Royal. Critical Hippo (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

As I pointed out, in the Aristotle Onassis article, his wife is listed as "Kennedy", not "Bouvier".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

As said above, the Edward VIII infobox uses "Wallis Simpson" and so the consensus is that we are following this naming method. It makes sense, as Charles did not marry Camila, Queen Consort he married Camila Parker Bowles. Critical Hippo (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2022

Add 4:30 pm B.S.T to 8 September 2022 Add Queen before Elizabeth II.

Source sentence: He acceded to the throne on 8 September 2022 upon the death of his mother, Elizabeth II.

Edited sentence: He acceded to the throne on 8 September 2022 at 4:30pm B.S.T upon the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. Code.space.sohan.sunkari (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we have a source that establishes that with such precision. Just that it was that afternoon, and had occurred by 4:30 local time. Something on this would be helpful, given the issue of what day it was in each of his realms, which we discussed at length but without any real clarity or resolution. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Question

I have asked a question here, please take a look and answer.-2405:204:570C:D779:0:0:1770:A8B1 (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Completely unrelated to this article. Please review WP:APPNOTE. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Royal house amendment

While the King's royal house is, by all accounts, still Windsor, I think it's worth adding that he belongs agnatically to the house of Glücksburg as well. King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands has the same, but with Orange-Nassau and Amsberg instead. Ryanisvibing (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

This would also be consistent with the article for the House of Glücksburg, which includes the King of the United Kingdom under "Current." Ryanisvibing (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps Mountbatten would be the more appropriate choice instead? Anyway, just an observation. Ryanisvibing (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Didn't realise this already had a topic open, my apologies. Ryanisvibing (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Unless or until King Charles III proclaims otherwise? The royal house is still Windsor. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2022

Change University of Cambridge to Trinity College, Cambridge 116.15.147.155 (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Blazin777 (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done. The fact is already in the article and cited, and having checked other Oxford and Cambridge grads Liz Truss, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher and Rowan Atkinson, I found all use college name rather than university. Please don't automatically reject edit requests without checking their merit.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"Issue" section

What is happening with the second-to-final section "Issue"? It is very unclear (to myself) what it is supposed to mean to the reader. Kyran (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

In this usage, "issue" is a formal term for one's biological children, often used in royal/aristocratic contexts. Marquisate (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a standard enough word, though whether we should be using in an attempt to sound like the College of Heraldry is more questionable. Perhaps subtly gloss it by use of a synonym in the body of the section (or vice versa). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

If we get the sense that a few people aren't sure on the meaning of Issue, we could just add a sentence to that section that uses the word "Issue" with a link to Issue (genealogy). El Dubs (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)