Talk:Charles III/Archive 3

A perspective in favour of "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales"

If "Charles, Prince of Wales" is sufficient, shouldn't there also be "Elizabeth, Queen Mother"? Just asking, I don't know whether this has already been discussed. --82.181.201.187 (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move: → Prince Charles

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. See also the recent unsuccessful request at Talk:Prince Harry of Wales. --BDD (talk) (non-admin closure)

Charles, Prince of Wales → Prince Charles – Let's call royals by the names that they are usually referred to. “Wikipedia...prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources," per WP:COMMONNAME. Kauffner (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Supporting material

Columbia calls him "Charles", Britannica says "Charles, prince of Wales", and Encarta says "Prince Charles." Amazon's top-selling bio is Jessica Jayne's Prince Charles Biography.

I have added figures for the past year in parenthesis. This is not so much an effort to be obsessively up to date, but more of an arbitrary qualification to reduce ghosting, which appears to be a problem on The Economist site and perhaps others. Kauffner (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Organization	Prince Charles (last year)	Charles, Prince of Wales (last year)	URLs
The Age (Australia)	2,450 (153)	39 (17)	"Prince Charles" site:www.theage.com.au "Charles, Prince of Wales" site:www.theage.com.au
BBC	9,520 (1,730)	667 (188)	"Prince Charles" site:www.bbc.co.uk "Charles, Prince of Wales" site:www.bbc.co.uk
New York Times	2,780 (57)	144 (5)	"Prince Charles" site:www.nytimes.com "Charles, Prince of Wales" site:www.nytimes.com
The Times (London)	143 (2)	2 (0)	"Prince Charles" site:www.thetimes.co.uk "Charles, Prince of Wales" site:www.thetimes.co.uk
The Economist	4,750 (18)	0 (0)	"Prince Charles" site:www.economist.com "Charles, Prince of Wales" site:www.economist.com
Highbeam Media reports compiled for the last two years	9,563 (3,832)	136 (38)	"Prince Charles" "Charles, Prince of Wales"

Kauffner (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

On the issue of hits for "prince of Wales", Charles "prince of Wales" got 868 hits on Highbeam for the last year, compared to 3,832 for "Prince Charles" (23%). For the New York Times in the last year, the equivalent numbers are 14 to 57 (25%). So the overwhelming majority of news stories call him just "Prince Charles," and don't use the phrase "prince of Wales" at all. Kauffner (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

There is also the important point that Prince of Wales is just one of his titles. Note the following 3 articles, each calling him one of his official titles, but all using Prince Charles too.. demonstrating it is his commonname. The Prince of Wales + Prince Charles, Duke of Cornwall + Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay + Prince Charles. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Survey

• Support - I'd prefer "Camilla's tampon", but "Prince Charles" will do while support builds for that move... FactStraight (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Previous RM - among all the recent trouble with the 12 of Kauffner's RM incubator RMs affected by IP activity on archives one of the clear conclusions was that WP:RM instruction to label RMs correctly when the previous RM is concealed should be labelled "RM 2" or "RM 2012" etc. I cannot believe that after all the trouble on the previous RMs Kauffner has again not followed this simple instruction, and whether not doing so is WP:POINTY?
  • I cannot see any IP activity on the archiving this time, but archiving still appears to be in a mess. 2012 Talk is feeding into Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales/Archive 1 with 2005 material. And there is at least one previous RM 1 2007 in Archive 6. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. In actual fact, I would have said "the Prince of Wales" is the commonest way to refer to him. Since there have been lots of those, the current title seems reasonable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – he is very commonly (perhaps most commonly) called The Prince of Wales. In fact his common style is also officially HRH The Prince of Wales. The community will not 'wear' this page being at The Prince of Wales, so this is the next best title. DBD 11:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Elizabeth is "the queen", Obama is "the president", Benedict is "the pope", and so what? Unless someone is suggesting that the article be renamed "Prince of Wales", the numbers for this phrase don't belong on the chart. Kauffner (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    • The numbers do belong there, thank you very much, because I was using them to illustrate that that is a very common way of referring to him, and, being his official style, is an excellent starting place for his article title. I am suggesting he remain at Charles, Prince of Wales because of this fact combined with the unlikelihood of using The Prince of Wales. The current title says all it needs to: this is the man named Charles who is The Prince of Wales. Tidy. DBD 19:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
      • You can make your points in your own post instead of cutting up mine. The top results for "Prince of Wales" site:www.nytimes.com are all from the 19th century. Kauffner (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

We already have a separate article for Prince of Wales, which might be more appropriately titled The Prince of Wales(although i dont think Thes are really needed in these article titles), which focuses on the position and holders of the title. However this article is about the person, and the most commonname in the sources is Prince Charles. ive seen many articles which mention his official title, Prince of Wales once, but call him Prince Charles throughout. Very few sources call him, "Charles, Prince of Wales" BritishWatcher (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support More natural and concise, as well as perhaps satisfying WP:COMMONNAME. Furthermore, this move would allow for greater consistency if Charles ever ascends to the throne. ("Charles III", not "Charles III, King of _____". Granted, I'm omitting "King Charles III", but that's because I think we can all agree that isn't a plausible title. Point is, Prince Charles -> Charles III is more consistent and neat a change than Charles, Prince of Wales -> Charles III.) Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Hi, I don't have a Wikipedia account yet, but just my two cents: I think it should be Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, just as there is Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. The cases are nearly identical: in both one word is mentioned twice because it is used in two different meanings. "Prince" means both what "Prinz" means and what "Fürst" means in German; "Queen" is used both as a noun and as an adjective-like word serving as an attribute to "Mother" (sorry, I cannot describe it correctly linguistically, but you get the point). --82.181.201.187 (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - either the conflicts of BBC and New York Times have plausible search terms of "Prince Charles" and "Prince of Wales". ApprenticeFan ^work 02:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMON, to me the change sounds more natural. meshach (talk) 05:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support - there can be no doubt that Prince Charles is his commonname and that is how the media both in the United Kingdom, Commonwealth realms and around the world mostly call him. His title Prince of Wales should only be used if there is disambiguation problems, which is clearly not the case. Its why Prince Charles already directs here. There is also the problem of the fact he has several other titles, whilst Prince of Wales is clearly the main title used, he is also regularly called the Duke of Cornwall or the Duke of Rothesay . The fact he has several titles, is another reason why it would be better just to go with "Prince Charles." BritishWatcher (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • He's never called the Duke of Cornwall, even in Cornwall (I am Cornish), as in England and Wales the superior title is used. He is sometimes referred to as the Duke of Rothesay in Scotland, but overwhelmingly the British media just calls him "the Prince of Wales", just as they almost invariably refer to "the Princess Royal", "the Duke of York" and "the Earl of Wessex" instead of Princess Anne, Prince Andrew and Prince Edward. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose. "Prince Charles" is not really correct, and the usages listed are misleading, because they don't include usage of "the Prince of Wales," which the current name also serves. The BBC, for example, has 15,200 hits for "Prince of Wales," most of which will refer to Charles. Furthermore, the current title is clear enough whether you've heard of him as "the Prince of Wales" or as "Prince Charles." The other title removes "Prince of Wales" entirely, even though this is how he is very frequently known. And, of course, while both titles are ambiguous, "Prince Charles" is much, much more ambiguous. And he is absolutely not called the Duke of Cornwall or the Duke of Rothesay regularly. And really, look at the BBC results for Prince of Wales - there are genuinely a lot of results where he is simply referred to as "the Prince of Wales." john k (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

And a brief look at that results list, when we exclude ships, locations, theatres and former Princes of Wales (among other things), how many of the articles that mention "Prince of Wales" also say Prince Charles? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Many to most of them, I'm sure. So what? I'm sure many BBC articles about Barack Obama refer to him as just "Obama", as well. Does that mean our article should be at "Obama"? The current name makes sense for both "Prince of Wales" and "Prince Charles." "Prince Charles" does not. "Most common name" is important, but it is not the only factor that should go into naming. john k (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well id support the suggestion above by an IP about Prince Charles, Prince of Wales. Which would seem more appropriate and use both. I dont accept that Charles, Prince of Wales is in anyway in line with "Prince Charles". BritishWatcher (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't think that people can make the connection of calling "Charles, Prince of Wales," "Prince Charles"? Also, what part of your argument does not apply to Diana, Princess of Wales? She is certainly better known as Princess Diana. john k (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Highly ambiguous. Deb (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose "Charles, Prince of Wales" is his principal title. There have been many people called "Prince Charles" but far fewer called "Charles, Prince of Wales".--Collingwood (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I am not very happy about attempts to remove pre-emptive disambiguation from current or recent British royals, this is introducing a degree of systemic bias into Wikipedia (see WP:BIAS). He is the primary meaning of Prince Charles, but he's not the only one, Bonnie Prince Charlie is another well known figure. Logically, we would have to move several others, including Prince Andrew, Princes Beatrice, Eugenie etc.. PatGallacher (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If he is known as Prince Charles around the English speaking world, making it the primary topic and commonname. how on earth is that bias? What some people seem to claim as bias appears more to be an Anti British, Anti American, anti western crusade on wikipedia. Whereby it would be better to force people to make an extra click, or have a longer title in article names.. rather than going with what makes sense. Its a great shame. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly everyone in Britain knows who Prince Charles is, but is he quite as well known in the USA? We are an international encyclopedia in English, not an encyclopedia for the English-speaking countries, we have to take account of readers in countries where English is widely spoken as a second language. While we cannot predict the future, there are dangers of being unduly swayed by people's temporary fame or notoriety. PatGallacher (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe he is known as Prince Charles commonly in the USA , and internationally too, not just in the USA, UK, Australia, NZ and Canada. For example the Times of India, has his topic profile at Charles, Prince of Wales, but throughout articles they put Prince Charles as a shortcut to that topic, and also use Prince Charles more. Like this article, [1] , which has Prince Charles in the URL, the title, and twice in the article, with them only using "Prince of Wales" once. Does that not demonstrate commonname in that case? I think we would find a similar pattern from media around the world. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

NDTV simply have the topic at Prince Charles and in articles like this one just call him Prince Charles. Surely if we look and find this pattern repeated through media sources, it justifies putting Prince Charles as the title? I dont quite understand what would need to happen for people to deem it the commonname if its not already. Would the same be the case for lesser known royals? no. But Prince Charles is well known around the world. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

and i find twice as many "Prince Charles" results compared to Prince of Wales on China Daily. Yet to see any evidence he is more commonly described as Prince of Wales or in particular as "Charles, Prince of Wales".BritishWatcher (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

China Daily? Seriously? john k (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The "common name" must still be specific enough, served here by the designation "of Wales." Reigen (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I would have to concur with PatGallacher and Reigen.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 00:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Kauffner's data is misleading because he left out mentions of "the Prince of Wales" in his sources. "Prince Charles" and "the Prince of Wales" are both common names; we defer to "Charles, Prince of Wales" as a combination of these two. I would not be opposed to "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales".--Jiang (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• That would be redundant. Reigen (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose royals often can be referred to in different ways so imo its difficult to try and find a 'common name' unless you are actually looking at what name to use for someone eg for the last German Emperor, Wilhelm or William. The current article name is in accordance with naming conventions WP:NCNT, both his name and substantive title are relevant. - dwc lr (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose unlike his youngest son, I have no problem with this. Hot Stop 14:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Why not simply use his correct title: His Royal Highness The Prince Charles. Simples... 81.154.109.18 (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Royals and the titled more generally have multiple ways they can be referred to, with differences between listings, running text and addressing. Both "Charles" and "Prince of Wales" are commonly used to refer to him and the current title works better. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

We could do the same for non-nobles: "Dennis Lewin, Chairman of Little League Baseball and Softball." Kauffner (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Not the same thing. A peerage title is part of a person's name. john k (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Charles, Prince of Wales might be acceptable. As heir to the British throne he is certainly the most prominent Prince Charles, but there are or have been others. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Not much left to be said that hasn't been said by many people above already. -DJSasso (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment - i have yet to see any evidence produced by those opposing the move backing up the claim "Charles, Prince of Wales" or even "The Prince of Wales", is the most commonname for this person. Just because there may be more google hits for "prince of Wales" does in no way mean its this persons common name. Considering there are numerous Prince of Wales pubs, locations, at least one theatre, a past and future Royal Navy warship, along with past holders of this title etc. Where is the evidence.BritishWatcher (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Not that prince of wales does actually get more hits*. I find 15,900 news hits for Prince Charles compared to 10,800 google news hits for Prince of Wales. But i notice one of the top results for Prince of Wales, actually is about Prince Harry.. not Prince Charles.[2] Unless Prince Charles was in Las Vegas recently too. lolBritishWatcher (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

But I think you are missing the point. This is one of those cases where "common name" is transient and inappropriate as an article title. In Wales, where I live, he is always referred to in the media as "The Prince of Wales", but you wouldn't want to use "The Prince of Wales" as an article title, for the same reason that "Prince Charles" is not a good article title. Deb (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No i honestly dont understand this. We have an article Prince of Wales which handles the title, rather than person. If people are insistent that that is his commonname, that article should be a redirect to this one, with or without (the). The point is even in Wales, he is commonly known as Prince Charles too. Wales Online news for example.. i find hits for Prince Charles compared to for Prince of Wales.. and just 26 for this articles actual title of "Charles, Prince of Wales". It is just not common to call him Charles, Prince of Wales. (with or without the). His most commonname on sources is Prince Charles. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

What you'll find, I think, if you look at those articles is that they begin by using his correct title "The Prince of Wales" when they first refer to him, and afterwards, for the sake of informality and/or variation, they call him Prince Charles. Here's an analogy: "Fred Bloggs was today interviewed about his life. Fred said that..." But, if Fred Bloggs had a wikipedia article, it would be placed at "Fred Bloggs", not at "Fred", even though "Fred" may be his "common name". I would find it very insulting, frankly, if the article titles for the Prince of Wales and his son were changed to remove any reference to Wales. It's an important aspect of their title. Deb (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Many do use his formal title first, followed by using Prince Charles throughout. That demonstrates Prince Charles is his commonname and that is what we are meant to go by on wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Common name does not, and should not, override all other considerations. It is just one of many factors that should be taken into account. Wikipedia:Article titles specifically says that ambiguous titles should be avoided. Deb (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles on Barack Obama call him Barack Obama first, followed by using Obama throughout. He is undoubtedly the primary topic for "Obama". Should his article be moved to Obama? john k (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• As there is no issue of moving the article to the title "Prince of Wales", the numbers for this phrase have no relevance to the RM. But since editors seem to be interested in them anyway, I note that Charles "prince of Wales" got 2,148 hits on Highbeam for the last two years, compared to 9,563 for "Prince Charles". For the New York Times in the last year, the numbers are 14 to 57. In other words, most news stories call him "Prince Charles" and don't use the phrase "prince of Wales" at all. IMO, putting the name first is a relic of the days when this was done to assist alphabetization. Kauffner (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

In this case, it's done to reduce ambiguity. Deb (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet ambiguity problems are not an issue in this case.. Prince Charles is the most notable of the name, its why Prince Charles already redirects here and has done for some time without controversy. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirects are made so that it is easier to search; they do not necessarily make good article titles. Certainly not in this case. There is no basis for changing an article's title just because it is already a redirect. Reigen (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I feel that redirect is wrong in any case. The only reason there is no controversy (if it's true that there isn't) is that it's only a redirect, not an article title. Deb (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Query If we grant this approach, should we move Felipe, Prince of Asturias, crown prince of Spain, to "Prince Felipe"? Few would deny that he is the primary meaning. PatGallacher (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that has nothing much to do with whether this move request succeeds. Each should stand on its own merits. Otherwise you would just be creating a whole new set of "conventions". Deb (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If this article is moved to "Prince Charles", why not "Prince Philip" and "Prince William" too? The only consistent usage I can think of is "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales", just as there is "Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh", "Prince William, Duke of Cambridge" and indeed, "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother". --82.181.201.187 (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The top naming criteria is "recognizability." A title should be what the subject is generally called in the real world. This helps readers pick out the correct article from a list of results and later confirm at a glance that they are at the article they are looking for. I'm would support "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales" as it improves recognizability. Charles is far better known than Philip or William, so these articles are not necessarily "similar" and in need of consistency. Besides, this title is already inconsistent with those of other royals. Kauffner (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:NCROY#Royals with a substantive title. Reigen (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the basis of the claim that Charles is far better known than Philip or William? I don't see any reason to believe that is true. And this title is not inconsistent with other princes of Wales. john k (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"Charles is far better known than Philip or William". And we have yet another random ludicrous claim! Who says he is better known than his father or son? You? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vlad the Impaler

I'm doing some research into Vlad Dracula, and I saw a very small note on his page that Prince Charles has claimed to be descended from Vlad, but I can find no mention of him on the Prince's page nor in any of the links from his Ancestry section - the House of Windsor, etc. While I'm afraid my own genealogy skills are near non-existent, if anyone finds the time and inclination to elaborate, I'd be very much obliged. Gatherer818 (talk) 08:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly he is, but given the extent to which European royal families intermarried this is nothing exceptional, we can hardly list all his ancestors. PatGallacher (talk) 08:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for letting me know why it wasn't up there, at least. As I'm just working on fiction anyway, I can simply assume it's the truth and move on, but I like building my modern fiction with as much fact behind it as I can, hence the research. Gatherer818 (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

His grandmother Mary of Teck's grandmother came from the ethnic Hungarian minority in Transylvania, so it is not far-fetched that she might have been descended from Vlad the Impaler, although by some accounts she was descended from his brother, Vlad the Monk. I suggest we leave this. PatGallacher (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

We have substantive evidence that the Prince of Wales is directly descended from Vlad Dracul. Please see 'Charles Prince of Wales', Anthony Holden (1979), ISBN 0 297 77662 2. In Appendix C 'Prince Charles's Descent' Mr Holden refers specifically to Mr Gerald Paget's two volume publication entitled "The Lineage and Ancestry of HRH Prince Charles, Prince of Wales" (Skilton 1977). From this source it is clear that the lineage to Vlad Dracul is indeed derived from Queen Mary's ancestry. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to dismiss relevant fact, regardless of whether the fact may be remarkable or otherwise. Ds1994 (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"Direct descent" implies through the male line, so this wouldn't be "direct". Kauffner (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

From her article she is "the 10th great-granddaughter of Wallachian Voivode Vlad the Monk (1482–95), the younger half-brother of Vlad Ţepeş" Hot Stop (Edits) 12:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Political inteference

Should his alleged political interference have a section of its own? It's sometimes mentioned as the article goes along, such as lobbying for alternative medicine, but it's something that is highly controversial and widely-reported.

I also question the neutrality of this in parts- the introduction in particular comes across as highly supportive of him- 'Championed organic farming', 'outspoken on the role of architecture in society', 'promoted herbal and alternative medicine'- and should be counter-balanced by widespread criticism of these activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.107.254 (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion

See proposal to move Talk:Baron of Renfrew (ship) to main subject on twodab Baron of Renfrew, title of Prince Charles. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Engagement and wedding to Camilla

Why should this be the only subsection of the Second marriage section? All the text in the section is part of the subsection. Therefore, the subsection makes no sense. Surtsicna (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

"His wedding to..."

Just a minor trifle, the article says his wedding to Diana produced two sons. It should say his marriage produced the sons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.27.174 (talk) 08:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly undeniable. What a much more interesting, though much longer, wedding it would have been had it actually incorporated the conception and bearing of two children. I have changed the article accordingly. - Nunh-huh 09:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Cold War leaders

Would he qualify? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Huh? How do you figure that? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

"longest-serving heir apparent in British history" ??

Charles has been heir apparent since 1952, ie for approx 60 years. But Victoria's son Edward VII was heir apparent from 1837 to 1901, ie 63+ years, so this sentence in Prince Charles's biography must be untrue.

I haven't removed the sentence "He is the longest-serving heir apparent in British history" since there may be some technicality that I don't know of that has caused the statement to have been made.

If I'm right and Charles is not in fact "the longest-serving heir apparent in British history", then perhaps someone would delete the sentence.

If I am not correct, why not?

Rainlightly (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Edward VII was born in 1841, that's why. Seven Letters 16:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you; I could swear I was reading Edward VII's heir apparent info straight from the Wikipedia entry, but I see now that your date is given there and the entry has had no changes in the last 2 days. I must have had a brainstorm... Rainlightly (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Controversies

Nothing about

• talking to plants

• being "Defender of Faiths" rather than "Defender of the Faith"?

"Charles caused considerable controversy in 1994 when he first floated the idea in his attempt to embrace the other religions that have become more visible since his mother came to the throne in 1952." --http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-10-09/national/35501470_1_title-change-faith-defender Natebailey (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Grover cleveland (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

When will Prince Charles overtake Edward VII as the longest-serving Prince of Wales?

The article states (under the Section: Youth, Subsection: Created Prince of Wales) that "Charles is the oldest Prince of Wales since it became the title granted to the heir apparent to the English throne, and the third-longest serving Prince of Wales, behind George IV and Edward VII, whom he will pass on 10 October 2017". Is this date correct? Edward VII's tenure as Prince of Wales lasted from 8 December 1841 to 22 January 1901, a period of 59 years and 45 days. Charles was created Prince of Wales on 26 July 1958 and 59 years and 45 days from that date will be 10 September 2017 so that should be the date on which Charles will overtake Edward VII as the longest serving Prince of Wales and not 10 October 2017 as the article currently states.82.26.7.221 (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Corrected. I changed the other day too as that also seemed out. DrKiernan (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

But 26 July 1958 + 21594 days brings you to 8 September 2017, so that's the day they'd be equal, and 9 September 2017 would be the day Charles exceeds Edward. - Nunh-huh 20:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the date Charles would exceed the age William IV was when he assumed the throne to 20 September 2013 on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_monarchy_records also as it had previously said on there as well that this date would be 18 September 2013. For consistency, not sure if any other pages would need updating likewise. With regards to the date that Charles would overtake Edward VII as the longest serving Prince of Wales, 59 years from 26 July 1958 would be 26 July 2017, then it would be (5) days to the end of July then add the (31) days in August and then (9) days in September to give 9 September as the date they would be equal since (5) + (31) + (9) = 45 and hence 10 September as the earliest date Charles would have overtaken Edward VII's record. (unsigned)

If you want an accurate date, you need to calculate in days, not years, because all years are not the same: some have 365 days, and others have 366 days. You'd apparently say 8 December 1841 and 8 December 1900 are exactly 59 years apart, but in fact they are ((59x365) + 14) = 21549 days apart. For the actual dates involved: 8 December 1841 + 21594 days = 22 January 1901. 26 July 1958 + 21594 days = 8 September 2017. - Nunh-huh 23:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

For this calculation, between 8 December 1841 and 8 December 1900 there were 59 years (i.e. 59x365 = 21535 days) and also 15 extra days taking the leap years into account (i.e. 29 February for each of 1844, 1848, 1852, 1856, 1860, 1864, 1868, 1872, 1876, 1880, 1884, 1888, 1892, 1896, 1900) to give 21550 plus 45 days to give 21595 days in total so they would be equal on 9 September and Charles would exceed Edward VII's record on 10 September. This can also be confirmed with Excel or other such software. Subtracting 08/12/1841 from 22/01/1901 gives 21595 days and adding 21595 days to 26/07/1958 gives 09/09/2017 as the day they would be equal and 10 September as the first day Charles could claim to have exceeded Edward VII's record. (unsigned)

1900 was not a leap year. If Excel is telling you it is, you should return it for a refund. - Nunh-huh 02:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, forget that, they'll never give you your money back. It's a known bug in Excel: see <http://www.cpearson.com/excel/datetime.htm>. Suffice it to say that Excel is pretty much useless for historical dates. - Nunh-huh 03:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to take silence as the absence of further objection. I will change the article so that it gives the correct date, 9 September 2017, as the date when Charles would become the longest serving Prince of Wales. I've also calculated the correct date for when he would surpass the age of William IV on assuming the throne. William IV was born 21 August 1765, and assumed the throne on his father's death on 26 June 1830. Thus he was 26 June 1830 minus 21 August 1765 or 23684 days old. Charles was born 14 November 1948. If we add 23684 days to that, we would get 18 September 2013, the date on which he would equal the age at which William IV ascended the throne, and 19 September 2013 as the date on which he would exceed it. I will change the article accordingly. - Nunh-huh 20:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please do take silence as the absence of further objection. I have also changed the date Charles would exceed the age William IV was when he assumed the throne to 19 September 2013 on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_monarchy_records for consistency as it had previously said 20 September 2013 on there. However, when will the reign of the current monarch, Elizabeth II, exceed that of Queen Victoria? This web page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-reigning_British_monarchs, and this one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_monarchs_by_longevity currently give different dates and so, again for consistency, one or both may need to be changed. This thread can be continued on the talk pages of either of those web pages of course.82.26.7.221 (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Where did the above dialogue come from? The whole discussion appeared here in one fell swoop, and seems to have been copied from somewhere else. It needs some indenting to make it easily readable. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Indentation added from archive 3. DrKiernan (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Vǐctoria became queen on 20 June 1837 and died 22 January 1901; that's 23226 days. Elizabeth II became queen on the day her father died, 6 February 1952. Add 23226 days to that, and you get 9 September 2015, the day on which she would equal Victoria, which makes 10 September 2015 the day she would surpass her. I think it appears correctly on the second page cited; I've corrected it on the first page cited. - Nunh-huh 20:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The article, I note, already says that Charles is the longest-serving heir-apparent, but might it be worth mentioning that he is thus also the longest-serving Duke of Cornwall? john k (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

MIght be worth pointing out. It would certainly reinforce the fact that the granting of the title of Prince of Wales isn't automatic, while the Duke of Cornwall is... - Nunh-huh 23:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of adding material that is not found in the usual literature. DrKiernan (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"The usual literature" has never been a Wikipedia criterion. "Reliable sources" and "reputable publishers" have. A lot of information that appears in our articles is stuff that most people don't know about because it doesn't appear in "the usual literature". But it's verifiably true nonetheless, and its inclusion is part of what makes WP great. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Due weight is a wikipedia criterion. DrKiernan (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed addition to update "6.4 Natural environment" for consensus vote

On 27 August 2012 HRH the Prince of Wales addressed the International Union for Conservation of Nature - World Conservation Congress on the urgent need to bring agriculture and conservation back together.

"I have been particularly fascinated, for example, by the work of a remarkable man called Allan Savory, in Zimbabwe and other semi arid areas, who has argued for years against the prevailing expert view that is the simple numbers of cattle that drive overgrazing and cause fertile land to become desert. On the contrary, as he has since shown so graphically, the land needs the presence of feeding animals and their droppings for the cycle to be complete, so that soils and grassland areas stay productive. Such that, if you take grazers off the land and lock them away in vast feedlots, the land dies."- His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales (Prince Charles)

Redddbaron (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Following on from my comments in the section above this one, I think this article is failing to cover aspects of Charles's life with due weight. The article is absurdly imbalanced. With your addition, we now have six paragraphs on his conservation views, six paragraphs about architecture, and four paragraphs on homeopathy. How much of the article is on the death of his first wife? One sentence. Any published biography of Charles that took a similar view of his life would quite rightly be ridiculed.

The addition is unnecessary and further imbalances the article. With the article now at over 100k in length, we should be working towards restricting comparatively trivial additions and removing some of the less relevant material. DrKiernan (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

If you think Prince Charles work on environmental issues is trivial, I can edit out the quote and it will be just a short announcement that he gave a speech. But I think that works and advocacy are actually what defines a person's legacy more than anything else. In fact it was her charitable works that defined Princess Diana's legacy IMHO. Shouldn't it be the same for Prince Charles? Redddbaron (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Trivial additions

Since I complained about the length of this page, it has grown by a further 10kb. As I said, comparatively trivial additions should be restricted. A sheep-farmers' award, out of hundreds of awards he has received, is comparatively trivial. DrKiernan (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 April 2013 update publications section

• Bell, Ni (2011). In The Footsteps of War: Ninety Years of Remembrance. London: Brimar Entertainment. ISBN 978-0957090200.

[http://Http://inthefootstepsofwar.co.uk Http://inthefootstepsofwar.co.uk source Will peace (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Why? and Where? noq (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Minor enhancement suggestion - link text ref to "The Glums" nickname to relevant wiki page

Touch of background detail for the reference to Charles and Diana being called "the Glums" by the British press could be added by linking here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_It_From_Here#The_Glums

The specific cultural comparison to this famously dreary 1950s comedy family was very much intentional, and that might be lost on younger readers.

--PRL1973 (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverts

I don't understand this revert [3]. The edit summary does not relate to the material removed. Since this material was first removed on 19 April, the article has become even more unbalanced than it was before. I believe that expanding on trivial incidents like an award for sheep-farming while continuing the gradual censorship of all mention of his infidelity is unwise. The article should cover all aspects of his life with due weight, and not favor the views of the sycophants. DrKiernan (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - my revert is a twice-failed attempt to fix the succession boxes. It has nothing to do with Camilla. I will look into it.  Frank  |  talk  17:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Allan Warren

Tried to remove Allan Warren from two photo captions but I have been reverted, we dont normally put credits in captions unless they are directly relevant and commented on as being notable in the text. Dont see any comment in this article that they are notable to Charles so suggest removing it as per my edit. MilborneOne (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that does not make sense. Notable authors of artworks are always mentioned in captions. Whether or not they are mentioned in the text is completely irrelevant - most often, they are not. Authors of the portraits of Caroline of Ansbach are not mentioned in the text, for example, but are mentioned in captions. Isn't that sensible? Surtsicna (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I cant speak for other articles but is is not normal practice to give credits in image captions unless it is related to the article, as far as I can see you wouldnt mention Warren in the article so I cant see why he should be mentioned in the caption. They are not iconic or notable images and are for illustration only and not commentary so the photographer is not really relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but you have not convinced me that it is "not normal practice to give credits in image captions unless it is related to the article". I have provided an example that refutes your claim, and I can provide many more if necessary. Can you quote a policy, a guideline or a notable example (such as a featured article)? Surtsicna (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

All I can say it is very rare on wikipedia to give a credit to the photographer in the article that has no relevance to that article, certainly WP:CAPTION says in Tips for describing pictures that "Generally, this is only included in the caption if the photographer is notable" and "that not all of this information needs to be included in the caption, since the image description page should offer more complete information about the picture." and also "Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article." so I still cant see why the photographer is relevant to Charles, no mention that he is an official photographer and he is not notable enough (or his photographs) to get a mention in the text, so I still cant see it is adding anything to this article. Not sure comparing oil paintings with a society photographer is in the same class. But as you seem determined that the photographer be named and nobody supports my deletion so be it. MilborneOne (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Known in Scotland as Duke of Rothesay in Scotland and in Cornwall as Duke of Cornwall,

In Scotland twice, please edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.20.109 (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Tabloid sources

Can we remain mindful of WP:BLPSOURCES; we cannot use tabloid sources on articles on living people. Do not add or restore such sources to this article, please. --John (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Last name?

I was just passing by this article and noticed that nowhere in the article does it mention his last name. As an American I don't know this stuff well. Is there a reason the article states him as "born Charles Philip Arthur George", and not "born Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor?". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Racingstripes (talk • contribs)

It's in the note. DrKiernan (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

When was his name publicly announced?

We've been told of recent days that his name was not known to the world at large for a month after his birth. This would have coincided with his christening on 15 December 1948, a month and a day after he was born.

Yet, I read on p. 163 of Elizabeth & Philip: The Untold Story (Charles Higham and Roy Moseley) that his parents decided before he was born that if the child was a boy he would be named Charles Philip Arthur George. Why would they have waited a month to reveal his name? I get the impression some journalist has confused the date of his christening with the announcement of his name. Is there a source that proves his name had been released prior to the christening? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

lead section is not neutral

Camilla was also is ex girlfriend, you can't just say she was his mistress since they were in a relationship before she or he married and their past relationship played a part in their future. I'm adding that to the lead to make it neutral. (Monkelese (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC))

Neither term is necessary. I'm thinking if you have married a man, then you were at some point his *girlfriend*, & majority of people have slept together before marriage, some of them also whilst married to others. Further down in the article Camilla's relationship with Charles is discussed at length, so inserting qualifiers such as *girlfriend* &/or *mistress* isn't needed. It can say he married Camilla just like it says he married Diana. Dian'as not termed his *girlfriend* & neither should Camilla be. Out both terms go. ScarletRibbons (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Sock puppet activity

comment removed (MrJimLadFalala (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC))

I dont see why not if you can source it reliably♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The above account is almost certainly banned User:HarveyCarter as the topic (royal smoking) is one of his favorites and the IP range [4] is identical to that of the sockpuppeteer. DrKiernan (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed by similarity with old user names: User talk:MrFalala. DrKiernan (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Something is wrong in the Amanda Knatchbull section

Amanda was born in June 1957. If the match was first suggested in early '74, she would have been 16 1/2. Yet our article says 'not yet 16'. Can anyone confirm? -- Y not? 14:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Princeofwales.gov.uk

Should www.princeofwales.gov.uk be considered a reliable source for this article? Famous_dog (c) 07:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I cant see why not. MilborneOne (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Heir apparent?

Charles is not the heir apparent, he is the heir. The heir apparent is the second in line.

Brupey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brupey (talk • contribs) 07:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

An heir apparent is someone who is first in a line of succession. So, Charles is the heir apparent. DrKiernan (talk) 08:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Or, put another way: Yes, he's the (eventual) heir, but he could be either the heir apparent (someone who will inherit if he outlives the person he is heir to) or the heir presumptive (someone who could possibly be displaced as heir by the birth of someone else). It's traditional to provide this additional information. But the heir apparent is most certainly not the second in line, he's the first. - Nunh-huh 11:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Lede

Can Monkelese please provide a more detailed justification for his reverts? The lede is "fine the way it is" and "appropriate" are not appropriate explanations for why the lede needs unnecessarily piped links; the titles of a select few of his books, each in a different location in the lede, one with further elaboration on its adaptation into a play, a ballet, and a film and the other with detail about an award it won; detail about a select few of the Prince's endeavours, including the source of ingredients for Duchy Originals, among other minutae; specific mention only of The Prince's Trust and The Prince's Charities; and to be so disjointed and out of order (his marriage and children at the bottom, separated from the paragraph that outlines his birth and education by a lengthy paragraph on his charities and interests, the aforementioned dispersement of the titles of a few books, etc. The lede is a summary, and should be a well written one at that. The current one is bloated with minutae and has interrupted flow. Why? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Monkelese, this is a blatant revert of my attempt to condense and better organise the lede and address your concerns, despite my disagreement with them. Explanations are required:

• Why do the books need to be mentioned in three separate locations, rather than together?
  • Why must mention of The Old Man of Lochnagar be between mention of Charles' stint in the Navy and mention of his first marriage?
• Why does mention of his marriages have to be in its own paragraph separate from that mentioning other personal milestones?
• Why do the books' publication dates and the dates on which his charities and Duchy Originals were founded need to be mentioned in the lede of Charles' bio when they can be found in the articles about those subjects?
• Why does mention of The Prince's May Day Network and details about it need to be mentioned in the lede?

Answers more elaborate than "parts of the lead was fine before" would be much appreciated. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

What does he do for a living?

I don't see anything in the article about how he keeps hilself busy the whole day. What does he do productively? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Rui Gabriel Correia: You missed the Social interests and Official duties sections? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

new image

Does anyone prefer this pic or should the current lead pic remain? this was taken in 2013

Please decide...

I kind of think this new image is a bit of an awkward one. It might be newer, but it's not really a great picture of Prince Charles. It's not like his appearance has changed drastically between 2012 and 2013. However, if we do want to update the picture, wouldn't it make more sense to use one from 2014, like

File:The Prince of Wales April 2014.jpg

Psunshine87 (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The picture at 19:56, 4 October 2014[5] is better and should be retained. Qexigator (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent Religion Field

I've noticed that Queen Elizabeth II's religion is listed as "Anglicanism" while Charles's is listed as "Church of England". May I suggest consistency, the Queen's religion should be changed the "Church of England" considering it is the church over which she is the governor of? Thanks MarksmanH (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2015

The prince of Wales is no longer 66 years old. 130.43.180.25 (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done. 2014, the year of his last birthday, minus 1948 equals 66. -- Calidum 07:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrong name under children (issue)

Under Prince Charles of Wales issue (children) it says Prince HENRY of Wales. It it supposed to be Prince HARRY of Wales. It goes to the correct page, but just thought I'd throw that out there because it may confuse people and I can't edit it myself. 208.184.221.161 (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Technically, he was born Prince Henry, but he now uses the name Prince Harry. So I guess it's technically correct, but confusing. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

His legal name is Henry, his nickname is Harry. He is commonly known as Prince Harry, but his proper name is Prince Henry of Wales. Psunshine87 (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

House of Glücksburg

Say, isn't he a member of the House of Glücksburg.. rather than Windsor? That's his father's house. And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you get sorted into your dad's house, not your mother's? Regardless of whether she reigns? As in, Queen Victoria being of the House of Hannover, but Edward VII being Saxe-Coburg and Gotha? -- Director (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Charles is a patrilineal cadet of a cadet branch of the Royal House of Greece, a cadet branch of the Royal House of Denmark, a cadet branch of the Ducal House of (Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-)Glucksburg, a cadet branch of the comital-cum-grandducal House of Oldenburg. No, this is not so "rather than" the fact of Charles being a nominative member of the House of Windsor, whose members are patrilineally non-dynastic scions of the senior branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, juniormost branch of the senior, Ernestine line of the ducal House of Wettin. Charles is a member of his father's house agnatically and of his mother's house dynastically. Yes, traditionally, hereditary ruling Christian dynasties have been sorted patrilineally, but progressively in the 20th century that affinity began to be reckoned, declaratively, predominantly in accord with dynastic ascendancy, whether paternal or maternal, "rather than" in accord with the pre-World War I tradition. Thus, yes, Queen Victoria is reckoned a life-long member of her father's House of Hanover although she did not inherit that realm's crown, while inheriting that of the United Kingdom. Yes Edward VII is reckoned a life-long member of his father's House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, although he did not inherit that realm's crown, while inheriting that of the United Kingdom maternally. Yes, George V is reckoned a member of his father's House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (although he forfeited his right of succession to his paternal grandfather's ancestral duchy by residential citizenship in a nation at war with the German Empire as legislatively mandated in March 1917) until he declared himself to be head of a distinct dynasty in July 1917, though retaining the same right to the same throne as before according to the same laws as before. Clear as mud, right? FactStraight (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The information given above by FactStraight looks about as clear as it can be (and much better than mud}. With minor copyedits it could be placed in a suitable article, for the information of readers: but where? And when there, it could be linked for expanded information from articles where patrilineals and houses are mentioned as a minor detail. Qexigator (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

+Perhaps bits of the information are present, or could be, distributed among existing articles, but where is it, or could be, brought together in one place for ease of reference, with cross-links in the usual way? For a start, could the above be edited for inclusion in the Ancestry section of Charles's article? Qexigator (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The genealogy is probably pretty well sourced in Montgomery-Massingberd's Burke's Guide to the Royal Family. Challenge would be the shift from use of patrilineal to dynastic House/surname usage in 20th-21st centuries, which is an observed but not necessarily written-up phenomenon. Really, I think the interesting bit is that about the Coburg throne: Many here knew of the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 which was applied March 1919, but few were aware that it followed Coburg's diss to the British Wettins, and that whereas Coburg law kept Brits in the dynasty nominally but stripped their succession rights, the Brit law/proclamation did the reverse, stripping the Germans' dynastic affiliation/titles while leaving succession rights intact. Puts a different spin on the Kaiser's alleged, "Merry wives of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" quip. FactStraight (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, whenever Charlie ascends the throne, he'll be able to change the name of his House. If that were the case, he'd likely choose Mountbatten. PS- With the change in the succession to full agnatic however, Windsor may well remain the House name, as otherwise there'd be more frequent changes in the future, with more frequent Queen-regnant to King successions and Queen-regnant to Queen-regnant successions. GoodDay (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, modern retention of the dynastic house name, rather than the patrilineal one, was the phenomenon to which I was alluding above. It's complicated by the House of Mountbatten affiliation, which was nominal rather than adoptive or nominative, and has been preserved in the use of Mountbatten-Windsor, de facto, by Charles and his siblings (thanks to "Uncle Dickie's" influence), contrary to Queen Elizabeth II's 1960 Order-in-Council which, however, declared that she and her children (but not her husband or remoter descendants) would revert to the "House and name" of Windsor. As with the Dutch, Danish and Luxembourgeois dynasties, the ascension of women to the throne, prompting the gradual abandonment of patrilinealism for dynastic nomenclature, membership, titulature and succession rights is creating a challenge by proliferating, inconsistent and non-intuitive "rules" for dynastic identification. FactStraight (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that was probably the explanation. Brand names :).. it seems another sad step towards it all being just a show and nothing else whatever. Thanks a lot, FactStraight. Please consider writing on the subject briefly in the article. -- Director (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

But it's not entirely modern branding, nor unprecedented: Heirs of the Houses of Habsburg, Vasa, Romanov and Monaco's Grimaldis all retained, as a matter of tradition when not law, the name of their historical dynasty once succession to their thrones fell to a descendant in the female line who belonged to the male-line of another family. The difference, led by the Dutch House of Orange-Nassau, is that this practices is no longer a one off: the reigning dynasty's name and house membership is now increasingly apt to descend to dynasts regardless of whether inherited through a prince or a princess. FactStraight (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth II's successor does get to decide the name of the House, when he ascends the throne, of course. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Charles change 'Windsor' to something else? Seems unlikely, I'd say? :) -- Director (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

New Picture

Can this be a new lead picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkelese (talk • contribs) 17:40, 15 August 2015

2014

I dont see why, it doesnt really improve on the current one. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Charles, Prince of Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050331004503/http://www.time.com:80/time/daily/special/diana/readingroom/8191/4_25.html to http://www.time.com/time/daily/special/diana/readingroom/8191/4_25.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110525034904/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20050211%2FPROTOCOL11%2FTPInternational&ord=5357017&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20050211%2FPROTOCOL11%2FTPInternational&ord=5357017&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080922153922/http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca:80/special/royalvisit/biography.htm to http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/special/royalvisit/biography.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080914170352/http://www.heritagecanada.org:80/eng/services/winners.html to http://www.heritagecanada.org/eng/services/winners.html#pow
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150403212753/http://www.evz.ro/detalii/stiri/printul-charles-fermier-de-falticeni-616319.html to http://www.evz.ro/detalii/stiri/printul-charles-fermier-de-falticeni-616319.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080616103617/http://www.independent.co.uk:80/living/food_and_drink/features/article1816837.ece to http://www.independent.co.uk/living/food_and_drink/features/article1816837.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130202063318/http://www.fih.org.uk:80/media_centre/closure_of_fih.html to http://www.fih.org.uk/media_centre/closure_of_fih.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130514215921/http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/newsandgallery/news/hrh_visits_the_oxford_centre_for_islamic_studies_new_buildin_566.html to http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/newsandgallery/news/hrh_visits_the_oxford_centre_for_islamic_studies_new_buildin_566.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130609172940/http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/14982/ant-and-dec-to-interview-prince-charles-william-and-harry to http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/14982/ant-and-dec-to-interview-prince-charles-william-and-harry

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Call him what?!?

In today's world of 24-hour royal baby name news, it's hard to find any stupid thing particularly absurd. But November 1948 was a different time. During nameless Charles' hoopla, a reader from Chicago answered an Evening Times poll with such an unbelievably outlandish suggestion that it wound up back across the pond, via AP, where Ottawa Citizen readers shared a hearty "What will those crazy Yankees think up next?"

If you're sitting down with your monocle secured, get ready to hold on to your hat, because it's a doozie!

Is this still what we'd call notably ludicrous, or has that ship sailed? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:15, September 13, 2015 (UTC)

If not, maybe those three consensus "most likely" names could be useful, in a boring trivia way. I think they were the same three favourites for Charlotte's brother, sixty-odd years later. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:20, September 13, 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it OK, with the UK??

Am I the only one, who finds it strange that we can't describe his mother as Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom or Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdon and the other Commonwealth realms, in this article's intro? GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I dont find it strange Elizabeth II is linked if you really dont know who she is. MilborneOne (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I would add that since "Elizabeth II" seems to be enough for her article name, I can't see why it would be necessary to include her fuller title(s) on her children's pages. Psunshine87 (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2016

please change the house of Glücksburg inspite of an edict by the queen that he is a windsor,he would continue to hold the descent of the mentioned house of glücksburg. 14.96.37.118 (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done There is a hidden comment beside the House parameter that reads "Don't add House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg without prior discussion. See Talk:House of Windsor#SHSG Part II". DrKay (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charles, Prince of Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090215182305/http://www.royal.gov.uk:80/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheRoyalFamilyname/Overview.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheRoyalFamilyname/Overview.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140502031801/http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalResidences/ClarenceHouse/History.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalResidences/ClarenceHouse/History.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

"Duke of Cornwall in South West England"

The article claims that Charles is alternatively known as the Duke of Cornwall in South West England, linking to the official region of that name. The SWE region officially includes Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, and other counties that are quite distant from Cornwall, and it seems to me quite unlikely that Charles would be called Duke of Cornwall there (rather than Prince of Wales). I would imagine "Duke of Cornwall" is only really used in Cornwall, and maybe in Devon. Are there any independent sources to back this claim up? 115.166.16.149 (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Image

It strikes me as a bit peculiar to have the main image in the article be one where Prince Charles's chest hair is showing. It almost seems like it was done to poke fun at him. Aren't there any more suitable ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.16.149 (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

How about this one? His appearance hasn't changed at all really since 2012 (and earlier), so I don't think that would be an issue. 115.166.16.149 (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Harry not Henery

He says that Prince Henery is his son not Harry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:480C:4700:11F:A142:54A1:1977 (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Harry is a diminutive of Henry. DrKay (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Parents' titles at Charles's birth

Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, was not titled as a prince when Charles was born. He renounced his "Prince of Greece and Denmark" title before he married Princess Elizabeth, and was not created a British Prince by his wife until many years after they were married. At least I try (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC) At least I try (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charles, Prince of Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717001302/http://www.thecarpenterscompany.co.uk/pages/about_us/default.aspx to http://www.thecarpenterscompany.co.uk/pages/about_us/default.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thedraperscompany.co.uk/History/5_Rm4.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717001302/http://www.thecarpenterscompany.co.uk/pages/about_us/default.aspx to http://www.thecarpenterscompany.co.uk/pages/about_us/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722053034/http://www.wcom.org.uk/pdfs/backissues/PreserveHarmonyIssue35.pdf to http://www.wcom.org.uk/.%5Cpdfs%5Cbackissues%5CPreserveHarmonyIssue35.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charles, Prince of Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20101103140224/http:/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105061103/http://www.evz.ro/detalii/stiri/printul-charles-fermier-de-falticeni-616319.html to http://www.evz.ro/detalii/stiri/printul-charles-fermier-de-falticeni-616319.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thedraperscompany.co.uk/History/5_Rm4.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717001302/http://www.thecarpenterscompany.co.uk/pages/about_us/default.aspx to http://www.thecarpenterscompany.co.uk/pages/about_us/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130315111928/http://www.iucn.org:80/knowledge/multimedia/video/?10774/Prince-Charles-sends-a-message-to-IUCNs-World-Conservation-Congress to http://www.iucn.org/knowledge/multimedia/video/?10774/Prince-Charles-sends-a-message-to-IUCNs-World-Conservation-Congress

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2016

In the last line of the first paragraph, it states that Queen Anne died in 1714 at rhe age of 83 when infact she died at the age of 49. She was born in 1665 and died 1714. Devildog2227 (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: @Devildog2227: It is referring to the death of Sophia_of_Hanover. RudolfRed (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2016

under "issue" his son's names read: Prince William, Duke of Cambridge Prince Henry of Wales

"Henry" here should be "Harry" and the hyperlink is broken Keeks010203 (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted it as Prince Henry of Wales is his actual name and we dont want to mix formal and nicknames in the infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Charles will apparently become Prince of Transylvania

See this article. Is this a reliable source? If so, should we add "Prince of Transylvania" to the list of Charles's titles? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It's an "honorary title". Mayors can't make real princes. - Nunh-huh 17:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Service/Branch

Since he technically holds the army-rank of field marshal, shouldn't we add British Army to the branch part of the infobox? -Jak525 (talk) 21:10, Wednesday, April 19, 2017 (UTC)

Since there were no comments, I went ahead and added it. -Jak525 (talk) 22:03, Friday, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

That bit of the infobox doesn't seem informative to me. It doesn't appear to say anything about his actual military career. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Charles, Prince of Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120704195647/http://www.debretts.com/people/royal-family/royal-portraits/prince-charles.aspx to http://www.debretts.com/people/royal-family/royal-portraits/prince-charles.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080921102217/http://princescharities.org/princes-trust to http://princescharities.org/princes-trust
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140809232135/http://www.princescharitiesaustralia.org.au/contact-us to http://www.princescharitiesaustralia.org.au/contact-us
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081024000010/http://www.mihaieminescutrust.org/content/nd_standard.asp?n=114 to http://www.mihaieminescutrust.org/content/nd_standard.asp?n=114
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120910011020/http://www.gardenerscompany.org.uk/4.htm to http://www.gardenerscompany.org.uk/4.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121005065906/http://www.duchyoriginals.com/our_story.php to http://www.duchyoriginals.com/our_story.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iucn.org/knowledge/multimedia/video/?10774%2FPrince-Charles-sends-a-message-to-IUCNs-World-Conservation-Congress
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071028192204/http://www.oxcis.ac.uk/about.html to http://www.oxcis.ac.uk/about.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140810023045/http://www.assemblywales.org/visiting/about_us-assembly_history_buildings/senedd_history/sen-projecthistory/sen-project-history-subpage/sen-project-history-openeing-the-senedd.htm to http://www.assemblywales.org/visiting/about_us-assembly_history_buildings/senedd_history/sen-projecthistory/sen-project-history-subpage/sen-project-history-openeing-the-senedd.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928085431/http://www.walesonline.co.uk/lifestyle/showbiz/prince-charles-honoured-arts-work-1797434 to http://www.walesonline.co.uk/lifestyle/showbiz/prince-charles-honoured-arts-work-1797434
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121123082814/http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/todays-top-tv/prince-charles-the-royal-restoration/49262 to http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/todays-top-tv/prince-charles-the-royal-restoration/49262

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charles, Prince of Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140502033337/http://www.turknewsline.com/prince-charles-makes-generous-syria-donation/ to http://www.turknewsline.com/prince-charles-makes-generous-syria-donation/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808035942/http://www.philosophyinwessex.org/in-harmony-with-a-philosophy-king/ to http://www.philosophyinwessex.org/in-harmony-with-a-philosophy-king/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

South west England

So this line in the first paragraph stuck out: "Known alternatively in South West England as Duke of Cornwall" Is this true in Somerset or Devon, or really just in Cornwall? It seems like a reactionary opposition to Cornish Nationalism to ascribe this opinion to the whole of the Southwest. Any thoughts? 73.11.81.111 (talk) 06:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The largest bit of the Duchy of Cornwall is actually in Devon. MilborneOne (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charles, Prince of Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927213205/http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/speechesandarticles/a_speech_by_hrh_the_prince_of_wales_at_the_150th_anniversary_1876801621.html to http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/speechesandarticles/a_speech_by_hrh_the_prince_of_wales_at_the_150th_anniversary_1876801621.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140805160225/http://philipcarrgomm.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/books-of-the-year-harmony-and-farundell/ to http://philipcarrgomm.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/books-of-the-year-harmony-and-farundell/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203014041/http://www.moderntv.co.uk/index.php/productions/the-princes-welsh-village to http://www.moderntv.co.uk/index.php/productions/the-princes-welsh-village

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles, Prince of Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170207112716/http://spa.gov.sa/viewfullstory.php?lang=en&newsid=1088224 to http://spa.gov.sa/viewfullstory.php?lang=en&newsid=1088224

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with entire England?

Why is there a resistance to describe Duke of Cornwall as a peerage in England, per Duke of Rothesay being described as a peerage in Scotland? I changed it from Cornwall to England & now somebody else changed it to South West England, what gives? GoodDay (talk) 11:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

He's normally known as 'the Prince of Wales' in England. Just when he rocks up in or near the Duchy he is called 'Duke of Cornwall' in official sources and the media. William Avery (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The Duchy of Cornwall is a peerage of England, not just SW England. Prince of Wales, is his known title in the entire United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

He is not known by that title, except in the South West. Sense 2.6 here William Avery (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that he is called the Duke of Cornwall outside of Cornwall? I did a quick news search and found nothing to suggest he is known as such in Devon:

• https://www.google.com/search?dcr=0&q=site%3Adevonlive.com+"duke+of+cornwall"
• https://www.google.com/search?dcr=0&q=site%3Anorthdevongazette.co.uk+"duke+of+cornwall"

I would be stunned if it is different in any adjacent counties. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Is he known as the Duke of Rothesay, outside of Rothesay? We shouldn't be treating the two peerages differently. One is a peerage of 'England', the other is a peerage of 'Scotland'. GoodDay (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be stated just that Cornwall and Rothesay are his subsidiary titles, rather than "known alternatively" because frankly that doesn't seem to be the case at all. Ivar the Boneful (talk)

That would be best. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

He is referred to as Duke of Rothesay throughout Scotland. These are two of his many subsidiary titles, which are highlighted because they are actually used to refer to him in official sources and protocol. It's almost beyond parody that you think Googling local newspapers should take precedence over the official website as a reliable source. William Avery (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be best, to simply say "...his subsidiary titles are Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay..." and leave at that? GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

No, because, as I already took the care to explain above, he has many subsidiary titles. These two are particularly significant because they are actually used to refer to him, in specific contexts, which the article can explain by referring to reliable sources. William Avery (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Then just say they're the most used subsidiary titles. There's no need to show locations. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The citation doesn't say they're subsidiary. It says they're alternatives used in specific geographical areas. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Change the source. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

William Avery you need to find a source showing that "Duke of Cornwall" is used in South West England outside Cornwall. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

We already have a citation saying it's used in South West England. What we don't have is a citation saying it isn't. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

A neutral source. If it's used outside of Cornwall, then you should be able to find proof. Not just what someone at a desk in Clarence House thinks is what happens. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a matter of protocol, not about what the local rags print. William Avery (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

[6][7][8][9][10][11]. Having provided these Devon and Dorset examples, I don't mind if it just says "Cornwall" since he is very frequently called Duke of Cornwall there, and very less often elsewhere. DrKay (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

We'd be better off just showing the Duchies & not the areas. We certainly don't need to be showing Cornwall as though it were equal to Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Principality

Wales is no longer a Principality. Please use the term country. Draig ap Dafydd (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox: Canadian military ranks?

I've deleted his Canadian military ranks from the infobox, on the assumption that he's got military ranks in other Commonwealth realms, besides the UK & Canada. If he does, then why 'highlight' Canada, at the expense of the 14 other non-UK commonwealth realms? GoodDay (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

You deleted sourced information because you assumed something?

To assuage your worry about highlighting a realm, you highlight a realm? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is Canada getting special treatment over the other 14 non-UK Commonwealth realms, here? It's obvious why we show his British ranks, he actually served in the British military. Again as well, Charles (like the rest of his family) is primarily associated with the British monarchy. That's the way it is, that's how the international community sees it. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not "obvious" why we'd show only his British ranks when he holds ranks in Canada. British ranks listed are not those he held when in active service. Whatever "primarily associated with" means, it has no impact on 1) the fact Charles has ranks in the Canadian military and 2) it's either an erroneous omission or a deliberate political act to keep the ranks he holds in one country in the infobox and hide those he holds in another. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Where are his Australian ranks? New Zealand ranks? Antigua and Barbados ranks, etc etc. The UK is the realm he's primarily associated with & that includes the British military. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Only Papua New Guinea was missing. An easy thing to add, rather than start a revert war. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

If we were to show the British army, navy & air force ranks & then (as you mentioned below) use a link to his titles articles, that would suffice. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

That is very clearly not what I suggested. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Well then, we'll make it my suggestion. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it's possible to address both these points in part by linking to a list elsewhere[12] rather than burdening the infobox with a long list. DrKay (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I think an argument could be made to restrict the allegiance and service sections to the British navy and air force, which are the only services in which he has served actively. DrKay (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Having the British ranks shown is a given, as he's primarily associated with the UK & the British monarchy. Including the Canadian ranks, at the expense of the other 14 non-Commonwealth realms? appears somewhat odd. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The information in the box was/is somewhat inconsistent. It's stated his active service ended in 1977, but the ranks listed are those he was given long after. The ranks he presently holds are substantive, not honorary, so, is he still active? He certainly isn't reserve.

The infobox could display only his ranks in the navy and air force (up to 1977) and then give a link to List of titles and honours of Charles, Prince of Wales#Military ranks. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. He only actually served in the RN & RAF, the rest is honorary that is covered in the sub-article about titles and honours. Only list RN & RAF in the infobox. --rogerd (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, restrict it to the active services. Foreign royalty are often made honorary colonels of regiments in other Allied countries but we don't say that the King of Jordan or the King of Norway are British, despite them being British colonels. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Missing information

I think Prince Charles is heir also to be head of state of a number of other countries and not just the British throne. Can someone more knowledgeable than me in this subject include the missing info? Thinker78 (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

We're working on it. See above. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Thinker. In all the commotion, I didn't see your post 'til now. We're waiting on 'at least' two other editors & what they'll do in the next 24hrs. GoodDay (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)