Talk:Charles III

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCharles 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.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 21, 2023Peer reviewReviewed
May 11, 2023Good article nomineeNot listed
May 22, 2023Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 4, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in 1984, Charles, Prince of Wales described a proposed extension to the National Gallery as a "monstrous carbuncle"?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 28, 2004, July 29, 2007, July 29, 2008, July 29, 2009, and July 29, 2010.
Current status: Good article

Lead section revisited[edit]

I remain of the view that the lead section is... terrible. The wonder that it ever passed GAN in this state -- without detracting from the sterling efforts editors made considerably improving it in other respects, all kudos to those -- merely increases over time as his reign lengthens, and the "reign" paragraph fails to reflect that.

Specifically, p1 and p4 are absurdly undersized and uninformative, while p2 and p3 are long and trivia-packed. We learn that he spent six months in an Australian school six years ago, but not that he's currently head of state of that country. Nothing at all is said therein about his ongoing break from public duties on health grounds. We should significantly expand the former, and somewhat trim the latter. Or am I a lone voice in the wilderness on that? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with the lead. Please drop the stick. -- GoodDay (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@109 - How's this for p4?:

Charles became king upon his mother's death in 2022. At the age of 73 he was the oldest person to accede to the British throne, after having been the longest-serving heir apparent and Prince of Wales in British history. Significant events in his reign have included his coronation in 2023, as well as his diagnosis of cancer in 2024, the latter of which temporarily suspended planned public engagements.

That's all we could really have summarising the current body, though. Elizabeth's article has a summary of what she reigned through. Obviously, Charles's reign is about 45 times shorter than hers, but some things have happened: only one that sticks out to me is the rapid rise of AI, but that's not really related to Charles (except for this speech at the AI Safety Summit, which we might mention). Any ideas? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! That certainly corrects the most glaring of the omissions, so I'm happy not to let "doesn't go far enough" be the enemy of "bank!" 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what a friendly (?) robot suggests for his reign in a para, based on our own section:-
Charles III ascended to the British throne following the death of his mother on September 8, 2022, becoming the oldest person to do so at the age of 73. His accession marked the end of his record-breaking 59-year tenure as the longest-serving British heir apparent. In his inaugural speech, Charles paid homage to his mother and announced the appointment of his elder son, William, as the Prince of Wales. The Accession Council publicly proclaimed him as king the next day, with the ceremony televised for the first time, attended by Queen Camilla, Prince William, and various political figures. His coronation, held at Westminster Abbey on May 6, 2023, under the code name Operation Golden Orb, was a significant event marked by its adherence to Church of England rites. During his reign, Charles and Camilla engaged in multiple state visits and received dignitaries, including hosting South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and undertaking state visits to Germany and France. However, his reign was not without health challenges, as he underwent a corrective procedure for benign prostate enlargement in January 2024, revealing the discovery of cancer during treatment, albeit not prostate cancer. Despite health setbacks, Charles remained committed to fulfilling his constitutional duties, with Camilla deputizing for him during his recovery period at various public engagements, underscoring the resilience of the monarchy under his reign.
Maybe a little too much detail, but definitely a case where the artificial neurons have outdone the alleged wisdom of crowds... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? No more endless arguments over semi-colons?? Kill it with fire, I say! Oh dear, hard to improve. Time to retire, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was especially impressed that when re-prompted with "shorter summary?" and then "shorter still please?" it obliged similarly convincingly. Can't write its own though, as it's convinced it's still 2022. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes 2022! Those were the days. Charles was still in short trousers, was still at school with Harry... and still had that pet spider! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now slightly more concerned with your Knowledge Base than I was about OpenAI's! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone have any additional thoughts on this? I still think these are badly under-summarising (and conversely that p2 and p3 really need a trim). Here's another AI summary of the "reign" section... Charles III became king of the United Kingdom upon the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, in September 2022, marking the end of his record-breaking tenure as the longest-serving heir apparent. His accession was followed by a televised proclamation ceremony and his coronation at Westminster Abbey in May 2023. Throughout his reign, Charles and Queen Camilla engaged in state visits and received dignitaries, showcasing the monarchy's diplomatic role. However, health challenges arose in early 2024 when Charles underwent a procedure for benign prostate enlargement, revealing the presence of non-prostate cancer. Despite this setback, Charles remained committed to his duties, with Queen Camilla deputizing for him at public events during his recovery. Thoughts? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify. Which bits are you recommending be added or deleted? GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be explicit, then: why not the entire para above, as a wholesale replacement? Any if not, why not, on an element-by-element basis? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have a moving target now. We can at least add that he's performing "light public duties" again. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last sentence[edit]

I read "Significant events in his reign have included his coronation in 2023, and his cancer diagnosis the following year, the latter of which temporarily suspended planned public engagements." I suggest to (factually) say hat he and his wife were crowned, then what he did, then that he was diagnosed and not participating in public functions. To claim that the two "significant events" were two where he was passive seems unfair ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from the above, ChatGPT somewhat agrees with you too! As indeed do I. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and Head of the Commonwealth[edit]

Hi,

My change to include "Head of the Commonwealth" as a separate section in the infobox was reverted. I think this is a good change as it seems strange for being head of the Commonwealth to be the first thing mentioned in the infobox. It also seems to go against the point of the title field, which is to display the "Principal substantive title(s) in use". I don't think being head of the Commonwealth is the principal title of Charles III.

I also think including it separately may be worth it for Charles and not the other monarchs, as the independence of the role is much greater. I don't think there was any doubt Elizabeth II would be Head of the Commonwealth, but there was such a discussion and a decision at CHOGM 2018 to choose Charles.

If a separate reign section isn't supported, I would still support removing Head of the Commonwealth from the title field and moving it to a separate footnote next to Commonwealth realms, like "King of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realm, and Head of the Commonwealth(footnote=Independently chosen at CHOGM 2018) Safes007 (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We had a 2021 RFC on British monarch infoboxes & the result was to include "Head of the Commonwealth" in the infobox in the manner that it has been for the last three years at George VI & Elizabeth II & at Charles III since his becoming monarch. GoodDay (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t believe that RFC says that. The full closure states that the title should be included, but without a consensus on how it was to be included. I’m simply saying it doesn’t make sense where it’s included currently. Safes007 (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's an 100% clearcut MoS vio for something to have such huge prominence in the IB, when it's not mentioned at all in the lead section. Either it's an important fact or it's not, and putting it first is entirely silly. But the local consensus heart wants what the local consensus heart wants, it seems.
I think it's especially poorly considered given that the article goes out of its way to obfuscate rather than elucidate the distinction between the Commonwealth (that he's (supposedly sorta elective) symbolic head of) and the Commonwealth realms (that he's the hereditary monarch of). But good luck getting anywhere with that, either. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Safes007 that the previous RfC did not decide where to position the "Head of the Commonwealth" in the infobox, just that it should be included in the infobox. Putting it as the first entry under his name always struck me as odd, because that's not the major function of the monarch. I would put it as an "office2" field, as suggested by Safes007, but I wouldn't duplicate the dates, since they are the same as the reign dates, a point made by Celia Homeford and Ivanvector's squirrel in the previous RfC. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One further comment: just noticed Safes007's suggestion for a footnote in the infobox. My personal preference is to avoid cites in the infobox, for clutter reasons; it's meant to be a quick summary. The proposed footnote could be included in the body of the article, where the "Head of the Commonwealth" function is discussed. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Safes007:If it were up to me? I'd simply delete it from the infobox, for the same reason I don't support including "Supreme Governor of the Church of England", into the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But, if there's no consensus to exclude "Head of the Commonwealth" from the infobox? Then, I would support putting that title into a footnote, for the infoboxes of George VI, Elizabeth II & Charles III. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented my second preference and moved Head of the Commonwealth to the first reign section, with a footnote explaining that it's non-hereditary. I think this keeps the title in the box per the RFC, but avoids taking too much room if given a separate reign section. Safes007 (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks crowded & leaves the impression that Charles III reigns (which he doesn't) as Head of the Commonwealth, though. GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that as an issue, but I think this is the least worst option that includes the title in the infobox, without having a whole other section that repeats information in the reigns section. I’ll add that clarification to the footnote though. Safes007 (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay's not wrong about that, but it's IMO still an improvement. OTOH I'm not clear that a separate section (with that text only) wouldn't be better still. Or perhaps with:
Charles III
Head of the Commonwealth
Successornon-hereditary
... and no more? The notes could stand to be better -- I think perhaps a single one -- and something in the lead in still needed. But the longest journey, etc, etc... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can sit back & see how it goes, I reckon. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be in the IB at all. It isn't in the lead, isn't what he's known for and is only mentioned twice in the article, once tangentially. The prime minister is also First Lord of the Treasury, Minister for the Civil Service and Minister for the Union. Although the Head of the Commonwealth isn't automatically the monarch the reality is that it invariably is. Sunak doesn't have all his other concurrent roles in his IB and neither should Charles. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't complain, if "Head of the Commonwealth" is deleted from the infobox here & from the infoboxes at the Elizabeth II & George VI pages. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current set up is awful and there is no consensus for it. In the event when there is no consensus, we stick to WP:STATUSQUO. You can change the infobox once the consensus is reached here. Keivan.fTalk 22:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What precisely is "awful" about it? Just as SQ can be deployed in the cause of WP:ILIKEIT, so can BOLD/BRD. There's a lot of "I get to revert and it's for the little people to discuss" misinterpretation of the latter, unfortunately. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a stronger case for it to be in the lead than for it to be in the IB. (I mean, that statement is almost universally true, and is backed up pretty directly by the MoS.) Given the past RfC, I'd recommend in the first instance as following the path of least resistance 'so add it to the lead in para four'. If that's not satisfactory, given the prevalence of 'revert on sight' editors on this page, it seems likely it'll be necessary to throw some process at the problem, presumably in the form of a second RfC. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If and when some person other than the monarch of a lot of its members becomes Head of the Commonwealth, we will almost certainly put it in that person's Infobox. Why not Charles"? HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tim O'Doherty. There's no need to have it at all. We don't put in Supreme Governor of the Church of England, or Lord of Mann. At best, I'd put this and any other titles Charles holds more or less by virtue of being king (and if he weren't heir apparent, he would not have been considered for the position in 2018) into a footnote to the infobox.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is not king of all Commonwealth members, so he does not hold the position by virtue of being king. It's a convention, much newer than the monarchy itself, and one that can change much more easily than being Supreme Governor of the Church of England, or Lord of Mann. HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be somewhat in the doldrums here -- or perhaps just stonewalled by reversion antics and lacking the spoons to deal with them. Are we going to have to do a formal RfC, or is there an enlightened compromise version available within existing "binding precedent"? I personally think thunderingly obviously "yes", but I'm not yet motivated to log in to actually do it in the face of such. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it should be in his infobox because it is more of a role than an office. For example, as King of the United Kingdom, he's also King of Canada, King of Australia, etc., etc. But it's not like we'd add all of the places he's king of into his infobox. For that reason, I wouldn't support this. His role as Head of the Commonwealth is merely a role that is ceremonial and not a governing role.
71.184.82.123 (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Prince Charles (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress (Charles, Prince of Wales)[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portraiture[edit]

We have multiple articles about paintings of Elizabeth II. So far this one by Jonathan Yeo is the first of the new king to receive significant media attention. Does it deserve an article? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can it not be included in this one? An/or does it belong at Cultural depictions of Charles III? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan Yeo is certainly a notable artist. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC) But perhaps Camilla will put a match to it?[reply]

His Majesty's Official Portrait[edit]

I believe it is quite polite and better suitable to use His Royal Majesty's official portrait as text-box picture, since it is the first thing you see upon entering the page, it would be just like his mother & predecessor's Wikipedia page, HRM Elizabeth II. Salesz (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted after a deletion discussion. See Wikipedia:Image use policy. We can only use free public domain images. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that Liz' official portrait was only used following her death Talthiel (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which Image are you referring to? I hope you're not referring to thay God Awful painting that's just been made Pepper Gaming (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see thread above. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Wealth[edit]

Maybe someone can make a mention about his wealth? he's officially richer than the Queen maybe because he inherited some of her wealth? I don't know. There is a source.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/entertainment/king-charles-iii-wealthier-than-queen-elizabeth-monarchs-fortune-soars-770-million 139.130.234.94 (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it could not be mentioned. But hardly very notable. That source says he's "listed as the 258th wealthiest person in the UK"' Martinevans123 (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a whole section on his finances. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's "Residences and finance". It says "In 2023 The Guardian estimated Charles's personal wealth at £1.8 billion." So not sure how it has now "soared to £770 million." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Overseas Territories[edit]

Why does this article fail to mention that the British monarch is also head of state of the British Overseas Territories? 71.184.82.123 (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article body doesn't deign to mention actual independent countries he's king of. Let's walk before we try to run. Sorta implied by the whole "dependency" concept, and the word "British" is something of a broad hint too. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so they are basically dependencies in a different font? 71.184.82.123 (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We treat the British Overseas Territories, differently. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're precisely dependencies, yes! They're in an ever-so-slightly different category from the "Crown Dependencies", but they're both for sure dependent territories, just with slightly different legal structure in place. In fact, in true British post-Imperial ad hoc fashion, all those are different individually too... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to crafted a better landing page at dependent territories of the United Kingdom to try to help clarify this mess. 09:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]