Talk:Charles III
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Charles III article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Charles III has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
![]() | There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important". |
Yet another photograph suggestion
editRecent D-Day commemorations have given us a smattering of new photographs of His Majesty. I suspect we will get a few more at Trooping the Colour and Garter Day later this month. I'm particularly fond of this one of him saluting next to Macron. The colour of the uniform is just different enough from the stone wall that he doesn't blend into the background and, despite a bit of shadow from his hat, the lighting on his face is better than in the photograph currently being used. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Are there any other new photos without hats (? 2401:E180:8830:1AF0:7DFB:714D:B468:C5A (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- None from that event, nor from Trooping the Colour. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
There is one from the Portsmouth part of the commemorations, but there would be two other people's heads in the background. You could try to cut him out but that would be very difficult as his suit is almost the same colour as the drapes, uniforms and steps behind him. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Also, the fact he is looking somewhat downwards at that moment makes it a bit of a problem. Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, in the wide shot it makes sense because you can see he's standing on a stage holding one arm out but as a close-up it just looks like his neck and shoulders are the wrong shape. The Portsmouth shot has much clearer lighting on his face but the Normandy one has him with a better facial expression. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- They are both valid points, but in addition the colouration in the Normandy is really bad - he seems to have become heavily sunburned overnight. Neither of these are better than the present lead photo. - Davidships (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- How do you mean? RicLightning (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- After opening the photos, just compare the more-or-less normal complexion in Portsmouth on 5 June and the beetroot appearance in France the following day. Perhaps something acceptable will emerge from the coverage of the Japanese state visit. - Davidships (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say his skin looks worse in the Portsmouth one. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- The current picture has the advantage that it is not specifically tied to any of the Commonwealth Realms. The blue business suit is neutral in that respect. The D-Day photo shows him in British uniform. A neutral image for the infobox is a good thing, in my opinion. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- In that sense the UK military cosplay is especially apt, as seemingly his primary notability is so exclusively that as king of the UK that not only is his also being -- say -- monarch of Canada not mentioned in terms in the lede, it's not said explicitly anywhere in the main article text. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- It’s in the very first sentence of the article. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, the word "Canada" does not appear there at all. Just an offhanded reference implicitly -- and for most readers likely entirely opaquely -- including it among the "other Commonwealth realms". Which is explicitly different from it being "explicitly said anywhere in the main article text". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- It’s in the very first sentence of the article. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- In that sense the UK military cosplay is especially apt, as seemingly his primary notability is so exclusively that as king of the UK that not only is his also being -- say -- monarch of Canada not mentioned in terms in the lede, it's not said explicitly anywhere in the main article text. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- The current picture has the advantage that it is not specifically tied to any of the Commonwealth Realms. The blue business suit is neutral in that respect. The D-Day photo shows him in British uniform. A neutral image for the infobox is a good thing, in my opinion. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say his skin looks worse in the Portsmouth one. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- After opening the photos, just compare the more-or-less normal complexion in Portsmouth on 5 June and the beetroot appearance in France the following day. Perhaps something acceptable will emerge from the coverage of the Japanese state visit. - Davidships (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- How do you mean? RicLightning (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- They are both valid points, but in addition the colouration in the Normandy is really bad - he seems to have become heavily sunburned overnight. Neither of these are better than the present lead photo. - Davidships (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, in the wide shot it makes sense because you can see he's standing on a stage holding one arm out but as a close-up it just looks like his neck and shoulders are the wrong shape. The Portsmouth shot has much clearer lighting on his face but the Normandy one has him with a better facial expression. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just noting here that official portraits of Charles & Camilla for New Zealand and for Australia have now been released.-Radicuil (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Let's stick with the current image. GoodDay (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. There's obviously nothing better than the current image, at present. RicLightning (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Why not the coronation image? Meellk (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- That would be nice if we were sure that it was in the public domain or otherwise freely usable. There have been discussion in the archives of this page and even assuming it was Crown Copyright it won't be usable until 2074. Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Someone uploaded a picture a few days ago, not sure if he has copyright issues
- Charles III parliamentary procession 2024 (cropped).jpg 2401:E180:8D50:2876:6BE6:D9D1:CA25:C5CA (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why not the coronation image? Meellk (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. There's obviously nothing better than the current image, at present. RicLightning (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
British prince
editWhy was the Category:British princes removed? It's a fact that he was at one point a British prince. Векочел (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Possibly because he's now a King. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are other categories on the page that Charles does not currently fit, but historically he was a member of. Should these categories be deleted as well?
- Dukes of Cornwall
- Dukes of Edinburgh
- Dukes of Rothesay
- Heirs to the British throne
- Princes of Wales
- Lord High Stewards of Scotland
- Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Those are titles. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- They are not titles he currently holds. And « Heirs to the British throne » is not a title. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Those are titles. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are other categories on the page that Charles does not currently fit, but historically he was a member of. Should these categories be deleted as well?
- It should be re-inserted. This article is about his whole life, in which he was a prince for over 73 years; and for the first ten years he was not Prince of Wales (a subcategory of British princes). - Davidships (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- While I'm sure there are exceptions, categories seem to work on "highest rank". Eisenhower is under US Army generals, but not under the lesser ranks he held earlier. Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- By that analysis, why is Eisenhower in the “General in the US Army” category at all? Commander-in-chief outranks all generals. That was Eisenhower’s last position in the chain of command, so shouldn’t the “General in the US Army” category be deleted from Eisenhower’s bio, and from the bios of other US presidents who were previously generals, like Washington, Taylor, and Grant?
- That analysis would also require deleting the various title categories I’ve already flagged from Charles’s bio. “King” outranks “Heir to the British throne”, and “Prince of Wales”, and all those mere dukes, so shouldn’t all those categories be deleted from his article?
- Similarly, judges outrank lawyers, but it is customary to include the applicable “lawyer” category in bios of judges. Should the “lawyer” category be deleted from all bios of judges? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Judges are lawyers at all times. Charles is not a prince. He may be a prince again someday should he abdicate but he is not one now. Interestingly, looking at this version from 2021, it doesn't seem we put Charles in general princely or nobility categories even when he held those ranks, just the specific category of Prince of Wales and his specific dukedoms. Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- While I'm sure there are exceptions, categories seem to work on "highest rank". Eisenhower is under US Army generals, but not under the lesser ranks he held earlier. Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Edit Request: Pertaining to His Majesty's title in the infobox
editIn the infobox it currently has His Majesty listed as "King of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth Realms", however, I believe that instead of simply say "other Commonwealth Realms " that each nation should be listed here.
I believe this as, while it would certainly extend the length of the infobox, it would better reflect the fact that the Commonwealth Realms are not a single entity and that all of the Kingly titles held by His Majesty are of equal status and below that of the United Kingdom.
Each crown that His Majesty has is equal in status to that of the UK and thus should be treated as such in the infobox, as opposed to being clumped together into the Commonwealth Realms. whilst I know that they are clumped together in each respective realm after his Kingly title in that realm (e.g. King of Australia, His other realms and territories) this is done as to both shorten the title and to distinguish which title is primarily being used. Since rhis title isn't just about His Majesty as the King of the UK, rather being about His Majesty as a whole, including all his Kingly titles, I truly think that it would be better if all the Realms were listed in the infobox and given equal prevalence to the UK.
Aggressively Monarchist Australian (talk) 03:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'll ask you to please revert your own edits for now, as I don't want to engage in edit warring: as I've tried to articulate, they go against the strong existing consensus that has been hammered out on these talk pages over the past several decades. It's not best to explain every detail as to why the consensus is how it is over edit summaries, which results in undue disruption—I recommend taking a look and at least appreciating the principle of Bold. Remsense ‥ 诉 04:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Edit Request: Pertaining to the short description and exclusion of the Commonwealth Realms in relevant places
editIn both the short description and certain other spots, namely the beginning of the section on the reign of His Majesty, I have attempted to simply add the line "and the other Commonwealth Realms" or equivalent as this is important information. However, each time I have attempted this it has been removed. So, I have come down to the talk section in order to discuss this.
I firmly believe that it would better reflect the fact that the Commonwealth Realms are of equal status to that of the United Kingdom.
Each crown that His Majesty has is equal in status to that of the UK and thus should be treated as such in the short description and whenever appropriate to do so, as opposed to being excluded from relevant spots. Since this article isn't just about His Majesty as the King of the UK, rather being about His Majesty as a whole, including all his Kingly titles, I truly think that it would be better if the Commonwealth Realms were given equal prevalence to the UK. I see no reason why this isn't an entirely reasonable request as, like I said, all of these crowns are entirely equal to each other.
Aggressively Monarchist Australian (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- These was discussed in the past & the consensus was to follow WP:WEIGHT, which is why the intro, infobox, reign sections are as they are. GoodDay (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)