This is an archive of past discussions about Charles III. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
How do we treat other monarchs in a similar situation? Given that this is information of limited utility to the average reader, we should look to precedent and consistency. Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Rough consensus to change to proposed image.
On this issue policy is mostly silent, with editors not making explicit reference to any in support of their !votes. There was implicit reference to both MOS:IMAGEQUALITY and, in reference to the recency of the image, MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, but implicit arguments to these guidelines were made by editors on both sides of the debate and thus neither side has the stronger argument as viewed through the lens of policy.
As such, consensus here is decided solely based on the level of support for each position, and with approximately 60% of participating editors preferring the new image I find a rough consensus to change to it. BilledMammal (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Proposed image
There's this new image of King Charles III at Wikicommons which I think would be a great replacement for his infobox. It's in good quality, it's a recent one, it depicts King Charles III and not Prince Charles like the current infobox image and (despite it not being the official portrait) looks like a formal portrait. Opening up an RfC to hear everyone's thoughts! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Pardon me if this reply is in the wrong place—I'm editing on mobile, which is a bit hit-and-miss with indents—I still maintain that any of the images I'd listed here would be better, and that I think would make better lead images than the current image or this proposal. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
On the other hand, do we really need yet another RfC? Perhaps we can continue this informal discussion to determine whether there's any consensus for using this new image... Rosbif73 (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I also support the change. And no consensus is required. The existing image was put into place by a vote, and it wasn't overwhelming. And the argument then was, we were just waiting for an image of Charles as king. And here is one. And it may not be ideal, but it's as good as what we have.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
That being said, the current infobox image replaced the previous one after a vote by a margin of 20 to 16. I should not think any greater majority would be necessary to replace this one. Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I've reverted the change earlier on the basis that the current infobox photo was selected in an RfC only four months ago. My impression has always been that RfCs, particularly recent RfCs, present a relatively high level of formal consensus. I do take your point, though, that the margin of the RfC was not large, so perhaps it's not as high a level of consensus as an RfC would typically represent. In any case, I think gathering more input (perhaps through another RfC) would be ideal given how recently the last RfC was conducted. Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
There's been a change in circumstances justifying a renewed RFC in that an image of Charles as king is freely available. I think this conversation is an effort to see if there's sufficient opinion informally without the need for a formal RFC. Wehwalt (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm not keen on this picture either, due to the lighting issues already mentioned. The background is illuminated brightly but his eyes and mouth are in shadow, so the whole composition doesn't work.Robin S. Taylor (talk) 10:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I support this image, it's a current one with his current role, which to me overrides the minor lighting issues. El Dubs (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
We seem to be very close to majority support for the new image among those responding, which is all the current image ever got, a bare majority. Shouldn't we test broader opinion by an RfC now? Wehwalt (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Let's not rush. The current picture (2019, as Prince of Wales) is relatively recent, and is a "formal portrait". The one proposed (July 2023, as king) is almost identical but with worse lighting giving shadows that I personally don't like, and is not an official portrait, or at least not an official portrait of the U.K. or even of some other Commonwealth country (it is cropped from a photo taken in the White House with President Joe Biden). What about waiting until we have an official portrait of "H.M. Charles III" published for official British purposes (I don't know, displaying in public buildings maybe) ? And when we'll also have reproductions of postmarks with HM Charles III's picture, and/or of the obverse of "Charles III D.G. Rex F.D." coins,[1] I suppose we shall have more choice. — Tonymec (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I had a look at the King's page in other languages and I see that the English page seems to be the only one not to have made the proposed change. Although this new image is not of excellent quality, I am in favour of it; it will certainly be replaced one day or another by a better one.--Hamza Alaoui (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I think despite those reluctant, there's sufficient support that it is worthwhile starting an RFC whether the new image or the existing image should be the infobox image, and I'll work something up when I have some time. And if 20 to 16 was sufficient to put the existing image into place, no greater majority should be required for this. Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I do not agree with the assumption in this post, and in several others, that the official photo for the King of the United Kingdom must be used for all the Commonwealth realms. I think that wikipedians in each Commonwealth realm should be deciding what photo to use for their king. I therefore oppose the principle of this RFC, as it goes contrary to the modern status of Commonwealth realms. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Support the current image has Charles' hair merging into the vegetation. The proposed image is superior and from the time Charles has been king. That's what we were waiting for, wasn't it? If something better comes along, we'll replace this but for now this is the best option.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose the change for the time being but support a change if and when we have an official portrait approved by the Crown. Tonymec (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Weak support -- I agree the proposed image is of lesser quality than the current one. However, the difference is relatively minor IMO. While I don't think it's necessary for the lead image to be an image of Charles as king (I mean, who can tell the difference?), I don't see the harm in changing the image to a more recent one of relatively equivalent quality. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Support, as stated above any "official" portrait would not be usable due to licensing issues. This is a reasonably good image, it is not of substantially lower quality than the current one, and I think the fact that it was taken after he became king tips it in favor of the image proposed here. SeraphimbladeTalk to me23:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose (Summoned by bot) the present photo is clearer of his face IMO. But comment what's with the "we need a photo of him as king?" . He's changed job - not been 'touched by the Almighty' since the singing of Zadok and pouring of holy oil 'transmogrified' him. He's the same guy working slightly longer hours, that's all. Pincrete (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Support, it's a much more relevant image, and can be changed again when a better one comes out. It's preferable to have an image of him as King because him being King is what is the most relevant thing about him. Having an image that reflects this is ideal. El Dubs (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose This image isn't great which will lead to a future change anyway. Hold the status quo until there's a better image. Nemov (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Charles like any other adult has not changed that much in four years. The change in his title does not matter. The 2019 image is still the better one and should remain until a good image is available. Unfortunately, the one put forward does not look that good. Keivan.fTalk02:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm confused at this comment. @Keivan.f's comment is innocuous and it's not directed towards an editor. Please clarify or withdraw and remember to be civil. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Either withdraw your comment or I'll take the matter to administrators. I have not had any interactions with you to the best of my knowledge and it is utterly uncivil to label someone a jerk simply because you don't share the same opinion. Keivan.fTalk15:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Support (Note* Brought here from RFC/A) I do think if this new image is usable we should absolutely go with this choice, An encyclopedia is informative, anybody looking at an image would best be served in an informative way with an image that is most current and clear. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. I agree that we need to be on the lookout for a better lead image, but this proposed one has really bad lighting. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Support — this image is superior all around. The one presently in the infobox, he's scrunching his eyes, which are blurry, dull and watery, the scrunching also makes a prominent set of wrinkles more visible there at the bridge of his nose, his cheeks are flushed and capillaries are clearly visible. He looks very unhappy. The proposed image is 100x better.Isaidnoway(talk)16:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Weak oppose largely due to the poor lighting of this image, though admittedly I'm not all that keen on the current one with its busy background. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Support — this image is the perfect one. I believe that these kinds of images are just what wikipedia needs for people of the present time. RicLightning (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Dissent from this RFC each of the Commonwealth realms is entitled to choose their own images for their King. The whole point of the modern Commonwealth is to accept diversity in styles and titles. The title used for the King of the United Kingdom is not the same as the title used in Canada. For example, there is no “D.F” in the style and title used in Canada. The Crown in the Canadian coat of arms is a Canadian Crown, not the Tudor crown used in the UK since the accession of Charles. There is no need for uniformity in the choice of the picture, since each realm is independent and can choose their own picture. This RFC should be closed without a decision as contrary to the constitutional principles governing the modern Commonwealth. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Addendum: I appreciate that this RFC is for the page for Charles III. However, this issue has been raised on the Canadian monarchy page, and references have been made there to the previous discussions on this page as if that settles the issue for Canada. It doesn't. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree with you that this does not settle the matter for any other page. The only person who has said so is the editor, Estar8806, who started the poll over at the Monarchy of Canada page with a not-really-neutral statement after reverting to try to keep the 2019 image. It looks like on August 14, Peter Ormond changed several of the Monarchy pages for the Commonwealth realms to conform with the Charles III infobox picture. I don't see any discussion in any case. There is no need to invalidate this RfC. Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Surely the page should be titled Charles III of the United Kingdom or something to that effect, in the way that the wiki page for Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands or Margrethe II of Denmark? 81.140.211.220 (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
To expand on Tim’s comment, since the death of Queen Elizabeth a year ago, there have been three proposals to change the name of this page, and one to change the names of all the articles relating to British kings and queens since George I. All the proposals were rejected. The last one specifically for this page was c Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
But he's not just King of the United Kingdom is he though? Then you'd technically have to add another 14 other countries into the title... ends up being too long? King of the Commonwealth realms would be correct but it's never really used, well I've never heard it used myself. 86.136.229.213 (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Per our policy on these things in our Manual of Style (MOS:JOB) "King of the Commonwealth realms" with a capital K is incorrect as it's not a formal title, but "a king of the Commonwealth realms" with a lowercase k would be, as it's descriptive: it's describing a king who happens to reign over the Commonwealth realms, but it's not a title in its own right. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
He's even "the king of...", due to their fairly strict "one monarch at a time" policy, but that's right, "King of" wouldn't work. If 'natural' disambiguation were needed, or desired for 'fuller style' reasons, "of the United Kingdom" would be defensible, as it's clearly his primary title. (So much so that the main article text doesn't find it necessary to even mention the other places he's monarch of, literally relegating that to a (poorly worded) footnote. But that's another can of worms, of course.) "Charles III (Commonwealth realms)" would also be argued for on the former grounds. But it's not, because of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME. And a slice of WP:RECENT, but not so much so we can't leave that for 25th century Wikipedians to fret over. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi Tim. Much the better for having dropped out of working on this page, thanks! Hope you are too. And well done on getting this to GA. By hook or by crook... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks 109. Wouldn't've happened without your comments in November. Completely understand having to turn off WP once in a while, glad you're feeling better now. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I see you reverted my edit on this article (that added Byline Time's recent report on "cash for leaks") under WP:DUE. Please could you explain why you think my edit gave undue weight? I wanted to ask and see your perspective rather than enter an edit war. I think my edit was reasonable, with its contents being phrased as per the reporting of Byline Times and not as fact, having provided references that showed this was their reporting, there not being any articles at this time denying the article's contents, and with the outlet being described as highly factually accurate.
Hello @13tez - Your edit was made in good faith, but took up about a fifth of the entire "Reign" section, and went off on a bit of a tangent. I'd suggest putting in in the finance section instead, cutting it down, or putting it in Harry, Meghan or Megxit's article. I appreciate that you didn't start a revert war though, and you took it to talk: good on you for that. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
With respect, you didn't cite any of those issues when you reverted my edit (although I am happy to discuss them). Please could you clarify, therefore, whether you now agree with me that my edit does not, in fact, break WP:DUE?
Placement of the edit's contents is somewhat of a difficult issue. It could arguably be placed in multiple articles, let alone sections of this article. I placed it into this article because Charles is the biggest actor in the reported events - being the one cutting off funding. I placed it in the Reign section because the report came out now (during his reign). Perhaps it would be better placed in the finance section, though. I'm happy for it to be shortened and summarised, but it's worth noting the original BT article does contain a lot of information that those reading this article would be likely to find relevant.
Look, when Charles has been alive for 75 years a lot of things have to be cut or extremely condensed. I'm not sure that this has the long-term significance to be included in line with WP:SS. WP:DUE covers most of what I expanded on here, and we've not mentioned other similar events like Frogmore Cottage and Prince Andrew's business interests. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Tim O'Doherty, thanks for getting back to me again.
I'm not sure if you're now saying that the content is too long or lacks the relevance to include per WP:SS or whether you still feel as though it falls short of WP:DUE. As I said before, I'm happy for it to be shortened and summarised, and possibly moved, though this isn't why you said you reverted my edit (WP:DUE). Please could you, therefore, clarify whether your objection to the restoration of the content is under WP:DUE or for a different reason?
I'd recommend the proposed info, be placed into the Megxit page, as it appears to effect the Duke & Duchess of Sussex, in relation to their having left the UK & become non-active royals. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi @GoodDay, thanks for the suggestions! I think that it might indeed make sense to include information about this report in the Megxit article and also to include Meghan's title as the Duchess of Sussex.
Well, we typically refer to WP:RSP to determine a source's reliability, which at the moment does not list Byline Times. So a consensus is needed for it. Keivan.fTalk23:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Keivan.f, that's true. I did initially check while making my edit and saw that Byline Times is not rated in terms of reliability in the list of perennial sources, as you said. It can't, therefore, be seen as reliable in the sense of having been rated so by Wikipedia users after discussion.
However, per the What if my source is not here? section, "A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present." Since the other sites I mentioned before do rate the publication as being reliable and factual, I think that, on the whole, it makes sense that it should be allowed as a source on Wikipedia.
I do agree that a consensus should be formed on the publication's reliability by Wikipedia users should its reporting become frequently relevant to topics covered on Wikipedia. 13tez (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
13tez, I think you are unaware that the amount of text an issue has (not just whether or not it is in the article) comes into WP:DUE. Reverting because of DUE and is consistent with saying it's too much text. The wording of DUE includes not giving as much of or as detailed a description of an undue topic. DeCausa (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I see WP:DUE says "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text,..." as well as "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." I suppose then it makes sense to further summarise and/or move the text describing the report, as was discussed previously. 13tez (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
We don't normally have separate 'Reign' articles for monarchs, as typically it's essentially redundant with the main articles -- a monarch's primary notability is almost necessarily their reign, practically by definition. But Chaz might be the exception to this, given that it's practically a coda to the long soap opera of his stint as PoW. If properly sourced this would be less undue weight in a Reign of Charlies III article, if there's the material to make overall sense of that. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Tim O'Doherty. I think it's yet to be shown this is significant enough to Charles's life to mention in this top-level article about his life. There are, I assume, other articles that give more of a play by play of what goes on among the Windsors to possibly find a home. Not everything is significant enough to mention in the main biographical article. Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
At this stage, then, I think most people probably think the content of my original edit should be in the Megxit article or further summarised and moved within this article (?) 13tez (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Incorrect notation under ciphers?
The text under the two pictures of the ciphers on England and Scotland may be the wrong way around. The image that states this is the cipher for Scotland shows the Tudor crown, and vice versa.
(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! HurricaneAndrew (444)20:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
@Davidships I believe that the image of King Charles III's signature is too useful to be deleted without replacement. However, if you really think that it should be deleted, then I suggest that we reupload it to Wikipedia only (not to Wikimedia Commons) using the non-free fair use and the non-free use rationale templates. RyanW1995 (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
What I think doesn't matter - so far as Commons is concerned I see no justification for opposing the guidance. If you want to claim fair use on enWP, that's up to you. Personally, I don't see how it is useful at all ("useful" to whom for what?). How it contributes significantly to the understanding of this article defeats me. Davidships (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
As I understand it, the issue isn't security concerns, but copyright. Apparently in UK law, signatures are copyrightable, but perhaps it's possible to determine if copyright has been either asserted or waived in this case? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Addition or replacement of the royal house
I am asking if it is necessary to add the house of Mountbatten as an agnatic addition to the house section of the info box or replacing Windsor with Mountbatten. This is because due to the fact his father was from the house of Mountbatten, that would mean the royal house should change. House names are kind of like last names. In fact, all of Phillip and Elizabeth’s children and their children’s children should technically be, not from the house of Windsor, but the house of Mountbatten. Smilus32 (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
AFAIK, the king didn't change the name of the royal house from "Windsor" to "Mountbatten" (though in the past, house name change apparently occurred automatically, when a king succeeded a queen) & so we shouldn't. PS - Philip adopted his mother's maiden name, when he was made a British citizen. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I cannot edit the page, but there is a (beautiful, btw) photo of the King in full regalia in the Throne Room at Buckingham Palace ("Official Coronation Portraits" 8 May 2023). I think you should use that photo on the article 2804:D84:2280:2400:B9BC:7D15:5FA8:9DAE (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
When he became monarch at the age of 73, Charles was the oldest person to do so, the previous record holder being William IV, who was 64 when he became king in 1830.
should, like the preceding sentence, make it explicit that it is talking about the British monarchy, rather than extending to other monarchies worldwide. (The cited source is explicit.)
So, in this article, it is written in the infobox that the official house of Charles III is the House of Windsor. This is true. However, agnatically, which is how royal houses are supposed to or typically function, Charles III belongs to the House of Glücksburg. So I propose that the infobox is changed to match the likes of Frederik X, whereby it has "Windsor (official)" and "Glücksburg (agnatic)". Please let me know what you think. Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: Hello, thank you for your response. In regards to the first discussion you referred me to, it seems that the main reason for most opposition to the RFC was because it had not been discussed previously on the talk page. Similarly, it seems that in the second discussion was also abandoned because of the result of the first one. Maybe it is time for an actual discussion before a speedy close on a topic that has not been properly debated yet? Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
The difficulty with your proposal is that you start with an assumption: that all royal houses operate by agnatic principles. That is not the case with the British House of Windsor. George V made this very clear in 1917, when he changed the name of the House to the "House of Windsor". In doing so, he abandoned the agnatic principle for the name of the House: it would no longer be known as the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the name which agnatic principles would assign to it. Elizabeth II continued the rejection of agnatic principles, after her marriage to Prince Philip, when she confirmed that the House would continue to be the House of Windsor. This is a clear rejection of any argument that the House has any name related to Prince Philip's family. For details, see this summary in the London Gazette: "The centenary of the creation of the House of Windsor", and the three Gazettes linked there: 17 July 1917; 11 April 1952; and 5 February 1960. So, for you to succeed in your argument, you're going to have to provide a citation, from a reliable source, that King George V and Queen Elizabeth II did not have the authority to change and confirm the name of their House, and that unbeknownst to Queen Elizabeth, her House actually had acquired the name of Prince Philip's House, and that she lacked the power to confirm that name of the House of Windsor. Good luck with that. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
If it says "Windsor (official)" and "Mountbatten (agnatic)," that does not mean that the royal house's name is actually Mountbatten, only that Charles III agnatically belongs to the House of Mountbatten, but the royal house is Windsor. 73.170.152.122 (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
If Elizabeth II hadn't changed the rules? The House name would've changed to Mountbatten, upon Charles III's accession to the British throne. Since she did change the rules, the House name remained Windsor upon Charles III's accession & will remain so, until/if Charles changes it to whatever he prefers. GoodDay (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
The third state visit was to Kenya. The visit to Romania was not a "state visit". I'm not saying they shouldn't be added, but if they are added they should be described correctly. DrKay (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Someone recently uploaded a Charles III official portrait , the photo quality is much better than what we are using now. The key point is that it is an official photo. Should we change the photo?
I think the key question is the licensing. Other times when this or similar photos have been drawn to the attention, they have been rejected because Crown Copyright does not let them be free until the 2070s. This proffers an open government license. I have no idea if it is valid. Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
The Cabinet Office's statement just says that copies are being given to public authorities to be displayed in public buildings. It says nothing about other uses of the portrait, so in the absence of other indications one must assume that standard Crown Copyright rules apply. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. A shame, as it's a good image. I get very confused about copyright. Just for the record - what would the Cabinet Office have had to do to make this image usable here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Very odd to see the new official photo in so many articles now, but not here. What proof is there that it is not acceptable for the top of this article? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
To any editor who decides to change the image in future. Please seek a consensus for its addition 'or' find out if it's licensed, first. This would save a lot of time, with editors having to restore the status quo. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
"Current" tag
Is there really a need to have this at the top of the article? This article is well-watched and people seem assiduous in adding the latest information and in deleting what is false or inappropriate. What is having a large tag at the top of a well-trafficked article actually accomplishing? Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
As far as we know, the king isn't incapacitated & there's no plans to have the prince of Wales become regent. So, there's no need for the tag. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
His majesty has been diagnosed with cancer after a short time in a private hospital. The Prime Minister has wished him a quick and speedy recovery and so has Keir Starmer 86.15.35.15 (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Something regarding his health needs to be added to the body of the article. Obviously as of this post, not much is known. But the lead should only contain summaries of facts covered in the body of the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
It has been added, in the "Reign" section. But the lead section should just summarise what's there. I don't see that sources for this are also needed in the lead section. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Here in Australia, Charles is our king. A large number of us are males aged older than Charles. More than half of us have had cancer, most commonly skin cancer. We are still alive and kicking, and expect to be so for many more years. Until more is known, this is a minor issue. HiLo48 (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I still think that, due to Buckingham's inherently secretive nature and their reluctance to say anything until they absolutely have to, that the death of His Majesty should be taken into account and prepared for. A few friends and I have already started up a draft of this page in past tense so that it can be immediately edited. His death is unlikely, but rather safe than sorry. Mooseman7325 (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
It certainly has interfered with his duties generally, and the UK doesn't have a constitution (and in other places he kings, a viceroy performs such chores), so that's not really a meaningful qualification of the significance. There should be a brief mention in para four, the 'reign' nanosummary, which continues to be oddly underweight. Partly as it's been so short, and partly due to editors having idiosyncratic preferences in that respect. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I think it's too early to put something in the lead. We don't know enough. Time, not only palace announcements, will tell. If nothing is said, but he is absent from the usual royal events such as Royal Maundy in March, which his mother almost never missed, it may be time to reconsider. As for the body, I think we've put all we need to. All we could add would be speculation. Wehwalt (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting anything else be added to the body, just as I say a minimal additional summary in the lead section of what we have there. We can certainly qualify it as a palace announcement if that's felt to be required on the basis of it being a suspect and self-serving primary source, but reliable secondary sources also characterise it as "an indefinite break from public duties" and such phrases. That's neither speculation nor undue. Indeed I think it's a lack of due weight to not mention it at all: burying the lede, as it were. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Which is a considerably shorter (and less cruft-filled) article. It doesn't for example mention where Harald went to school for six months 60 years ago either (as this one does). So "not much", IMO. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Change the article to: Charles III of the United Kingdom
Further up this page are links to several move discussions that have taken place on this topic in the past 18 months. Each time what you propose has been rejected. Wehwalt (talk) 05:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Which is silly because anyone searching for Charles III or 'King Charles' is looking for this King Charles, not some dead King of Sweden from 600 years ago. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
After three attempts and a review within a year of each other, the last one just about 6 months ago, all failing - safe to say it would likely fail if proposed. Would be a waste of time for everyone involved. Also, he's equally king of 15 countries in personal union, not just the United Kingdom, so the title would be inaccurate by omission anyway. JM (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Birth room and method
I found online that Charles III was born via Caesarean section[1][2] in the Buhl Room of Buckingham Palace[3][2] and added these items in his biography (my sources referenced via footnotes), but they have been reverted by other users on the grounds that "it was Elizabeth II who was born via this method, not Charles III". Can proficient fellow editors please clarify what is correct as the items I added aren't things I simply invented. Thanks, Adelshaus (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, there are numerous sources online that say Charles as well as Elizabeth was born via C-section. Perhaps those who are reverting can provide an authoritative sources that refutes this. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
As I explained in the edit summary of my revert[5], the only accessible source you added[6] did not support the content you added. It says "For Elizabeth’s own birth, the Conservative politician William ‘Jix’ Joynson-Hicks had been summoned from his bed to see her born by caesarean section at the home of the Queen Mother’s parents." That is talking about Elizabeth II's birth not Charles's. You appeared to acknowledge that in your subsequent edit summary, when you corrected yourself[7]. The subsequent reverts by others are presumably mistakes arising from your original mistake in not providing adequate sourcing. DrKay (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
References
^Archie Bland: King Charles: 71 facts about his long road to the throne, Guardian Online, 1 May 2023 (online), access date 2024-02-17
^ abSophie Hamilton: The Queen's birth stories: Princess Anne, Prince Charles, Prince Edward and Prince Andrew, Hello Magazine, 19 September 2022 (online), access date 2024-02-17
^Kate Halfpenny: Queen Elizabeth II: 31 things you didn’t know, Sydney Morning Herald, 10 September 2022 (online), access date 2024-02-17
Talk archival
I've changed the archival params for this page, as it seemed much too rapid and aggressive. Minthreads of three really does nothing when there can be that many "but this photo!!" discussions alone, and weekly archiving is an active impediment to discussion when regularly editors argue "let's arbitrarily wait two-to-six months before thinking of doing anything at all!" (Like, mentioning in any reasonably prominent fashion where he's king of, that he's not performing public duties for health reasons, that sort of minor frippery.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
The favored Wikipedia portraits for British monarchs seem to be of them in dress uniform or their regalia, and this portrait more fits that style. The difference just caught my eye and it seemed fair enough to ask CanadianPrince (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Literally came here for this as well. Why is there an issue with the licensing, this seems to be the official photograph of the King. Hamidlinski (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
See this discussion here. To summarise: There is no evidence that the image (which I like, a lot) is anything other than Crown Copyright, which means it enters the public domain in 2074. We would use it if we could. Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you CH, very useful link and notification. A reupload might make sense if a different version is used, as a view offered there is that the 'full' version may be unlicenced CC, but the gov.uk version OGL'd CC. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
« the 'full' version may be UL CC, but the gov.uk version OGL'd CC. » what does this mean, please? I find it difficult to follow the discussion if it’s got lots of acronyms. —— Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I can see some reverts were made on attempts to claim the king has died, purely based on a release from a Russian news source. Thank you for this, and please continue to do so until official confirmation. Jalen Folf(talk)22:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
The first such edit I saw had an edit summary claiming it was on the BBC website. It wasn't. That was one of our editors lying. A Russian editor? HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: Has appeared in the ITN section in the last year, although not as a bold link, so I believe it should be fine on this front. Promoted to GA on 22 May 2023.
Interesting GA, thank you for relentlessly getting him there! Fine sources, no copyvio obvious. I think most readers would say yes to the original hook. For the ALT, the intended image would need no be in the article, but I don't like the construction "as Prince of Wales, Charles III ...". Can you find something interesting he really did as King? ... best with an image to match? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
This avoids the anachronism of "Charles III" and saves on space. There isn't much that isn't already obvious that Charles has done as king, that is illustrated in the article: the only thing that comes to mind is him banning foie gras, but that would be a very boring hook.
approve ALT2 if that's what you like ;) - offline sources accepted AGF, the pic is licensed and shows well even small. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
A bug of sorts. The bot that does the archiving will only archive after a certain number of days have passed. Since this whole section transcludes another page, there wasn't actually a date that the bot could see, hence, it was never archived. Someone could either archive this manually, or, since this thread now includes dates thanks to the conversation we are having here, the bot will probably archive it automatically at some point now. Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I made an edit to the lead sentence which Rosbif73 reverted as it was “unnecessary”.
From my understanding, ”is the King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms” is more accurate in grammar than “is King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms”. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
A definite article is not usually used with a job title when there is only one holder of the title (at any given time). Rosbif73 (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
It's a little tricksy, but the general understanding is that saying "the king" would be a description -- name, Charles; profession, kinging -- but "King of the United Kingdom" is a title. Note the different capitalisation. Like saying "President Biden" or "President of the United States", as opposed to "a/the president". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Kenyan State Banquet
I am in no way excusing the horrific acts that took place in Kenya during the colonial period, but is the King even allowed to make such a public apology without government permission? Wouldn't that tread on the limits of his political neutrality? My knowledgeability of what the monarch is and isn't allowed to say is one of my weak points when it comes to my understanding of the British monarchy. StrawWord298944 (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
The headline in The Guardian says that he "stopped short of apology." Earlier, the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) had said: "We call upon the king, on behalf of the British government, to issue an unconditional and unequivocal public apology (as opposed to the very cautious, self-preserving and protective statements of regrets) for the brutal and inhuman treatment inflicted on Kenyan citizens." But I note that the report also says this: "The UK reached an out-of-court settlement of £20m in 2013, with 5,228 Kenyans involved in a class-action lawsuit over the abuses committed during Kenya’s emergency period of 1952-60. The payout, accompanied by a “statement of regret” from the British government, followed an 11-year campaign and legal battle against the UK, initially filed by five elderly Kenyans." So I guess the UK Government may consider that the matter has already been concluded? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, and what I'm saying is that despite it being a government in his name, he can not issue a formal apology without its permission. StrawWord298944 (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Are you suggesting any change in what the article currently says about this? AFAIK it's wholly accurately reflecting what's said in the source. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Sounded to me more like an implication C3 shouldn't be "blamed" for the non-appearance of an apology. However we simply seem to be summarising the given source, so I'm unclear how we'd usefully action this, even supposing my inference is correct. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2024
This edit request to Charles III has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Religion: change PROTESTANT to CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Protestant isn't a religion per se (technically Charles is CHRISTIAN with his denomination being CHURCH OF ENGLAND). 110.175.115.98 (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
The key point is that he has a role in both the CoE (Anglican) and the CoS (Presbyterian), and a legal requirement not to be Catholic. His personal beliefs and/or practices aren't especially important, and wouldn't otherwise be noted at all. Either "Christian" or "Anglican" here would be slightly misleading. Though "Protestant" isn't ideal either, as that's not an entirely uncontroversial description of the CoE. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
AFAIK, he could legally be a Methodist... or Presbyterian, Latter-Day Saint, Jewish, Muslim, or atheist. Just to a) not be Catholic, b) take an oath as part of the coronation in relation to the CoE, and c) take a separate oath in relation to the CoS. It'd be absurd if the monarch were "supreme governor" of a church they weren't a member of... but that's the UK 'constitution' for you! Likely there'd be blowback if this happened, hence it very likely won't ever. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Good point, it does. "Then the King and Queene shall kisse the Booke." And requires administration by an (arch)bishop. And the whole thing is very much a gigantic Anglican religious service anyway. So if they had conscientious objections to any of that, or if the church kicked up rough about it, matters would be... complicated. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
The monarch cannot be a Roman Catholic, must be "in communion with" the Church of England, and swear that he is a faithful Protestant.[8] I gather that other protestant churches can be "in communion with" the C of E, so being Lutheran, for example, would probably be OK.
Thanks, good find. If that source is indeed correct, "in communion with" means it'd have to be another Anglican church. Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc would be Out, but Scottish Episcopalian, the Church in Wales, the US Episcopal Church, etc, would be Fine. But you're right, this is unlikely to be relevant to the original request, or to C3 in general. At best it'd be a matter for the one of the more general UK/Commonwealth monarchy pages. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
This has come up several times before, both here and at Elizabeth II. "Protestant" has been used because there are statements by the Church of Scotland that he and his mother before him are "members" at the parish church near Balmoral. That means, the thinking goes, that the situation is too complex to state CoE alone. I think too much has been read into that. As is stated in the article, in September 2022, he made a public statement that he was a "committed Anglican Christian".[9] That seems to me good enough to put Anglican as his religion in the Infobox, which should be about him personally not his constitutional constraints. DeCausa (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
One might expect the "Religion and philosophy" section to tell us how regularly he attends church? It currently says "He attends services at various Anglican churches close to Highgrove." But the source for that is 19 years old. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I dunno if we'll get a high-grade source that goes into his exact observance rate, but there's plenty of tabloid chatter about him being cited en route to this-or-that service. It might be out of date as regards the church, as he's now based in Clarence House (but still renting Highgrove off the heir!) and most of the gush about church attendance seems to relate to the one in Norfolk. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
There's two different issues - one is why the parameter is being used and the other is what is actually stated against the parameter. The religion may be there because of the constitutional position but what it then says shouldn't be determined by constitutional constraints - it needs to be the actuality. DeCausa (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
The two largely appear to coincide, as the CoE role is much the more direct one, and is the one he's banged on about himself. So I can see there's a case to simply say Anglican, and relegate the separate oath and the occasional kirk outing to the footnote, or to the article body as appropriate. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm surprised that the CoS has said that, as you'd imagine they'd be a bit more careful with theologically loose talk than the royals are, but sure enough: Like his mother before him, King Charles is an ordinary member of the Church of Scotland while in Scotland and regularly attends Crathie Kirk near Balmoral Castle in Aberdeenshire while in residence. ("While in Scotland", indeed. I'm getting 'Nam flashbacks to the Schrödinger's "official residence in Canada (while in Canada)" debate raging across multiple other pages.) It'd be a bit odd for a person to be confirmed into both, and consider themselves a "member" of both, but I can't say it's impossible, either. I think I'd want another source to bolster that one, but it might be argued that if that can be had, both could be listed (and a footnote disentangling that, of course). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Willem-Alexander (Dutch: [ˈʋɪləm aːlɛkˈsɑndər]; Willem-Alexander Claus George Ferdinand; born 27 April 1967) is King of the Netherlands.
Not "Willem-Alexander (Dutch: [ˈʋɪləm aːlɛkˈsɑndər]; Willem-Alexander Claus George Ferdinand; born 27 April 1967) is King of the Kingdom of the Netherlands."
Mohammed VI (Arabic: محمد السادس, romanized: Muḥammad as-sādis; born 21 August 1963) is King of Morocco.
Not "Mohammed VI (Arabic: محمد السادس, romanized: Muḥammad as-sādis; born 21 August 1963) is King of the Kingdom of Morocco."
Frederik X (Frederik André Henrik Christian; born 26 May 1968) is King of Denmark.
Not "Frederik X (Frederik André Henrik Christian; born 26 May 1968) is King of the Kingdom of Denmark."
Vajiralongkorn (born 28 July 1952) is King of Thailand.
Not "Vajiralongkorn (born 28 July 1952) is King of the Kingdom of Thailand."
Carl XVI Gustaf (Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus; born 30 April 1946) is King of Sweden.
Not "Carl XVI Gustaf (Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus; born 30 April 1946) is King of the Kingdom of Sweden."
Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein (Arabic: عبدالله الثاني بن الحسين, romanized: ʿAbd Allāh aṯ-ṯānī ibn al-Ḥusayn; born 30 January 1962) is King of Jordan
Not "Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein (Arabic: عبدالله الثاني بن الحسين, romanized: ʿAbd Allāh aṯ-ṯānī ibn al-Ḥusayn; born 30 January 1962) is King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan"
Harald V (Norwegian: Harald den femte, Norwegian pronunciation: [ˈhɑ̂rːɑɫ dɛn ˈfɛ̂mtə]; born 21 February 1937) is King of Norway.
Not "Harald V (Norwegian: Harald den femte, Norwegian pronunciation: [ˈhɑ̂rːɑɫ dɛn ˈfɛ̂mtə]; born 21 February 1937) is King of the Kingdom of Norway."
Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (Arabic: سلمان بن عبد العزیز آل سعود, romanized: Salmān bin ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Āl Su‘ūd; born 31 December 1935) is King of Saudi Arabia
Not "Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (Arabic: سلمان بن عبد العزیز آل سعود, romanized: Salmān bin ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Āl Su‘ūd; born 31 December 1935) is King of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia"
But this article says:
Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948) is King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms.
I would write it like this:
Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948) is King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of the 14 other Commonwealth realms.
Plus, the name doesn’t change with the monarch’s gender, so his mom was “Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”. We use the name of the kingdom. The name is set by the Union Act 1800, as amended by the Parliamentary and Royal Titles Act 1927. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
His Majesty Charles the Third, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith
where the relevant words are […] of the United Kingdom […] King […]. This wasn't invented by Wikipedia, it is his official British appellation. We cannot delete the words "United Kingdom" from this official style, not even on a pretext of redundancy. "King of the United Kingdom" merely reorders the parts most relevant about his function in the UK. I would add that IMHO the word "United" is important here, and that it applies to "Kingdom", another reason not to remove the latter. — Tonymec (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The short form of the UK's name is "United Kingdom". That part's really not optional. other than by saying "Britain", which is an imprecise and informal usage not available to us here. We don't have to -- and shouldn't, and don't -- follow the "official style" of C3, nor the long form of the name of the country. But nor should we be making up our own variations. If you find "King of the United Kingdom" infelicitous and redundant-sounding, a more feasible route might (good luck!) be to reword it as "monarch" or "head of state" in some manner rather than using his title directly. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
@ the OP: just to reiterate the comments of others, an analogy is "President of the United States" v. "President of America". DeCausa (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't even understand the analogy here. If we are in the business of comparing articles, DeCausa's example is the most relevant. One calls Joe Biden president of the United States (not president of America), and–to add my own–one similarly calls Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan president of the United Arab Emirates (not president of the Emirates). US, UK, and UAE are quite unique in terms of their names. As an encyclopedia we should aim for common usage and accuracy. And we should not be inventing terms. Keivan.fTalk23:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Essentially the OP is suggesting that King (or indeed "king", there's another wrinkle) of <country with "Kingdom" in its long-form name> sounds clumsy and redundant. King of the Kingdom, obvs! But the UK's longform and shortform name contain "Kingdom", so that's not really avoidable. Or at least, not in the way suggested. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
New YouGov Data
Last April, I added that the King's approval rating was about 55 per cent. One year later, they now show it at 58 per cent. I think it should be updated.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit request to Charles III has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I kindly suggest that the attached photo be added to the King's media and public perception section. The image depicts him opening the Sandton Hilton in South Africa with CEO Peter George, approximately two months after Princess Diana died. Prince Harry was also present at this event, but is not pictured.
Peter George is directly to King Charles' left, who is obviously in the middle. I did not take the photograph however I do own all rights to it and decided to upload it to Wikimedia Commons to preserve the history. I'm still trying myself to find the exact date, however I have deduced that it was taken on or in the days leading up to 1 November 1997. Szeremeta (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
If you did not take the photograph yourself, you may have to demonstrate at Commons that you "own all rights to it." You have currently stated it is "own work". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm really not sure. In the past I have struggled, at Commons, to establish rights for a third party photographer. I think you will have to enquire over there, sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
What is the significance of this photo that warrants inclusion in the article? Wikimedia Commons has a category page on Charles with 16 sub-categories, each with pix. So Charles snipped a ribbon? He does that sort of thing a lot. What makes this picture stand out for inclusion? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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.
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)
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)
British Overseas Territories
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This edit request to Charles III has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Spouses section of the infobox contains multiple "Expression error: Unexpected < operator" HTML errors that need to be fixed. 213.219.83.10 (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like a complaint about rendering. Seems fine to me, so must be browser-specific. And can't reasonably be localised to this page, but would be a template-coding thing if anything. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
Yes, really. That article neither sources nor mentions any supposed ambiguity about the title. If you've any concerns about that, you should be addressing that at that page, not subtweeting about it here. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Added a section
I created a section for Health, with a subsection on Diet, to both of which I moved a few paragraphs from other sections. My thinking on this was due to his recent health issues and the fact that the paragraphs I moved to this new section and subsection seemed out of place where they were previously. nycdi (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
The section on Diet is completely out of place. His reduced consumption of meat is (at least according to the article) due to concerns for the environment and for the animals - not related to his health. Yitz711 (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Infobox and Head of the Commonwealth
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/Archive 15
Head of the Commonwealth
Successor
non-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)
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 alsoFirst 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)
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.fTalk22:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What's the difference between a "role" and an "office"? They're both fancy official titles. Neither than any real power. Neither involves working for a living. And actually we would add the list, except that it's too long to be manageable. See previous discussions on this, really not the place to reopen that can of worms. Anyhoo, previous RfC said "include it", so your immediate options are to go along with that, to start another, or to WP:BEBOLD and try changing it yourself and seeing how that works out for you. Well, you'd have to create an account first, so Boldness Delayed at best. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
"Head of the Commonwealth" in infobox and lead section
Should the king's role as the honorary and ceremonial -- but not technically hereditary -- Head of the Commonwealth be mentioned in the main "bio" infobox? If so, in what manner? Should it be mentioned in the article's lead section? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Strong something must be done, due to the current clearcut multiple MOS:INFOBOX, MOS:LEAD and WP:UNDUE vios here. Relatively relaxed as to exactly what. My first (but still weak) preference is that we reduce the prominence of it in the infobox (to somewhere, indeed perhaps immediately below the "is king" stuff), and briefly mention the role in the lead section. In the alternative, we might remove it from the IB completely, and again, mention it in the lead. Or, remove it from both, which would at least be consistent, albeit oddly mute on the topic. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep in lead, can remove from infobox - I can see the infobox having just "King of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms" as those seem to me to have more precedence and notability, and I'd say the lead should still mention being Head of the Commonwealth partly as that is his other major position and partly as that leads the WP reader on to further information. Any discussion for the Queen Elizabeth II article should be done at that article, thoough I note this topic and such edits have been done there in the past. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete Per my comments in the previous section, this is a relatively minor part of Charles's functions and does not need to be prominently mentioned, either in the infobox or the first paragraph of the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Yus. Which why we should really be being clearer on this in-article. He's head of state of the Commonwealth realms. i.e., king of each separately. "Head of the Commonwealth" essentially means he's 'honorary club chairman' of the CoN as a whole, notwithstanding that most of them are now republics, with their own president. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
After reading through the article I'd say it merits inclusion in the infobox even if I had no idea what it is. Especially given it isn't technically linked to the monarchy and in theory could be given to a plebeian. If there is an actual idea of how to include it in the lead I may support inclusion on that but I cannot think of how to insert it into the current lead. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Candidate locations seem like the first paragraph of the lead -- maybe a little undue, but certainly no more so than having in the IB, and it's very light at present -- or the fourth. i.e. either in the summary of the summary, or of the summary of his reign. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to it being included in the lead I just don't see a way of doing it in an appropriate way. I don't believe it's undue in the infobox unless you mean by the fact it's located right on top? Traumnovelle (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the positioning at the top makes no sense at any speed, IMO. It suggests it's the most salient thing about him, which clearly it is not. But what's clearly unsustainable with respect to "dueness" is to have it in the IB only (implying Very High Weight due to it being a "key fact about the page's subject"), and not also not in the lead (implying a Much Lower Weight due to it not being among the "most important contents"). Presenting it as a "key", but not "important" fact (???) and never explaining in the body text is a trifecta of nonsense of the sort that Wikipedia specialises in arriving at at random, then preserving in the aspic of process and editor surliness. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't really know where you'd put it, it does seem like an important position given even if it's purely symbolic given how many countries it involves. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
As I say, I'd fit perfectly well in p1 ("is king; also, is HoC") or in p4 ("became king on death of mother; also, as previously agreed, HoC despite that that not being formally hereditary"). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete from lede, but keep in infobox under |succession2= using |reign-type2=In office. Admittedly, this is debatable. Head of the Commonwealth is a purely ceremonial role at an important intergovernmental organization. Given the importance of the organization, I'm inclined to see it as a personal union. For comparison, the only current personal union I know of is Andorra. I see that the lede and infobox for French president Emmanuel Macron includes his title as Co-Prince of Andorra. An alternate perspective would be to regard Head of the Commonwealth as akin to a patron of a charity. which wouldn't merit mention in either the lede or the infobox. However, given the significance of the Commonwealth of Nations, I think even ceremonial roles in major intergovernmental organizations merit inclusion in infoboxes. The decision about its inclusion in the lede should be based on its significance in the article that the lede summarizes. Regardless of what we decide here, this may change in the future based on his actions in this role. Daask (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC) I retract this entire paragraph per my remarks below, but it's useful and hard to read when striked. Daask (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment A crucial factor not reflected in the above discussion (including my own remarks) is that Head of the Commonwealth is also a title of the monarch of each of the Commonwealth realms according to the Royal Style and Titles Act. While the bylaws of the Commonwealth of Nations provide for a different selection process of the title according to that organization, the crown will retain the title according to each of the Commonwealth realms by their own laws. While this would be a confusing mess for Wikipedia should the title be split according to these sources, that is speculative WP:CRYSTALBALL. By law, this title is just part of being King. Since this is a ceremonial role in the Commonwealth of Nations, this discussion is really only about titles. Daask (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I might be misunderstanding your comment -- well, epic series of comments, indeed -- but "keep all" seems to imply that it's mentioned in the lead section at present, which (as I keep pointing out, highly illogically and inconsistently) it is not. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Edit Request: Pertaining to His Majesty's title in the infobox
In the infobox it currently has His Majesty listed as "King of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth Realms", however, I believe that instead of simply say "other Commonwealth Realms " that each nation should be listed here.
I believe this as, while it would certainly extend the length of the infobox, it would better reflect the fact that the Commonwealth Realms are not a single entity and that all of the Kingly titles held by His Majesty are of equal status and below that of the United Kingdom.
Each crown that His Majesty has is equal in status to that of the UK and thus should be treated as such in the infobox, as opposed to being clumped together into the Commonwealth Realms. whilst I know that they are clumped together in each respective realm after his Kingly title in that realm (e.g. King of Australia, His other realms and territories) this is done as to both shorten the title and to distinguish which title is primarily being used. Since rhis title isn't just about His Majesty as the King of the UK, rather being about His Majesty as a whole, including all his Kingly titles, I truly think that it would be better if all the Realms were listed in the infobox and given equal prevalence to the UK.
I'll ask you to please revert your own edits for now, as I don't want to engage in edit warring: as I've tried to articulate, they go against the strong existing consensus that has been hammered out on these talk pages over the past several decades. It's not best to explain every detail as to why the consensus is how it is over edit summaries, which results in undue disruption—I recommend taking a look and at least appreciating the principle of Bold. Remsense ‥ 诉04:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Edit Request: Pertaining to the short description and exclusion of the Commonwealth Realms in relevant places
In both the short description and certain other spots, namely the beginning of the section on the reign of His Majesty, I have attempted to simply add the line "and the other Commonwealth Realms" or equivalent as this is important information. However, each time I have attempted this it has been removed.
So, I have come down to the talk section in order to discuss this.
I firmly believe that it would better reflect the fact that the Commonwealth Realms are of equal status to that of the United Kingdom.
Each crown that His Majesty has is equal in status to that of the UK and thus should be treated as such in the short description and whenever appropriate to do so, as opposed to being excluded from relevant spots. Since this article isn't just about His Majesty as the King of the UK, rather being about His Majesty as a whole, including all his Kingly titles, I truly think that it would be better if the Commonwealth Realms were given equal prevalence to the UK.
I see no reason why this isn't an entirely reasonable request as, like I said, all of these crowns are entirely equal to each other.
There are other categories on the page that Charles does not currently fit, but historically he was a member of. Should these categories be deleted as well?
While I'm sure there are exceptions, categories seem to work on "highest rank". Eisenhower is under US Army generals, but not under the lesser ranks he held earlier. Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
By that analysis, why is Eisenhower in the “General in the US Army” category at all? Commander-in-chief outranks all generals. That was Eisenhower’s last position in the chain of command, so shouldn’t the “General in the US Army” category be deleted from Eisenhower’s bio, and from the bios of other US presidents who were previously generals, like Washington, Taylor, and Grant?
That analysis would also require deleting the various title categories I’ve already flagged from Charles’s bio. “King” outranks “Heir to the British throne”, and “Prince of Wales”, and all those mere dukes, so shouldn’t all those categories be deleted from his article?
Similarly, judges outrank lawyers, but it is customary to include the applicable “lawyer” category in bios of judges. Should the “lawyer” category be deleted from all bios of judges? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Judges are lawyers at all times. Charles is not a prince. He may be a prince again someday should he abdicate but he is not one now. Interestingly, looking at this version from 2021, it doesn't seem we put Charles in general princely or nobility categories even when he held those ranks, just the specific category of Prince of Wales and his specific dukedoms. Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2024
This edit request to Charles III has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Recent D-Day commemorations have given us a smattering of new photographs of His Majesty. I suspect we will get a few more at Trooping the Colour and Garter Day later this month. I'm particularly fond of this one of him saluting next to Macron. The colour of the uniform is just different enough from the stone wall that he doesn't blend into the background and, despite a bit of shadow from his hat, the lighting on his face is better than in the photograph currently being used. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
There is one from the Portsmouth part of the commemorations, but there would be two other people's heads in the background. You could try to cut him out but that would be very difficult as his suit is almost the same colour as the drapes, uniforms and steps behind him. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, in the wide shot it makes sense because you can see he's standing on a stage holding one arm out but as a close-up it just looks like his neck and shoulders are the wrong shape. The Portsmouth shot has much clearer lighting on his face but the Normandy one has him with a better facial expression. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
They are both valid points, but in addition the colouration in the Normandy is really bad - he seems to have become heavily sunburned overnight. Neither of these are better than the present lead photo. - Davidships (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
After opening the photos, just compare the more-or-less normal complexion in Portsmouth on 5 June and the beetroot appearance in France the following day. Perhaps something acceptable will emerge from the coverage of the Japanese state visit. - Davidships (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
The current picture has the advantage that it is not specifically tied to any of the Commonwealth Realms. The blue business suit is neutral in that respect. The D-Day photo shows him in British uniform. A neutral image for the infobox is a good thing, in my opinion. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
In that sense the UK military cosplay is especially apt, as seemingly his primary notability is so exclusively that as king of the UK that not only is his also being -- say -- monarch of Canada not mentioned in terms in the lede, it's not said explicitly anywhere in the main article text. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
No, the word "Canada" does not appear there at all. Just an offhanded reference implicitly -- and for most readers likely entirely opaquely -- including it among the "other Commonwealth realms". Which is explicitly different from it being "explicitly said anywhere in the main article text". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
That would be nice if we were sure that it was in the public domain or otherwise freely usable. There have been discussion in the archives of this page and even assuming it was Crown Copyright it won't be usable until 2074. Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
How about this one? It doesn't have the awkward, down-facing angle, but does match the forward-facing, portrait-style photographs used in infoboxes. It's a new photograph (from 2024) and better reflects him as King, which is what he is known for and who he is. 2605:B100:12F:C5F9:1031:17B0:D23C:ADBA (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
The only issue with the close-up shot is the blurry page boy's face behind his shoulder. I wonder how hard it would be to cut the background out. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
Not done - Already present. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Interesting GA, thank you for relentlessly getting him there! Fine sources, no copyvio obvious. I think most readers would say yes to the original hook. For the ALT, the intended image would need no be in the article, but I don't like the construction "as Prince of Wales, Charles III ...". Can you find something interesting he really did as King? ... best with an image to match? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
approve ALT2 if that's what you like ;) - offline sources accepted AGF, the pic is licensed and shows well even small. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Not done: See note 3 in article. 
Note: The requestor has disclosed COI with Peter George (businessman). See Special:PermanentLink/1221607498 for more details.Melmann 23:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Done '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
_Salute_2024.jpg)
.jpg)
_(3).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_crop_2024.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
_2024.jpg)
_(cropped).png)