This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Move discussion in progress
Discussion was procedurally closed due to the recent discussion(s) on that topic.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Elizabeth II which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Royal House
King Charles is agnatically descended from House of Oldenburg through his father Prince Philip. But is officially a member of House of Windsor. Should the House of Oldenburg also be added to infobox with House of Windsor in (agnatic line)? Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
How do we treat other monarchs in a similar situation? Given that this is information of limited utility to the average reader, we should look to precedent and consistency. Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Mark Sedgwick has suggested[1][2] that King Charles's personal philosophy is influenced by Traditionalism, through the avenue of Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Catherine Mayer has also drawn this connection.[3] It may rate a mention in the article. Prezbo (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
RfC for infobox image change
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Rough consensus to change to proposed image.
On this issue policy is mostly silent, with editors not making explicit reference to any in support of their !votes. There was implicit reference to both MOS:IMAGEQUALITY and, in reference to the recency of the image, MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, but implicit arguments to these guidelines were made by editors on both sides of the debate and thus neither side has the stronger argument as viewed through the lens of policy.
As such, consensus here is decided solely based on the level of support for each position, and with approximately 60% of participating editors preferring the new image I find a rough consensus to change to it. BilledMammal (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Proposed image
There's this new image of King Charles III at Wikicommons which I think would be a great replacement for his infobox. It's in good quality, it's a recent one, it depicts King Charles III and not Prince Charles like the current infobox image and (despite it not being the official portrait) looks like a formal portrait. Opening up an RfC to hear everyone's thoughts! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I think this is definitely an improvement on the current image used. GnocchiFan (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Pardon me if this reply is in the wrong place—I'm editing on mobile, which is a bit hit-and-miss with indents—I still maintain that any of the images I'd listed here would be better, and that I think would make better lead images than the current image or this proposal. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
On the other hand, do we really need yet another RfC? Perhaps we can continue this informal discussion to determine whether there's any consensus for using this new image... Rosbif73 (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
This is a good choice. I support the change. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I don’t like it. There’s a shadow and a bit of an awkward unprepared look. Thriley (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I also support the change. And no consensus is required. The existing image was put into place by a vote, and it wasn't overwhelming. And the argument then was, we were just waiting for an image of Charles as king. And here is one. And it may not be ideal, but it's as good as what we have.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I support the change as well. I believe every article should get updated every once in a while. RicLightning (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
You shouldn't have changed it without a consensus. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry. I got carried away. RicLightning (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
That being said, the current infobox image replaced the previous one after a vote by a margin of 20 to 16. I should not think any greater majority would be necessary to replace this one. Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't like the current image either, but I'm not seeing the twenty !votes needed to displace it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I've reverted the change earlier on the basis that the current infobox photo was selected in an RfC only four months ago. My impression has always been that RfCs, particularly recent RfCs, present a relatively high level of formal consensus. I do take your point, though, that the margin of the RfC was not large, so perhaps it's not as high a level of consensus as an RfC would typically represent. In any case, I think gathering more input (perhaps through another RfC) would be ideal given how recently the last RfC was conducted. Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
There's been a change in circumstances justifying a renewed RFC in that an image of Charles as king is freely available. I think this conversation is an effort to see if there's sufficient opinion informally without the need for a formal RFC. Wehwalt (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
That's also a fair point. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm not keen on this picture either, due to the lighting issues already mentioned. The background is illuminated brightly but his eyes and mouth are in shadow, so the whole composition doesn't work.Robin S. Taylor (talk) 10:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
If it didn't have the lighting issues mentioned above, I'd support the change. But at the moment, I think the current one is slightly better. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I support this image, it's a current one with his current role, which to me overrides the minor lighting issues. El Dubs (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
We seem to be very close to majority support for the new image among those responding, which is all the current image ever got, a bare majority. Shouldn't we test broader opinion by an RfC now? Wehwalt (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Let's not rush. The current picture (2019, as Prince of Wales) is relatively recent, and is a "formal portrait". The one proposed (July 2023, as king) is almost identical but with worse lighting giving shadows that I personally don't like, and is not an official portrait, or at least not an official portrait of the U.K. or even of some other Commonwealth country (it is cropped from a photo taken in the White House with President Joe Biden). What about waiting until we have an official portrait of "H.M. Charles III" published for official British purposes (I don't know, displaying in public buildings maybe) ? And when we'll also have reproductions of postmarks with HM Charles III's picture, and/or of the obverse of "Charles III D.G. Rex F.D." coins,[1] I suppose we shall have more choice. — Tonymec (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I had a look at the King's page in other languages and I see that the English page seems to be the only one not to have made the proposed change. Although this new image is not of excellent quality, I am in favour of it; it will certainly be replaced one day or another by a better one.--Hamza Alaoui (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I think despite those reluctant, there's sufficient support that it is worthwhile starting an RFC whether the new image or the existing image should be the infobox image, and I'll work something up when I have some time. And if 20 to 16 was sufficient to put the existing image into place, no greater majority should be required for this. Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I do not agree with the assumption in this post, and in several others, that the official photo for the King of the United Kingdom must be used for all the Commonwealth realms. I think that wikipedians in each Commonwealth realm should be deciding what photo to use for their king. I therefore oppose the principle of this RFC, as it goes contrary to the modern status of Commonwealth realms. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Why is there no RFC tag, for this RFC? GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Feel free to insert one. I hadn't meant to start it yet but it might as well begin.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Survey
Support - as we need an image of him as king. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose this one, but support a change to a different image. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Support the current image has Charles' hair merging into the vegetation. The proposed image is superior and from the time Charles has been king. That's what we were waiting for, wasn't it? If something better comes along, we'll replace this but for now this is the best option.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Support - Per GoodDay. On second thought, I Oppose. DDMS123 (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose the change for the time being but support a change if and when we have an official portrait approved by the Crown. Tonymec (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Support - this image seems like a decent replacement for the current one. — Amakuru (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Weak support -- I agree the proposed image is of lesser quality than the current one. However, the difference is relatively minor IMO. While I don't think it's necessary for the lead image to be an image of Charles as king (I mean, who can tell the difference?), I don't see the harm in changing the image to a more recent one of relatively equivalent quality. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Support, as stated above any "official" portrait would not be usable due to licensing issues. This is a reasonably good image, it is not of substantially lower quality than the current one, and I think the fact that it was taken after he became king tips it in favor of the image proposed here. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 23:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Support Current and decent is more important than anything mentioned against. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Weak support per Aoi. --BDD (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose (Summoned by bot) the present photo is clearer of his face IMO. But comment what's with the "we need a photo of him as king?" . He's changed job - not been 'touched by the Almighty' since the singing of Zadok and pouring of holy oil 'transmogrified' him. He's the same guy working slightly longer hours, that's all. Pincrete (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Support, it's a much more relevant image, and can be changed again when a better one comes out. It's preferable to have an image of him as King because him being King is what is the most relevant thing about him. Having an image that reflects this is ideal. El Dubs (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Support having a picture of him as King. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose This image isn't great which will lead to a future change anyway. Hold the status quo until there's a better image. Nemov (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per Nemov.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Charles like any other adult has not changed that much in four years. The change in his title does not matter. The 2019 image is still the better one and should remain until a good image is available. Unfortunately, the one put forward does not look that good. Keivan.fTalk 02:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Don't be an jerk silly. RicLightning (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm confused at this comment. @Keivan.f's comment is innocuous and it's not directed towards an editor. Please clarify or withdraw and remember to be civil. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Either withdraw your comment or I'll take the matter to administrators. I have not had any interactions with you to the best of my knowledge and it is utterly uncivil to label someone a jerk simply because you don't share the same opinion. Keivan.fTalk 15:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
RicLightning, would be best if you retract your response. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Support (Note* Brought here from RFC/A) I do think if this new image is usable we should absolutely go with this choice, An encyclopedia is informative, anybody looking at an image would best be served in an informative way with an image that is most current and clear. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Support It is a good image, and is much more recent than the current image (he is also King!)Turini2 (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per Keivan.f. Peter Ormond 💬 04:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Support, much better picture than the current one Marcelus (talk) 07:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose the proposed image has bad lighting that obscures his facial features. starship.paint (exalt) 14:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per the lighting issues, the time taken (pre or post- coronation) doesn't really matter. I favour File:Charles, Prince of Wales in 2021 (cropped) (3).jpg, myself, since the blue suit melts into the blue background to just focus on the head. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 17:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
That blue picture is fine. starship.paint (exalt) 09:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. I agree that we need to be on the lookout for a better lead image, but this proposed one has really bad lighting. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Support — this image is superior all around. The one presently in the infobox, he's scrunching his eyes, which are blurry, dull and watery, the scrunching also makes a prominent set of wrinkles more visible there at the bridge of his nose, his cheeks are flushed and capillaries are clearly visible. He looks very unhappy. The proposed image is 100x better.Isaidnoway(talk) 16:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Weak oppose largely due to the poor lighting of this image, though admittedly I'm not all that keen on the current one with its busy background. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Support — this image is the perfect one. I believe that these kinds of images are just what wikipedia needs for people of the present time. RicLightning (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Dissent from this RFC each of the Commonwealth realms is entitled to choose their own images for their King. The whole point of the modern Commonwealth is to accept diversity in styles and titles. The title used for the King of the United Kingdom is not the same as the title used in Canada. For example, there is no “D.F” in the style and title used in Canada. The Crown in the Canadian coat of arms is a Canadian Crown, not the Tudor crown used in the UK since the accession of Charles. There is no need for uniformity in the choice of the picture, since each realm is independent and can choose their own picture. This RFC should be closed without a decision as contrary to the constitutional principles governing the modern Commonwealth. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Addendum: I appreciate that this RFC is for the page for Charles III. However, this issue has been raised on the Canadian monarchy page, and references have been made there to the previous discussions on this page as if that settles the issue for Canada. It doesn't. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree with you that this does not settle the matter for any other page. The only person who has said so is the editor, Estar8806, who started the poll over at the Monarchy of Canada page with a not-really-neutral statement after reverting to try to keep the 2019 image. It looks like on August 14, Peter Ormond changed several of the Monarchy pages for the Commonwealth realms to conform with the Charles III infobox picture. I don't see any discussion in any case. There is no need to invalidate this RfC. Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Support Definitely an improvement. Mhapperger (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Severe amount of shadowing in the lower half of the face. This would fail as a passport photo in many countries. TarnishedPathtalk 04:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:William IV related to the recent move discussion here. This is for the information of those who may wish to participate there.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Title of page
Surely the page should be titled Charles III of the United Kingdom or something to that effect, in the way that the wiki page for Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands or Margrethe II of Denmark? 81.140.211.220 (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Very big can of worms there. See the "Move discussions" at the top of this page. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
To expand on Tim’s comment, since the death of Queen Elizabeth a year ago, there have been three proposals to change the name of this page, and one to change the names of all the articles relating to British kings and queens since George I. All the proposals were rejected. The last one specifically for this page was c Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
But he's not just King of the United Kingdom is he though? Then you'd technically have to add another 14 other countries into the title... ends up being too long? King of the Commonwealth realms would be correct but it's never really used, well I've never heard it used myself. 86.136.229.213 (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Per our policy on these things in our Manual of Style (MOS:JOB) "King of the Commonwealth realms" with a capital K is incorrect as it's not a formal title, but "a king of the Commonwealth realms" with a lowercase k would be, as it's descriptive: it's describing a king who happens to reign over the Commonwealth realms, but it's not a title in its own right. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
He's even "the king of...", due to their fairly strict "one monarch at a time" policy, but that's right, "King of" wouldn't work. If 'natural' disambiguation were needed, or desired for 'fuller style' reasons, "of the United Kingdom" would be defensible, as it's clearly his primary title. (So much so that the main article text doesn't find it necessary to even mention the other places he's monarch of, literally relegating that to a (poorly worded) footnote. But that's another can of worms, of course.) "Charles III (Commonwealth realms)" would also be argued for on the former grounds. But it's not, because of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME. And a slice of WP:RECENT, but not so much so we can't leave that for 25th century Wikipedians to fret over. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Long time no see, 109. Hope you're well. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi Tim. Much the better for having dropped out of working on this page, thanks! Hope you are too. And well done on getting this to GA. By hook or by crook... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks 109. Wouldn't've happened without your comments in November. Completely understand having to turn off WP once in a while, glad you're feeling better now. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I see you reverted my edit on this article (that added Byline Time's recent report on "cash for leaks") under WP:DUE. Please could you explain why you think my edit gave undue weight? I wanted to ask and see your perspective rather than enter an edit war. I think my edit was reasonable, with its contents being phrased as per the reporting of Byline Times and not as fact, having provided references that showed this was their reporting, there not being any articles at this time denying the article's contents, and with the outlet being described as highly factually accurate.
FWIW, she's no longer Meghan Markle, but rather Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello @13tez - Your edit was made in good faith, but took up about a fifth of the entire "Reign" section, and went off on a bit of a tangent. I'd suggest putting in in the finance section instead, cutting it down, or putting it in Harry, Meghan or Megxit's article. I appreciate that you didn't start a revert war though, and you took it to talk: good on you for that. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
With respect, you didn't cite any of those issues when you reverted my edit (although I am happy to discuss them). Please could you clarify, therefore, whether you now agree with me that my edit does not, in fact, break WP:DUE?
Placement of the edit's contents is somewhat of a difficult issue. It could arguably be placed in multiple articles, let alone sections of this article. I placed it into this article because Charles is the biggest actor in the reported events - being the one cutting off funding. I placed it in the Reign section because the report came out now (during his reign). Perhaps it would be better placed in the finance section, though. I'm happy for it to be shortened and summarised, but it's worth noting the original BT article does contain a lot of information that those reading this article would be likely to find relevant.
Look, when Charles has been alive for 75 years a lot of things have to be cut or extremely condensed. I'm not sure that this has the long-term significance to be included in line with WP:SS. WP:DUE covers most of what I expanded on here, and we've not mentioned other similar events like Frogmore Cottage and Prince Andrew's business interests. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Tim O'Doherty, thanks for getting back to me again.
I'm not sure if you're now saying that the content is too long or lacks the relevance to include per WP:SS or whether you still feel as though it falls short of WP:DUE. As I said before, I'm happy for it to be shortened and summarised, and possibly moved, though this isn't why you said you reverted my edit (WP:DUE). Please could you, therefore, clarify whether your objection to the restoration of the content is under WP:DUE or for a different reason?
Thanks again. 13tez (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I'd recommend the proposed info, be placed into the Megxit page, as it appears to effect the Duke & Duchess of Sussex, in relation to their having left the UK & become non-active royals. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't recommend its inclusion there either. The article is written by Dan Evans, a convicted hacker who had testified earlier this year in support of Harry during his trial. I mean he is not actually the best unbiased source to refer to. Keivan.fTalk 21:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi @GoodDay, thanks for the suggestions! I think that it might indeed make sense to include information about this report in the Megxit article and also to include Meghan's title as the Duchess of Sussex.
@Keivan.f thanks for your point too! Regardless of the past of one person who happens to work at Byline Times and to have worked on the report, Byline Times is regarded as highly credible and factual by Ground News, Media Bias/Fact Check, and generally reliable by most Wikipedia users. I think that if this changes, or if other articles emerge from reliable outlets which challenge the content of the report, then it should no longer be seen as reliable and so should not be included as a source on Wikipedia, or the counter-claims should also be included. 13tez (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Well, we typically refer to WP:RSP to determine a source's reliability, which at the moment does not list Byline Times. So a consensus is needed for it. Keivan.fTalk 23:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Keivan.f, that's true. I did initially check while making my edit and saw that Byline Times is not rated in terms of reliability in the list of perennial sources, as you said. It can't, therefore, be seen as reliable in the sense of having been rated so by Wikipedia users after discussion.
However, per the What if my source is not here? section, "A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present." Since the other sites I mentioned before do rate the publication as being reliable and factual, I think that, on the whole, it makes sense that it should be allowed as a source on Wikipedia.
I do agree that a consensus should be formed on the publication's reliability by Wikipedia users should its reporting become frequently relevant to topics covered on Wikipedia. 13tez (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
13tez, I think you are unaware that the amount of text an issue has (not just whether or not it is in the article) comes into WP:DUE. Reverting because of DUE and is consistent with saying it's too much text. The wording of DUE includes not giving as much of or as detailed a description of an undue topic. DeCausa (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I see WP:DUE says "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text,..." as well as "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." I suppose then it makes sense to further summarise and/or move the text describing the report, as was discussed previously. 13tez (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
We don't normally have separate 'Reign' articles for monarchs, as typically it's essentially redundant with the main articles -- a monarch's primary notability is almost necessarily their reign, practically by definition. But Chaz might be the exception to this, given that it's practically a coda to the long soap opera of his stint as PoW. If properly sourced this would be less undue weight in a Reign of Charlies III article, if there's the material to make overall sense of that. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Tim O'Doherty. I think it's yet to be shown this is significant enough to Charles's life to mention in this top-level article about his life. There are, I assume, other articles that give more of a play by play of what goes on among the Windsors to possibly find a home. Not everything is significant enough to mention in the main biographical article. Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
At this stage, then, I think most people probably think the content of my original edit should be in the Megxit article or further summarised and moved within this article (?) 13tez (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Incorrect notation under ciphers?
The text under the two pictures of the ciphers on England and Scotland may be the wrong way around. The image that states this is the cipher for Scotland shows the Tudor crown, and vice versa.
Where are you seeing this? I'm seeing them the correct way around. The Scottish one has the crown of Scotland etc. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
RfC of interest
(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! HurricaneAndrew (444) 20:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Illegal use of signatures
Remove ALL the signatures from EVERY single celebrity now as it is illegal to copy and paste it like that. 188.113.95.213 (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Are you making a legal threat? GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
But the relevant section on the United Kingdom says signatures should generally be deleted under the precautionary principle unless very simple. DrKay (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [Edit: Modified to working link. Davidships (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC) ]
Agree that the guidance is clear for UK. Same will apply to his mother, and no doubt others. Davidships (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
@Davidships I believe that the image of King Charles III's signature is too useful to be deleted without replacement. However, if you really think that it should be deleted, then I suggest that we reupload it to Wikipedia only (not to Wikimedia Commons) using the non-free fair use and the non-free use rationale templates. RyanW1995 (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
What I think doesn't matter - so far as Commons is concerned I see no justification for opposing the guidance. If you want to claim fair use on enWP, that's up to you. Personally, I don't see how it is useful at all ("useful" to whom for what?). How it contributes significantly to the understanding of this article defeats me. Davidships (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Right, because I'm going to impersonate King Charles and forge his signature. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
As I understand it, the issue isn't security concerns, but copyright. Apparently in UK law, signatures are copyrightable, but perhaps it's possible to determine if copyright has been either asserted or waived in this case? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Addition or replacement of the royal house
I am asking if it is necessary to add the house of Mountbatten as an agnatic addition to the house section of the info box or replacing Windsor with Mountbatten. This is because due to the fact his father was from the house of Mountbatten, that would mean the royal house should change. House names are kind of like last names. In fact, all of Phillip and Elizabeth’s children and their children’s children should technically be, not from the house of Windsor, but the house of Mountbatten. Smilus32 (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
AFAIK, the king didn't change the name of the royal house from "Windsor" to "Mountbatten" (though in the past, house name change apparently occurred automatically, when a king succeeded a queen) & so we shouldn't. PS - Philip adopted his mother's maiden name, when he was made a British citizen. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know Smilus32 (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Got it Smilus32 (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Official photo
I cannot edit the page, but there is a (beautiful, btw) photo of the King in full regalia in the Throne Room at Buckingham Palace ("Official Coronation Portraits" 8 May 2023). I think you should use that photo on the article 2804:D84:2280:2400:B9BC:7D15:5FA8:9DAE (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
It is likely subject to Crown Copyright and won't be in the public domain until 2074. Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Official Portrait of His Majesty
I am asking whether his main imagery should be replaced with his Official Portrait? Obviously not if it's copyright.
Probably Crown Copyright until 2074 or 2075. Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request
I suggest that the sentence
When he became monarch at the age of 73, Charles was the oldest person to do so, the previous record holder being William IV, who was 64 when he became king in 1830.
should, like the preceding sentence, make it explicit that it is talking about the British monarchy, rather than extending to other monarchies worldwide. (The cited source is explicit.)
So, in this article, it is written in the infobox that the official house of Charles III is the House of Windsor. This is true. However, agnatically, which is how royal houses are supposed to or typically function, Charles III belongs to the House of Glücksburg. So I propose that the infobox is changed to match the likes of Frederik X, whereby it has "Windsor (official)" and "Glücksburg (agnatic)". Please let me know what you think. Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I refer you to this RfC in which a very similar proposal failed badly. Also see this discussion. Wehwalt (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: Hello, thank you for your response. In regards to the first discussion you referred me to, it seems that the main reason for most opposition to the RFC was because it had not been discussed previously on the talk page. Similarly, it seems that in the second discussion was also abandoned because of the result of the first one. Maybe it is time for an actual discussion before a speedy close on a topic that has not been properly debated yet? Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
The difficulty with your proposal is that you start with an assumption: that all royal houses operate by agnatic principles. That is not the case with the British House of Windsor. George V made this very clear in 1917, when he changed the name of the House to the "House of Windsor". In doing so, he abandoned the agnatic principle for the name of the House: it would no longer be known as the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the name which agnatic principles would assign to it. Elizabeth II continued the rejection of agnatic principles, after her marriage to Prince Philip, when she confirmed that the House would continue to be the House of Windsor. This is a clear rejection of any argument that the House has any name related to Prince Philip's family. For details, see this summary in the London Gazette: "The centenary of the creation of the House of Windsor", and the three Gazettes linked there: 17 July 1917; 11 April 1952; and 5 February 1960. So, for you to succeed in your argument, you're going to have to provide a citation, from a reliable source, that King George V and Queen Elizabeth II did not have the authority to change and confirm the name of their House, and that unbeknownst to Queen Elizabeth, her House actually had acquired the name of Prince Philip's House, and that she lacked the power to confirm that name of the House of Windsor. Good luck with that. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
If it says "Windsor (official)" and "Mountbatten (agnatic)," that does not mean that the royal house's name is actually Mountbatten, only that Charles III agnatically belongs to the House of Mountbatten, but the royal house is Windsor. 73.170.152.122 (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
If Elizabeth II hadn't changed the rules? The House name would've changed to Mountbatten, upon Charles III's accession to the British throne. Since she did change the rules, the House name remained Windsor upon Charles III's accession & will remain so, until/if Charles changes it to whatever he prefers. GoodDay (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Was his visit to Romania a state visit? GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
The third state visit was to Kenya. The visit to Romania was not a "state visit". I'm not saying they shouldn't be added, but if they are added they should be described correctly. DrKay (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Geography
Why climate change became a global issue 102.218.51.2 (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM. Discuss the article please. Not general philosophical ideas. Keivan.fTalk 04:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
King Charles
Why has king been removed from the title of the article? ChefBear01 (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I don’t think "King" has ever been in the article title. It’s generally not used in article titles. See Elizabeth II and George VI. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Charles III for infobox image change
Someone recently uploaded a Charles III official portrait , the photo quality is much better than what we are using now. The key point is that it is an official photo. Should we change the photo?
I think the key question is the licensing. Other times when this or similar photos have been drawn to the attention, they have been rejected because Crown Copyright does not let them be free until the 2070s. This proffers an open government license. I have no idea if it is valid. Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: perhaps there is a sourced commentary from Cabinet Office's statement per description. As such, this image is free-of-charge. Ferret-o-meter (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The Cabinet Office's statement just says that copies are being given to public authorities to be displayed in public buildings. It says nothing about other uses of the portrait, so in the absence of other indications one must assume that standard Crown Copyright rules apply. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I nominated for deletion. --Ferret-o-meter (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. A shame, as it's a good image. I get very confused about copyright. Just for the record - what would the Cabinet Office have had to do to make this image usable here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't imagine that image will be there for long. I've put a CSD on it. TarnishedPathtalk 11:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree with your point of view. I don’t know this either, so I want to discuss it and confirm that there is nothing wrong with the photo before deciding whether to change it. 2401:E180:8D51:848B:1620:1E60:E386:4B9A (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
That's a derivative image. The original is going to be deleted, so this one will be too. Apparently it can be uploaded after 2074. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
It means it will get deleted at source, so will also go from those. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Besides, I disagree. No-one has put a deletion notice on the cropped version. RicLightning (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I think it's only a matter of time. I think it's Commons policy. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Very odd to see the new official photo in so many articles now, but not here. What proof is there that it is not acceptable for the top of this article? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Because it was added without discussion there, and the image seems likely to be deleted. Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
To any editor who decides to change the image in future. Please seek a consensus for its addition 'or' find out if it's licensed, first. This would save a lot of time, with editors having to restore the status quo. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
"Current" tag
Is there really a need to have this at the top of the article? This article is well-watched and people seem assiduous in adding the latest information and in deleting what is false or inappropriate. What is having a large tag at the top of a well-trafficked article actually accomplishing? Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
No, there is no need, in my view. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
As far as we know, the king isn't incapacitated & there's no plans to have the prince of Wales become regent. So, there's no need for the tag. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Charles and cancer
it was announced at around 1:26 CST that the king has cancer ChaseTOM4YT (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
See above. There's already 'two' discussions ongoing, concerning this topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2024
This edit request to Charles III has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Add the Kings Cancer diagnosis as of 05/02/2024 Agdan326 (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Not done - Already present. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
King Charles (2)
His majesty has been diagnosed with cancer after a short time in a private hospital. The Prime Minister has wished him a quick and speedy recovery and so has Keir Starmer 86.15.35.15 (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The announcement of his diagnosis has already been included. The addition of individual messages of support may be WP:UNDUE. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Something regarding his health needs to be added to the body of the article. Obviously as of this post, not much is known. But the lead should only contain summaries of facts covered in the body of the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
It has been added, in the "Reign" section. But the lead section should just summarise what's there. I don't see that sources for this are also needed in the lead section. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd recommend not including it in the lead, unless the situation effects his constitutional duties. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Here in Australia, Charles is our king. A large number of us are males aged older than Charles. More than half of us have had cancer, most commonly skin cancer. We are still alive and kicking, and expect to be so for many more years. Until more is known, this is a minor issue. HiLo48 (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I still think that, due to Buckingham's inherently secretive nature and their reluctance to say anything until they absolutely have to, that the death of His Majesty should be taken into account and prepared for. A few friends and I have already started up a draft of this page in past tense so that it can be immediately edited. His death is unlikely, but rather safe than sorry. Mooseman7325 (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd disagree. His death is extremely likely. The exact date rather less so. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
It certainly has interfered with his duties generally, and the UK doesn't have a constitution (and in other places he kings, a viceroy performs such chores), so that's not really a meaningful qualification of the significance. There should be a brief mention in para four, the 'reign' nanosummary, which continues to be oddly underweight. Partly as it's been so short, and partly due to editors having idiosyncratic preferences in that respect. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I think it's too early to put something in the lead. We don't know enough. Time, not only palace announcements, will tell. If nothing is said, but he is absent from the usual royal events such as Royal Maundy in March, which his mother almost never missed, it may be time to reconsider. As for the body, I think we've put all we need to. All we could add would be speculation. Wehwalt (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting anything else be added to the body, just as I say a minimal additional summary in the lead section of what we have there. We can certainly qualify it as a palace announcement if that's felt to be required on the basis of it being a suspect and self-serving primary source, but reliable secondary sources also characterise it as "an indefinite break from public duties" and such phrases. That's neither speculation nor undue. Indeed I think it's a lack of due weight to not mention it at all: burying the lede, as it were. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, we don't mention King Harald V of Norway's health problems in his lead, nor his son serving two extended periods as regent. GoodDay (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Which is a considerably shorter (and less cruft-filled) article. It doesn't for example mention where Harald went to school for six months 60 years ago either (as this one does). So "not much", IMO. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Change the article to: Charles III of the United Kingdom
Further up this page are links to several move discussions that have taken place on this topic in the past 18 months. Each time what you propose has been rejected. Wehwalt (talk) 05:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Which is silly because anyone searching for Charles III or 'King Charles' is looking for this King Charles, not some dead King of Sweden from 600 years ago. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
That's the way the ball bounces. GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
After three attempts and a review within a year of each other, the last one just about 6 months ago, all failing - safe to say it would likely fail if proposed. Would be a waste of time for everyone involved. Also, he's equally king of 15 countries in personal union, not just the United Kingdom, so the title would be inaccurate by omission anyway. JM (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Birth room and method
I found online that Charles III was born via Caesarean section[1][2] in the Buhl Room of Buckingham Palace[3][2] and added these items in his biography (my sources referenced via footnotes), but they have been reverted by other users on the grounds that "it was Elizabeth II who was born via this method, not Charles III". Can proficient fellow editors please clarify what is correct as the items I added aren't things I simply invented. Thanks, Adelshaus (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, there are numerous sources online that say Charles as well as Elizabeth was born via C-section. Perhaps those who are reverting can provide an authoritative sources that refutes this. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
As I explained in the edit summary of my revert[5], the only accessible source you added[6] did not support the content you added. It says "For Elizabeth’s own birth, the Conservative politician William ‘Jix’ Joynson-Hicks had been summoned from his bed to see her born by caesarean section at the home of the Queen Mother’s parents." That is talking about Elizabeth II's birth not Charles's. You appeared to acknowledge that in your subsequent edit summary, when you corrected yourself[7]. The subsequent reverts by others are presumably mistakes arising from your original mistake in not providing adequate sourcing. DrKay (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
References
^Archie Bland: King Charles: 71 facts about his long road to the throne, Guardian Online, 1 May 2023 (online), access date 2024-02-17
^ abSophie Hamilton: The Queen's birth stories: Princess Anne, Prince Charles, Prince Edward and Prince Andrew, Hello Magazine, 19 September 2022 (online), access date 2024-02-17
^Kate Halfpenny: Queen Elizabeth II: 31 things you didn’t know, Sydney Morning Herald, 10 September 2022 (online), access date 2024-02-17
Talk archival
I've changed the archival params for this page, as it seemed much too rapid and aggressive. Minthreads of three really does nothing when there can be that many "but this photo!!" discussions alone, and weekly archiving is an active impediment to discussion when regularly editors argue "let's arbitrarily wait two-to-six months before thinking of doing anything at all!" (Like, mentioning in any reasonably prominent fashion where he's king of, that he's not performing public duties for health reasons, that sort of minor frippery.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
The favored Wikipedia portraits for British monarchs seem to be of them in dress uniform or their regalia, and this portrait more fits that style. The difference just caught my eye and it seemed fair enough to ask CanadianPrince (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Licensing of that image, is questionable. So we don't use that image. GoodDay (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Literally came here for this as well. Why is there an issue with the licensing, this seems to be the official photograph of the King. Hamidlinski (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
See this discussion here. To summarise: There is no evidence that the image (which I like, a lot) is anything other than Crown Copyright, which means it enters the public domain in 2074. We would use it if we could. Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
OTOH, that does leave the possibility that it's covered by the Open Government Licence, which would be wikipatible it seems. I don't know how one determines whether it is or not. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
That would be determined by someone uploading it to Commons under that license, and we'd see how that goes. Go for it! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! I didn't know. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you CH, very useful link and notification. A reupload might make sense if a different version is used, as a view offered there is that the 'full' version may be unlicenced CC, but the gov.uk version OGL'd CC. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
« the 'full' version may be UL CC, but the gov.uk version OGL'd CC. » what does this mean, please? I find it difficult to follow the discussion if it’s got lots of acronyms. —— Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I can see some reverts were made on attempts to claim the king has died, purely based on a release from a Russian news source. Thank you for this, and please continue to do so until official confirmation. Jalen Folf(talk) 22:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
When exactly are you expecting official confirmation? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
The first such edit I saw had an edit summary claiming it was on the BBC website. It wasn't. That was one of our editors lying. A Russian editor? HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment: Has appeared in the ITN section in the last year, although not as a bold link, so I believe it should be fine on this front. Promoted to GA on 22 May 2023.
Interesting GA, thank you for relentlessly getting him there! Fine sources, no copyvio obvious. I think most readers would say yes to the original hook. For the ALT, the intended image would need no be in the article, but I don't like the construction "as Prince of Wales, Charles III ...". Can you find something interesting he really did as King? ... best with an image to match? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
This avoids the anachronism of "Charles III" and saves on space. There isn't much that isn't already obvious that Charles has done as king, that is illustrated in the article: the only thing that comes to mind is him banning foie gras, but that would be a very boring hook.
If you do require something else, please let me know. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
approve ALT2 if that's what you like ;) - offline sources accepted AGF, the pic is licensed and shows well even small. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks very much. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
The copyvio detector has a 52% score, mostly titles and such. Lightburst (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Archival
Is it intended that this section not be archived, or some rather exotic bug? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
A bug of sorts. The bot that does the archiving will only archive after a certain number of days have passed. Since this whole section transcludes another page, there wasn't actually a date that the bot could see, hence, it was never archived. Someone could either archive this manually, or, since this thread now includes dates thanks to the conversation we are having here, the bot will probably archive it automatically at some point now. Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I see! Thanks for that info. I shall now do pat myself on the back for having blundered into "fixing" it, after a fashion. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Grammar in lead sentence
I made an edit to the lead sentence which Rosbif73 reverted as it was “unnecessary”.
From my understanding, ”is the King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms” is more accurate in grammar than “is King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms”. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
A definite article is not usually used with a job title when there is only one holder of the title (at any given time). Rosbif73 (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
It's a little tricksy, but the general understanding is that saying "the king" would be a description -- name, Charles; profession, kinging -- but "King of the United Kingdom" is a title. Note the different capitalisation. Like saying "President Biden" or "President of the United States", as opposed to "a/the president". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Kenyan State Banquet
I am in no way excusing the horrific acts that took place in Kenya during the colonial period, but is the King even allowed to make such a public apology without government permission? Wouldn't that tread on the limits of his political neutrality? My knowledgeability of what the monarch is and isn't allowed to say is one of my weak points when it comes to my understanding of the British monarchy. StrawWord298944 (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
The headline in The Guardian says that he "stopped short of apology." Earlier, the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) had said: "We call upon the king, on behalf of the British government, to issue an unconditional and unequivocal public apology (as opposed to the very cautious, self-preserving and protective statements of regrets) for the brutal and inhuman treatment inflicted on Kenyan citizens." But I note that the report also says this: "The UK reached an out-of-court settlement of £20m in 2013, with 5,228 Kenyans involved in a class-action lawsuit over the abuses committed during Kenya’s emergency period of 1952-60. The payout, accompanied by a “statement of regret” from the British government, followed an 11-year campaign and legal battle against the UK, initially filed by five elderly Kenyans." So I guess the UK Government may consider that the matter has already been concluded? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, and what I'm saying is that despite it being a government in his name, he can not issue a formal apology without its permission. StrawWord298944 (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Are you suggesting any change in what the article currently says about this? AFAIK it's wholly accurately reflecting what's said in the source. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that he's planning to do that? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Sounded to me more like an implication C3 shouldn't be "blamed" for the non-appearance of an apology. However we simply seem to be summarising the given source, so I'm unclear how we'd usefully action this, even supposing my inference is correct. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2024
This edit request to Charles III has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Religion: change PROTESTANT to CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Protestant isn't a religion per se (technically Charles is CHRISTIAN with his denomination being CHURCH OF ENGLAND). 110.175.115.98 (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Not done: See note 3 in article. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
The key point is that he has a role in both the CoE (Anglican) and the CoS (Presbyterian), and a legal requirement not to be Catholic. His personal beliefs and/or practices aren't especially important, and wouldn't otherwise be noted at all. Either "Christian" or "Anglican" here would be slightly misleading. Though "Protestant" isn't ideal either, as that's not an entirely uncontroversial description of the CoE. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, he's not mentioned at the Church in Wales article is he, as that part if the Anglican church is disestablished. Is it constitutionally possible for him to be a Methodist, or does he not have to lead the CoE and the CoS? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
AFAIK, he could legally be a Methodist... or Presbyterian, Latter-Day Saint, Jewish, Muslim, or atheist. Just to a) not be Catholic, b) take an oath as part of the coronation in relation to the CoE, and c) take a separate oath in relation to the CoS. It'd be absurd if the monarch were "supreme governor" of a church they weren't a member of... but that's the UK 'constitution' for you! Likely there'd be blowback if this happened, hence it very likely won't ever. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I suspect the oath-taking might involve a Bible, which might reduce his options somewhat. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Good point, it does. "Then the King and Queene shall kisse the Booke." And requires administration by an (arch)bishop. And the whole thing is very much a gigantic Anglican religious service anyway. So if they had conscientious objections to any of that, or if the church kicked up rough about it, matters would be... complicated. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
The monarch cannot be a Roman Catholic, must be "in communion with" the Church of England, and swear that he is a faithful Protestant.[8] I gather that other protestant churches can be "in communion with" the C of E, so being Lutheran, for example, would probably be OK.
But this talk page is not the place for such speculation; we're straying into WP:NOTFORUM territory here. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, good find. If that source is indeed correct, "in communion with" means it'd have to be another Anglican church. Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc would be Out, but Scottish Episcopalian, the Church in Wales, the US Episcopal Church, etc, would be Fine. But you're right, this is unlikely to be relevant to the original request, or to C3 in general. At best it'd be a matter for the one of the more general UK/Commonwealth monarchy pages. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
This has come up several times before, both here and at Elizabeth II. "Protestant" has been used because there are statements by the Church of Scotland that he and his mother before him are "members" at the parish church near Balmoral. That means, the thinking goes, that the situation is too complex to state CoE alone. I think too much has been read into that. As is stated in the article, in September 2022, he made a public statement that he was a "committed Anglican Christian".[9] That seems to me good enough to put Anglican as his religion in the Infobox, which should be about him personally not his constitutional constraints. DeCausa (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Religion is only in the infobox because of constitutional constraints. The parameter is only used when it is integral to a person's notability. It's not supposed to be used simply to list a person's religion. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Religion in infoboxes. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
One might expect the "Religion and philosophy" section to tell us how regularly he attends church? It currently says "He attends services at various Anglican churches close to Highgrove." But the source for that is 19 years old. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I dunno if we'll get a high-grade source that goes into his exact observance rate, but there's plenty of tabloid chatter about him being cited en route to this-or-that service. It might be out of date as regards the church, as he's now based in Clarence House (but still renting Highgrove off the heir!) and most of the gush about church attendance seems to relate to the one in Norfolk. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
There's two different issues - one is why the parameter is being used and the other is what is actually stated against the parameter. The religion may be there because of the constitutional position but what it then says shouldn't be determined by constitutional constraints - it needs to be the actuality. DeCausa (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
The two largely appear to coincide, as the CoE role is much the more direct one, and is the one he's banged on about himself. So I can see there's a case to simply say Anglican, and relegate the separate oath and the occasional kirk outing to the footnote, or to the article body as appropriate. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm surprised that the CoS has said that, as you'd imagine they'd be a bit more careful with theologically loose talk than the royals are, but sure enough: Like his mother before him, King Charles is an ordinary member of the Church of Scotland while in Scotland and regularly attends Crathie Kirk near Balmoral Castle in Aberdeenshire while in residence. ("While in Scotland", indeed. I'm getting 'Nam flashbacks to the Schrödinger's "official residence in Canada (while in Canada)" debate raging across multiple other pages.) It'd be a bit odd for a person to be confirmed into both, and consider themselves a "member" of both, but I can't say it's impossible, either. I think I'd want another source to bolster that one, but it might be argued that if that can be had, both could be listed (and a footnote disentangling that, of course). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
Not done - Already present. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Interesting GA, thank you for relentlessly getting him there! Fine sources, no copyvio obvious. I think most readers would say yes to the original hook. For the ALT, the intended image would need no be in the article, but I don't like the construction "as Prince of Wales, Charles III ...". Can you find something interesting he really did as King? ... best with an image to match? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
approve ALT2 if that's what you like ;) - offline sources accepted AGF, the pic is licensed and shows well even small. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Not done: See note 3 in article. 
_(3).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}