Talk:Charles III

RfC on infobox image

Proposed image

Proposed image (another rotation)

I found this image of Charles in 2021 (pretty recent) and its in good quality. Would this be a good candidate for the infobox image? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I like it. DrKay (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

It looks good, I see no problem with it. Векочел (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I suggest the same image, but with a better, in my opinion, rotation (here it does not look too "rotated"). Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Bin Laden family donation

I can assure everyone I am NOT a fan of the royal family, but for the life of me I cannot see what relevance the Bin Laden family donation has here. It wasn't a donation to Charles. He wasn't involved in accepting it. And I cannot see what's wrong with the donation anyway. It didn't come from Osama. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

HiLo48, Doesn't this logic apply to the incident involving Lord Brownlow? After all, Charles was not directly involved in that one either. The only time that he actually got cash directly from someone was the one involving the Qatari prime minister, and that was for his charitable fund, not his personal pocket. And he has vehemently denied any involvement in the cash-for-honours allegations, for which Michael Fawcett was held responsible. Since all these issues are already covered in detail at The Prince's Foundation and The Prince of Wales's Charitable Fund, shouldn't we just remove them altogether and leave a summary of these events behind? Links to the sections with more details can be provided accordingly. Keivan.f^Talk 22:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I actually went ahead with the changes. Other users are welcome to comment and give their opinions. Keivan.f^Talk 23:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

When he becomes King

I assume when Charles becomes King, we'll use Elizabeth II's current intro & infobox, as a basis for his BLP. In other words we'll be using in the intro "...King of the United Kingdom and # other Commonwealth realms..." & in the infobox "King of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" (with the collapsed list mechanism). Mentioning this now, so we can avoid any disputes, when he becomes King. GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The man is 73-years-old. At this point, it seems questionable whether he will live long enough to succeed to the throne. Dimadick (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

In 2022, the average life expectancy in the UK is 81.65 years. Charles turns 74 in November 2022. That said, his mother is currently 96. Her mother died at age 101, and Charles' father died two months before his 100th birthday. Sampajanna (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The figure you actually need to be using is not current life expectancy for everyone, but the life expectancy for people already aged 73. It will be higher. And yes, what we know about his parents and grandparents counts for a lot. HiLo48 (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

This didn't age well... Ocemccool (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

He is 23 years younger than Elizabeth II. HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

There was guidance made public last year and reported here. "At 10 a.m. on the day after the queen’s death, the Accession Council — which includes senior government figures — meets at St. James’ Palace to proclaim King Charles the new sovereign.... The proclamation will then be read at St. James’ Palace and the Royal Exchange in the City of London, confirming Charles as king." According to this report (which may or may not be reliable), he "will have the opportunity to pick a new name for himself once he assumes power as the monarch... [He] actually has two options available; he can take the traditional route to his "regnal title," and become King Charles III. However, if he doesn’t go the traditional route, he may adopt a new kingly name. His full name is Charles Philip Arthur George, which means that as King, Charles can adopt any of the names in the full title. In this regard, he could choose to become King George VII or King Philip...". Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

" His full name is Charles Philip Arthur George, which means that as King, Charles can adopt any of the names in the full title. In this regard, he could choose to become King George VII or King Philip...""

Really? They went with "King George" and "King Philip" as examples when they could've led with King Arthur?! 2A02:2121:289:93CA:B933:2356:2AB8:BD04 (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I say stick with "Charles, King of the United Kingdom" until Reliable sources confirms whether or not Charles will use that name. Gust Justice (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I realise that this is a sensitive situation, but one issue we need to address is what we call the article. There may be a short interval between him becoming monarch and official confirmation of his new title. He might become Charles III or George VII, what do we call him before we know for sure? PatGallacher (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

To complicate matters, do we describe him as "of the United Kingdom"? There are only a couple of George VII's, both rather obscure, but there are a pile of Charles III's, including an important king of Spain. PatGallacher (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

If he sticks with the name Charles? We'll simply 'rename' the disambiguation page as Charles III (disambiguation) & give the British monarch the article title Charles III. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

His page should only be called "Charles III" if he is more likely to be the subject sought than all other Charles IIIs combined. That might be the case, but it's debatable. The other Charles IIIs include a King of Spain, a King of Hungary, and a Holy Roman Emperor. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it's certain he will be the Charles III most saught on the English Wikipedia at least - I am not sure if any of the other Charles IIIs are living monarchs in existing monarchies, but the media interest in his forthcoming coronation will be massive. Of course he could decide not to have Charles as his regnal name, which would alter all of this. The Land (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

As the monarch can pick any regnal name, the current article title seems like the only appropriate compromise in the circumstances. That will change in the coming hours or days, when we find out what name he has picked. But for now, we can't use a crystal ball to try and guess what the name will be. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Though I'm sure there is particular protocol that it should be "of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms" or something like that. The current theory is that he is equally the monarch of all the Commonwealth realms ... Comparing to the Wikipedia page of QE II's titles suggests that Charles has a separate but parallel title for each realm. 66.31.109.155 (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

King Charles

This page is about to get a lot of action as death of EII confirmed. Reliable sources already using "king" as is custom. Cameron Scott (talk) Cameron Scott (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Watching BBC, they affirm that Charles is king, but do not say what his regnal name is. --Zimbabweed (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

If there was no coronation yet, is he the King? This renaming seems a bit premature. - JD 37.191.3.150 (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

He has become King - there cannot be a gap between monarchs. He doesn't need to be crowned for that to happen. The Land (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but he could simply choose not ascend. He is 73 after all. The continuity might simple become Elisbath II -> William without a gap.Tvx1 17:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

No. He can't "simply choose not to ascend". Charles became king at the moment of his mother's death. He has already ascended. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The Royal Family's Twitter account referred to him as the King. KateBergerMpls (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

FYI I've named the article "Charles, King of the United Kingdom" for now, given that no announcement has been made about what regnal name he will use. We can move to Charles III or George VII or whatever else, as and when.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is the case. Thanks for doing that. The Land (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Amakuru It sounds awkward, but it works as an interim measure until his name is announced. Alphaboi867 (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

They haven’t even announced his assencion yet. He might decide not to, given his age.Tvx1 17:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no need for an announcement, it happens automatically. He is already King. The Land (talk) The Land (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You should read some wikipedia articles on the monarchy, you clearly have no clue how the succession works 142.165.62.112 (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with this as interim title. the wub "?!" 17:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"he could simply choose not ascend" I don't think that is so; he is king as of now. He could (but probably won't) abdicate. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The comment you're referring to might be thinking of the Accession Council. In theory he might make some Udallesque statement: if asked to Accede I'll supply no regnal name; if proclaimed, I shall abdicate! But as you say he was monarch immediately, as a matter of law. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

BBC confirmed he’s Charles III https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59135132 GamerKlim9716 (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles III

Charles the 3rd should not be on this page. He has not officially chosen his name yet. It's a bit premature. 166.182.250.222 (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

There has been much speculation that he might choose George (becoming George VII). He may choose James as an homage to the scots in an attempt to scupper the independence movement (becoming James VIII), or possibly Phillip after his father (becoming Phillip II). 86.181.0.154 (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed not to rename. For information: The BBC commentator mentioned that it is expected that Charles would choose "Charles" as his regnal name. SmilingBoy (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. His regnal name has not been announced and may very well not be Charles. LiamE (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, he could as example decide to rule as a King Arthur. - JD 37.191.3.150 (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

That would be King Arthur II. 86.181.0.154 (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually it would be Arthur I. King Arthur is a mythical/legendary figure from English and Welsh folklore, and who may not have existed historically. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Or from Welsh folklore and Franco-Norman literary rivals of it. Even if he were copper-bottomed proved to have existed, what he definitely wasn't a king of England, or its successor states GB and then the UK. So he'd be "Arthur", and "Arthur I" in hindsight if there were a later "Arthur II". (Which I never much doubt there ever will be; there's likely to be grumbling even at "Charles III", given the Jacobite angle to that name.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Wait for whether they announce it. Should he be known as Charles III, the name would be switched accordingly. Gust Justice (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree. He has not been named Charles the third, and so it is inappropriate to use that. It is currently (and incorrectly) in the box to the right. Difbobatl (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Is it because, that, now he is King, we are not allowed to say just "Charles III" HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

In fact, he hasn’t even ascended to the throne yet.Tvx1 17:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

He has. The monarch acedes to the throne as soon as the previous one dies. Gust Justice (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You keep repeating this without actually reading the responses. You're wrong, just like the last 4 times you stated this. 92.34.103.45 (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles became King the very moment his mother died. It has always been this way. The official proclamation is “The queen has died. Long live the King”. 86.181.0.154 (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree. His regnal name has not been chosen and while his accession is immediate, it should remain as Charles until a name is chosen. MLHuntley (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The Prime Minister just called him King Charles III. SmilingBoy (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed. It’s Charles III BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yep. Liz Truss said it in her tribute/announcement in Downing Street. 77.100.215.194 (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

We can still afford to wait until the official proclamation.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, Charles III has just been announced as the regnal name on BBC.Tvx1 18:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

They also noted that Charles's own statement did not include what his title will be suggesting they're just interpreting as they go. It would be very odd for confirmation to be made via Downing Street. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

There's been no official announcement as far as I know. While Liz Truss did say it, it is not out of the realm of possibility for that to have been a gaffe. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

What? Why? HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Should wait for official proclamation, and revert to Charles for now. Eccekevin (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Mmm... until the officialization we might not put Charles III a his regal name 18:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

BBC announced that his regnal name is Charles III PulksteņRādis (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The BBC has confirmed he will be known as Charles III. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Wait for confirmation from the Palace. Charles's own statement notably did not give the title he will take and it's doubtful this would be deliberately announced at the end of a Downing Street statement. This may just be the speechwriter assuming. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The BBC doesn’t have that power. We should wait for official confirmation. Eccekevin (talk)

The PM said Charles III in her statement, Charles' own statement did not have a name included. Rmhermen (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The prime minister said it on tv just now. The PM would have checked this with the Palace before making that speech, and the BBC is reporting it. Richard75 (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

That is correct, and here is a link to that effect: [1]

Assumption on your part. LT would be a classic "unreliable primary source" in this case, but we can certainly say that the BBC has reported that the PM has "revealed" this. IMO not strong enough for a 'wikivoice' statement to that effect, much less a page move. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

(ec*n)The Beeb has described this as being "revealed" by LT, rather than "more bluff and nonsense from the Number Ten lectern", so technically that's a reliable secondary source. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It could have been a mistake in the PM's office, and the BBC are reporting what Truss said, not what is official from the Palace. Leave as is until there's an official statement. The Land (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The BBC is also saying this:

[2] What will he be called? One of his first acts is to decide whether to reign as King Charles III, or take another name. For instance, his grandfather George VI's first name was Albert, but he reigned using one of his middle names. Charles could choose from any of his four names - Charles Philip Arthur George.

Comments on air by presenters who've been in the studio for hours are picking up on the here and now whereas the written version is more structured. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

BBC has it in writing now:

New King will be known as Charles III

The new King will officially be known as King Charles III, it has been officially confirmed. SmilingBoy (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

That's the same BBC who announced that Elizabeth II died in 2015, btw. Until the new King officially states his name, out of his own mouth, it's still up in thr air.

Why? To reuse a very old Carry On joke, "he's very rich, he has people to do everything for him". Even the formal ceremony doesn't involve him saying it, but instead a huge mob of Privy Councilors proclaiming it for him. There's been an announcement from his office, reported in reliable sources. That meets Wikipedia's standards; yours may of course vary. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Caption

Would just like to point out that the new King is not 'of England', as the caption under the thumbnail states 80.43.45.105 (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Since corrected. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

He won't officially be Charles III until he declares his name before the Accession Council in a few days. Until then, he is officially Charles, King of ......

I agree. Some may argue that if Charles is taken as the regnal name it would be Charles iv of Scotland (iii for non-Jacobites) and various others for different factions in Scotland, Ireland.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2022

Since I live in the UK, I should be able to edit. I would like to add, 'Charles also inherited the title of King of the United Kingdom after the death of his mother on 8th September 2022, Elizabeth II.' TheEditor2024 (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Something along that lines has been included in the meantime. Also, the ability to edit articles is not geographically determined.Tvx1 18:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

But Charles inherited other titles as well, such as King of Canada, Australia, Jamaica, etc etc, we canno just write King of UK GucciNuzayer (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Did Charles become King of 5 countries on 9 September?

Namely Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu. Mike Rohsopht (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

He became the king of all 15 countries 8 September UK time. In some countries that would have been 9 September local time. For the purposes of the article, I would not mention it and just use 8 September as the date. Gust Justice (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you base it on the time of where he was when he became King so 8 September would be correct. God Save The King. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, British time is used for such matters. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

How about in articles Monarchy of Australia, Monarchy of New Zealand etc.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest the local date, if reliable sources in those jurisdictions (or elsewhere) support in in those terms. (e.g. a news report dated 9 Sept stating "in the early hours of this morning", etc). Might not be clear at this point as I don't think an exact time of death has been announced yet. Absent those, go with the general sources for what we do have. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Current Events - London Bridge Task Force

I wanted to let editors know and invite editors to the WikiProject of Current Events new task force The London Bridge Task Force, which will be working on improving all the articles around the death of Elizabeth II. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

King Charles III

title announced and verified by the British Prime Minister. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Not confirmed yet by the buckingham palace and the royal family. The PM and the media (BBC and GBNews) says it as well but it's not officially confirmed DaveHagen97 (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's up to Charles, not even the Prime MiniIt's up to Charles, not even the Prime Minister can announce/verify it instead of Charles. - JDster can announce/verify it instead of Charles. - JD 37.191.3.150 (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support moving the page since the PM has announced as such cookie monster 755 18:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, the regnal name of the monarch is announced by the Accession Council, not the PM. We can wait the few hours until the Accession Council makes the name official. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

A spokesman for the king has now announced that he will be known as Charles III. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

BBC News reporting that Clarence House has confirmed Charles III for his regnal name. Imzadi 1979 → 18:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Clarence House has confirmed Charles III, according to the BBC. --84.65.68.38 (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

We do need to move it to something, though: "Charles, King of the United Kingdom" is inappropriate because he is king of multiple realms—independently and not by virtue of kingship of the United Kingdom. I would say Charles III is the best title; if in the unlikely event the accession council does something unexpected, we can change it to that or discuss again. TheFeds 18:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Also announced by the Palace that that is the name he will use.

Regnal name

Is he definitely going to use "Charles III"? 197.87.143.28 (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59135132

(edit conflict)BBC have announced he will be Charles III. Sam Walton (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles will officially be known as King Charles III. HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

No, no official announcement has been made. The BBC doesn’t have the power to decide. Eccekevin (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The BBC has the "power" to report, it's a reliable secondary source, and Wikipedia policy is "use reliable secondary sources". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

(ec*lots) Yes, it'd been "pre-announced" by the PM, then officially announced from his own press office, both reported by the BBC. Unless he changes his mind before it's officially-official from the Accession Council, but that's very unlikely, and what edit buttons are for. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

An official announcement has been made. At least the announcement was made the BBC, who are reporting it. See here, 19:27. I cannot find it on Twitter but this will do The Land (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Not on the CH twitter, and their website is self-blanked currently, all of which is going to be keeping its interns busy to update by other means. So the announcement was made by other means -- maybe another framed A3 poster, or just a PR to the media. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Move page to "King Charles III"

The naming consistency is broken as Charles usurps the throne. We shall tweak the name to make consistant. ElusiveTaker (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The PM said Charles III in her statement, Charles' own statement did not have a name included. Rmhermen (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Do we need move protection? We are creating double redirects with all the moves. Rmhermen (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

That would be sufficient. ElusiveTaker (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes. It was just confirmed by Clarence House. Gust Justice (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Source? Rmhermen (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59135132 (it's mentioned in the article) Gust Justice (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Can we do it now? HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"Usurps"? 2600:6C5D:5A00:3694:298F:A53C:E204:89BD (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Dukedoms?

Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Edinburgh, Duke of Rothesay, even Prince of Wales: did he automatically cease to hold these titles? The article has been edited putting 8 September 2022 as the end date, but this may be just people making assumptions. And William does not, I believe, automatically become Prince of Wales. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The king is the font of honors. If no one holds them, they revert to him anyway. Rmhermen (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Duke of Edinburg merges with the crown. Prince of Wales becomes vacant and is not automatically given to the heir. I believe Duke of Carnwall and Duke of Rothesay is automatically inherited by William, but I am not 100% sure. Gust Justice (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The Duke of Edinburgh title has merged with the Crown and thus ceased to exist (until Charles hands it out again).

You are correct that Prince of Wales is not an automatic title. Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay *is* automatic though, so William already holds Cornwall and Rothesay. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Are separate titles, in separate "peerages", whose automaticity is legally established separately, indeed. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles was 10 before he was made Prince of Wales, William may be a while before he becomes POW 142.165.62.112 (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Aside from the Duke of Edinburgh, every other role is vacant until granted. Ebbedlila (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Wrong way around. DoE works like a "normal" dukedom (i.e. is extinct by "merger in the crown"), it's DoC and DoR that are automatically re-granted in an exceptional manner. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

At some later date, King Charles III will make Prince William, the Prince of Wales. The king also later make his youngest brother (if he chooses to) Duke of Edinburgh. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Lots of Wikipedia editing needed

Also masses of Wikipedia editing to come, in particular changing "Her Majesty's [e.g. Stationery Office]". I did start to do this many years ago, changing "Her Majesty's Stationery Office" to something like "His/Her Majesty's Stationery Office", but got reverted. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You can help at The London Bridge Task Force Rmhermen (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

King

He has been referred to as King by Buckingham Palace and The Prime Minister, however it is not officiated until his Coronation which will take place whenever it is planned to do so.

So maybe it was a bit rushed to rename the article so rapidly?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/09/08/when-queen-elizabeth-dies-charles-will-become-king---heres-whos-next-in-line-of-british-succession/ AF1990 (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Not correct. The constitutional principle is that he becomes King immediately. See the statement from Buckingham Palace The Land (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You're wrong. He has officially been king since the moment his mother died. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

A well-know aphorism applies: "The king is dead, long live the king!". Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. There is so much talk about this. HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

He became king, upon the death of his mother. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Popularity sentences in first paragraph

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_III&diff=1109235939&oldid=1109235830 this edit and similar from User:Uhooep seem wildly out of place, and seem to mostly demonstrate the effectiveness of editing Wikipedia for political means. They should probably be reverted, or at minimum, moved out of the first paragraph. 2001:5B0:2B42:CED0:B4DE:BA42:F7A8:BFCE (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Stick them in the accession paragraphs. A near 50/50 split in public opinion is notable IMO but in the lead is wildly out of place. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's the only popularity polling we have to go on, and it asked specifically how the pubic felt about him becoming King. Uhooep (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This is currently the subject of an edit war, with User:Uhooep having re-added it three times after removal by others. 2001:5B0:2B42:CED0:B4DE:BA42:F7A8:BFCE (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I moved it as suggested in this talk page. I don't think it should keep being removed. Uhooep (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Moves

The move to Charles III was already challenged, it should go through a move request at this point, not simply revert-warred back in place. nableezy - 18:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's been confirmed by Clarence House according to sources such as Reuters. No discussion required.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  18:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Anything thats been challenged requires discussion. Pinging Red-tailed hawk who challenged the move by reverting it earlier. nableezy - 18:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I opened a request at WP:RM#Requests to revert undiscussed moves but I fully agree that this should be reverted, as Charles is not the WP:PTOPIC for Charles III. What I will not be doing is reverting the page move more than once, though I believe that this should be done pending a move request. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nableezy: The previous moves were premature, made under the assumption that Charles III would be Charles' regnal name. The most recent move however comes after an official announcement by Clarence House, and has been reported by multiple reliable sources at this stage. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not the only issue. Is it Charles III or Charles III of the United Kingdom. Seems WP:CRYSTAL that it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Charles III. The normal article title for monarchs is "X of X". DeCausa (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It was changed to Charles III and not Charles III of the United Kingdom per the form used on Elizabeth II. I would assume. Gust Justice (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

But there is a difference. Elizabeth II is the only monarch of note with that name, while there have been many with the name Charles III. 2600:1702:6D0:5160:106B:D330:4B1E:DE1A (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The challenge was due to primary topic, not because the name wasnt decided on. nableezy - 18:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I seriously think we need a RFC to decide the title at this point. wizzito | say hello! 19:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I've opened up an RM at the bottom of the page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Wow, given the news coverage today. One would've thought this Charles III, would've been the most recognised by that name. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:RECENT is a cautionary tale, not a recommendation for a basis of naming conventions. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Updating links to "prince charles"

Do the old "Charles Prince of Wales" links need to be updated to Charles III? Ebbedlila (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Since they are not ambiguous, no. (There's a policy claiming that somewhere, but I can't find it at the moment.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Technically the term is ambigious since Charles, Prince of Wales (disambiguation) exists. Gust Justice (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

...And technically, they don't need to be updated since the disambiguation page is at Charles, Prince of Wales (disambiguation) and not Charles, Prince of Wales, so the links to the latter should be de facto not ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

If they are referring to them in the present, yes. If they are referring to them in the past, no.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  18:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this actually means the respective articles, but not necessarily the links themselves; that is a content issue, not a link issue. Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2022 (2)

change "prince Charles to king Charles KD burr (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

But what if someone else who is on Wikipedia could edit the page? HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Not done. It is not clear what change is requested. Rmhermen (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Title change

Can we change the title from Charles III to King Chares III? Just "Charles III" will cause a bit of confusion. HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

That is not standard title practice on Wikipedia. Rmhermen (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

To change name too "King Charles III"???? HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

No need to start a new section. See above. Rmhermen (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 8 September 2022

• Charles III → Charles III of the United Kingdom
• Charles III (disambiguation) → Charles III

– I propose that we move this article to Charles III of the United Kingdom and restore the disambiguation to Charles III, where it was prior to bold moves today. The naming convention for royalty is extremely clear that the typical format is [Monarch's first name and ordinal] of [Country]}, which would render this as "Charles III of the United Kingdom". Moreover, there is no evidence that the current King of England is the primary topic with respect to long-term significance, so the DAB should take Charles III. The current series of moves, which have been contested, show extreme WP:RECENTISM and are out-of-line with our royalty-specific naming convention. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I will also note that [i]n article title discussions, in the event of a lack of consensus the applicable policy preserves the most recent prior stable title, which would return the title of the dab page to Charles III. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose as per DFlhb Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 01:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• ...And blah, someone else opened up a move request. Red-tailed hawk, I'd recommend changing the destination of the first page to "?" since the agreed upon name of his title will probably change within the next 7 days. Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think that the title I've proposed follows closely from WP:NCROY, especially since he's now Charles III. The alternative would be Charles III, King of the United Kingdom, but that's non-standard per NCROY. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Would "Charles III (King of the United Kingdom)" be more acceptable? Pmetzger (talk)

• ...And with my previous comment being said, support moving Charles III (disambiguation) to Charles III. I also support some move of Charles III, but have no opinion about where it should move. (And this will probably be my last comment because of the inevitable edit conflicts.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Meh, don't care anymore. Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: This would be under-descriptive, given that Charles is the King of multiple realms Jèrriais janne (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support I really do not see how Charles here has higher long-term significance over, for instance, Charles III of Spain (who spent 57 years ruling places, and as an active ruler who "made far-reaching reforms to increase the flow of funds to the crown and defend against foreign incursions on the empire. He facilitated trade and commerce, modernized agriculture and land tenure, and promoted science and university research. He implemented regalist policies to increase the power of the state regarding the church. During his reign, he expelled the Jesuits from the Spanish Empire. He strengthened the Spanish army and navy. Although he did not achieve complete control over Spain's finances, and was sometimes obliged to borrow to meet expenses, most of his reforms proved successful in providing increased revenue to the crown and expanding state power, leaving a lasting legacy" to boot!), given the current Charles' mere ceremonial role. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think this may be a misconception that is echoed in several places below, whether or not this Charles should be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Charles III cannot depend on his potential future accomplishments as King, as that would be WP:CRYSTAL. This discussion should be based solely on the principle of whether an English speaking user would be much more likely to be searching for this Charles than any other Charles when searching Charles III. It also doesn't seem like using current press coverage is a good strategy as that seems to be WP:Recentism. Instead I think the clarity of names like George V, Edward VIII, and George VI all indicate that the significance of the British Royal Family means that most people will probably be looking for this Charles when searching Charles III . INLegred (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. " of the United Kingdom" is not part of the article title of his predecessors. It is not the Wikipedia standard: Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, George V, Edward VII, William IV, George IV, William III Rmhermen (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  The Wikipedia standard is elicited at WP:NCROY. I find it extremely dubious that this person is more significant with respect to long-term significance than Charles III of Spain and all other people named Charles III combined. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  "significance than Charles III of Spain and all other people named Charles III combined" That is not how Primary topic is determined even if it is applicable. Rmhermen (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's exactly how it's determined. The standard is "more likely than all the other topics combined". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry. I should have specified the following text: "There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors,..." Rmhermen (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Sure, very little is "absolute" on Wikipedia. WP:IAR, WP:ILIKEIT, let a thousand piles of poo bloom. But what reason do you have in this case dismissing this one of two "major aspects that editors commonly consider"? (The other being "long-term significance" -- of a style that was unofficially announced all of a couple of hours ago, and is yet to even be formally proclaimed by the usual ceremonial protocol.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  (ec*2)The "Wikipedia standard" is to use the common name in English, according to what's the primary topic. It's far from clear that's been established here, especially given that until very shortly ago it was a matter of speculation what the regnal name was intended to be -- and indeed isn't yet formally proclaimed, just leaked by the prime minister and then confirmed by Clarence House press release. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose We should maintain consistency with the patterns that have come before, just as Rmhermen explained. Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I on the other hand, do see him having a higher long-term significance over the other Charles IIIs, both because I disagree with the notion that his significance compared to other Charles IIIs can only be measured from today and not be based on his entire life, and also because there comes a significance from simply being the British monarch and Head of the Commonwealth. I would also argue that there is an already established precedent of British monarchs and Heads of the Commonwealth being titled as such, back to George II George III.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  19:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  The page for George II is a disambiguation page... — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm sure you can understand it's difficult to correct your comment when there's new edits being made every 10 seconds.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  19:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a tough case. There are other Charles IIIs that have reigned before, and we don't know how long this one will reign. This one seems obviously the primary topic, but I also understand concerns of recentism.

wizzito | say hello! 19:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• We don't know how long he'll reigh, but average life expectancy in the UK is 81 years. That would mean a reign of less than 10 years. Vpab15 (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  But is mother, father, and grandmother all lived passed 95 and he has had extraordinary health care. 98.186.223.87 (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Why....... There is going to be so much abnormalities. HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Charles III of the Commonwealth Realms. There are two issues: (1) WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and (2) he is monarch not only of the UK but of the 14 other Commonwealth realms. Charles III is not right because he is not yet the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I presume Elizabeth II because of her RS coverage became the primary topic and justified that for her. Charles isn't yet in that position. "Consistency" with his mother is therefore a false argument and to apply Charles III at this stage for that reason is WP:CRYSTAL. He shouldn't be Charles III of the United Kingdom because of the Commonwealth Realms. I think it's arguable but ultimately too much to claim that "of the United Kingdom" is WP:COMMONNAME. The Australian and Canadian realms are pretty significant. I would propose Charles III of the Commonwealth Realms until there is sufficient evidence that Charles III is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and "of the Commonwealth Realms" can then be dropped. DeCausa (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Clearly not any form of the Common Name in English. And not even an actual title (but rather there are 15 such individual titles). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes that's right. What's your point? DeCausa (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  The vast majority of news articles refer to Charles and Elizabeth as British monarchs or monarchs of the UK. They rarely even mention the Commonwealth. Vpab15 (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  My point is that your proposed title is completely infeasible as a page name according to any possible interpretation of the naming convention. Apologies if that wasn't sufficiently clear from the multiple implied references to said guidelines.109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  I was only pointing out that your points weren't based in policy because I was applying WP:TITLEDAB. Commonname and official name are irreleavant. DeCausa (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Nope, they're indeed based directly on policy and guidelines, and glosses thereof. As opposed to your suggestion, which has neither such basis. WP:COMMONNAME: "it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)"; WP:OFFICIAL: "Official English names are candidates for what to call an article"; WP:NCDAB: "For disambiguating specific topic pages by using an unambiguous article title, several options are available: Natural disambiguation. [...] Comma-separated disambiguation. [...] Parenthetical disambiguation. [...]" Names that aren't in common use, and that don't conform to the specified convention for DABs either, are not viable article titles. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  No, you need to re-read WP:TITLEDAB...slowly. DeCausa (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  The same "vast majority" also refer to Charles and Elizabeth as monarchs of the other Commonwealth realms. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Rmhermen and Ved havet's arguments on consistency. If we must disambiguate, Charles III of the Commonwealth Realms is a more neutral title per DeCausa. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Comments that ignore the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC issue should be ignored. He has been king for a few hours and his achievements as king are zero. There are many other notable monarchs at Charles III (disambiguation). As the articles says, he is the oldest and the longest-serving heir apparent in British history. Hard to see how he can be at the primary topic when his main achievement seems to be that he hasn't been king for a very long time. Maybe I should also get an article in that case, I have also not been king for a very long time. Vpab15 (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  You're referring to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC while ignoring that A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. That's what comments opposing the move is arguing. His achievements however, are not' relevant to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It also doesn't matter if his achievements or notability was gained as heir apparent or not, he's just got one article.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  19:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  You forgot the question of long-term significance: A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. Vpab15 (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, WP:CRYSTAL DeCausa (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think his page views in the last month – not just today – compared to those of Charles III of Spain, speak for themselves on his long-term significance. I don't know where this idea that his significance as King is the only thing relevant, and that because he's just become King, his significance has somehow had to start from scratch. That's just silly.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  19:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: I don't think there's any Charles III with the same notability, even if it's been a couple of hours only. Not that we should define notability this way but look at article views for Charles III of Spain vs Charles III [3]. Let's keep in mind what users search and expect to see. Different naming than most British monarchs might also bring more confusion for readers who might end up wondering if his status is different than Elizabeth II while only our title would be different. AlanTheScientist (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. It seems the height of recentism (or English bias) to assume Charles becomes the primary topic for "Charles III" immediately upon accession. As such, we should revert to the status quo until such time as it becomes apparent that he is the primary topic. Powers ^T 19:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support - this is clearly not the primary topic, it is a literal impossibility for it to be the primary topic for Charles III since that has been his title for oh, checks watch, about an hour and a half. This is not Commonwealthepedia, and per our policies on article titles Charles III should be a disambiguation page. And all the votes that dont even attempt to discuss PRIMARYTOPIC are directly at odds with our policy, and so is the move warring that brought this article to this title now (which should also be reverted). nableezy - 19:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  You're right but he's King of 14 other realms beside the UK. See my proposal above. DeCausa (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Sure, I support that disambiguation too. nableezy - 19:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Whether Charles Mountbatten-Windsor is the most renowned Charles III in terms of achievement is a bit of a red herring. The reality, English bias or no, is that en.wikipedia.org is an English-language wikipedia, it will be primarily read by English language speakers, and the majority of those speakers who are searching Charles III are going to be looking for Charles of the UK, the only current Charles III of note. Indeed, in the anglosphere that makes up the majority of the site's readership, a reference to any other Charles III is more likely to be to Bonnie Prince Charlie than to any ACTUAL Charles III outside the British isles.

  If, however, there is a link instead to a disambiguation page, Charles III of the United Kingdom would be the proper title - he may have 14 different titles from his various realms, but they all arise from the British Monarchy in the first instance. Mpjmcevoybeta (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• As "King Charles III": As per the naming scheme of the former British monarchs, the trend shall live on. Name should be changed to "King Charles III". ElusiveTaker (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with the arguments of consistency, but I also understand that there are other (possibly more) important Charles III and the argument of bias. However, at the moment most people will be searching for this Charles III, so I don’t think it needs to be moved right now. If an alternate name is needed, I think Charles III of the United Kingdom would be ok. SunderB (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose on grounds of consistency.--Smerus (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• At time of writing (which is the only reference point for discussion per WP:CRYSTALBALL), this Charles III is not the primary topic for "Charles III" over Charles III of Spain and others. With respect to their role in the state, the monarch of the UK today has less significance than most monarchs in history. I would suggest that the disambiguation page should be at Charles III and this page should be under some sort of place modifier like "of Great Britain". — Bilorv (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Same reasons as the ones before. Mainly consistency though.--Bakir123 (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. For consistency. Hektor (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Perhaps when he dies, but as the living Charles III he’s likely the result anyone searching that name will be looking for. The Kip (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Consistency with his predecessor, and he is not just King of the United Kingdom but also of several other countries. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose For consistency as reasoned above but also he is King of more countries and dominions than just the United Kingdom. Yeoutie (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• I would suggest "Charles III (King of the United Kingdom)", with the parenthetical added to disambiguate without suggesting that it is part of his title. Pmetzger (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  This would violate WP:NATURAL and past article title precedent e.g. Macbeth, King of Scotland. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose On the grounds of consistency with predecessors.--Mr Serious Guy (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support In historical context, he is very unlikely to become more relevant than other rulers who have been called Charles III. The past several monarchs of the United Kingdom did not really have very notable competition as the most famous or influential monarch of their respective names, whereas Charles III clearly does. Keeping it as just Charles III to me seems like presentism and somewhat biased toward the importance of Britain specifically. TKSnaevarr (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support I support the change from Charles III for the sake of consistency with most of the Wikipedia translations and because, as stated, he is not the only Charles III of historical significance. To what it should be changed to, I don't know. Of the commonwealth, of the UK and Northern Ireland, etc.; I'll leave that to everyone else to decide. Christopher Arturo Aragón Vides (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  I've suggested above "Charles III (King of the United Kingdom)" to follow a frequent disambiguation convention. Pmetzger (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose not just for consistency, but also because there is no good alternative: as others have pointed out, "of the United Kingdom" is accurate but imprecise; listing all the realms of which he is King would obviously be asinine; and the shorthand "of the Commonwealth Realms" (as was suggested above) moves the problem from imprecision to inaccuracy, since plenty of Commonwealth countries do not have Charles III as head of state. I would also argue that he is both currently the primary topic for Charles III and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 20:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with the vast majority of your point, but Commonwealth Countries and Commonwealth Realms are different and the Realms are ones that he is specifically King of. So the fact he isn't head of state for the whole commonwealth doesn't mean he isn't head of state for all Commonwealth Realms. However, it's still not his official title in any sense so is inaccurate. Warpfactor (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agree on this - Charles III is king of several places, but of no division known as "the Commonwealth Realms" which is rather a group label for the separate and distinct kingdoms - it does seem a bit odd to think of him or any British monarch as King Charles III of Jamaica, King Charles III of Australia or King Charles III of Canada, but technically those are also titles of his Mpjmcevoybeta (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose None of Charles' predecessors are "...of the United Kingdom" Thurlow0391 (talk)

  Strictly speaking true, but only because George II of Great Britain preceded the Union with Ireland. Also a classic WP:OTHERSTUFF argument (as are almost all these Opposes), rather than having any sound basis in the naming conventions. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - If we had stuck with the original name styling pf "Name # of country"? There'd be no dispute, here. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The articles on the previous monarchs of the United Kingdom get to leave out the "...of the United Kingdom" in their titles because said monarchs have indisputably been the best-known ones with those regnal names since long before Wikipedia existed. Charles III, in contrast, didn't even have that regnal name until today (indeed, before today, it wasn't even known if he would take that regnal name), and the vast majority of references to a Charles III are still referring to one of the numerous other Charles IIIs. If this Charles III eventually comes to outstrip all the past ones in topical primacy, the article can always be moved back to the shorter title. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 20:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. He is – for now – the King of 15 independent countries. His role as a multinational monarch is even more entrenched than that of his mother at the start of her reign. None of his most recent predecessors' articles are named "..of the United Kingdom". No doubt most references to "Charles III" will be to this King Charles. --Hazhk (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Charles III of Spain was the sovereign over Spain, Parma, Naples, Sicily, all of South America except for Brazil, all of Central America, and the Western half of North America. If we're counting land, the Spanish Empire was quite large and much larger than the land governed by the current UK Monarch. And he wasn't just a figurehead. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  most people *now* who are searching Wikipedia will be looking for the current King Charles III (and likely many of them don't even know another Charles III existed) 74.113.189.218 (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. If this Charles III doesn't already have a higher profile than every other Charles III combined, that will shortly change, and very likely persist for his lifetime. Maybe in 50 years he will be a historical figure and this decision can be made based on the standards for historical figures. At that point there may again be some doubt whether Charles III means the British one or the Spanish one or the Austrian one. But if one looks as far ahead into the future as a week or two, there will be absolutely no doubt which Charles III is the most prominent. The Land (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Have you even pretended to read WP:CRYSTAL. And since youve deigned to comment here finally, maybe revert your undiscussed move now? nableezy - 20:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose and wait the article could be moved again after his death/resignation if it is warranted and it's clear that even before Elizabeth's death that many more people read his article than the Charles IIIs combined. - 2001:4453:54A:CA00:1961:5035:C97A:EE3 (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clearly the most prominent Charles III. --WGFinley (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. For an English-speaking general audience (which the English Wikipedia has), this Charles III is by far the primary Charles III. Arguments could be made that other Charleses were more historically impactful and may be more interesting to those interested in European history, but per WP:ASTONISH, I believe the general audience will be better served by retaining this Charles III as the primary article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. " For consistency, he is not just the king of the United Kingdom but the entire commonwealth. Myaeka (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support - this reeks of recentivism. Charles III of Spain has more historical significance and probably always will. We don't determine long term significance based upon recent BBC hits. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose None of Charles' predecessors are "...of the United Kingdom" IlkkaP (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with the above comment by User:The Land and User:IlkkaP -- BCorr|Брайен 20:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. There is a fairly decent amount of monarchs and other people named Charles III, not to mention the articles for Charles I and Charles II are lists of different Kings with the same name. Both articles for the British Charles I and II are named with "of England" in the title despite the first two Charles were kings of scotland too. For those who argue for consistency, There is two articles for people called Elizabeth II with Charles mother being the best known. Doomsday28 (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. There are a lot of kings named Charles III, and Wikipedia policy is clear. The examples like George VI are not persuasive, given how few George VIs there have been. Assuming that people searching now are searching for this Charles III and not, e.g., one of the two Charles IIIs of Spain or one of the holy roman emperors, smacks of recency bias.4.15.123.6 (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The page should remaine at Charles III The King is the King of 15 countries not just the UK. Also Charles III is more notable and having a higher profile then any other Charles III. There is already a link at the top to help people navigate to another article. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 20:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: The point of an article title is to directly connect the most people to the most likely subject they are searching for. Consistency with related results is also good. Grand debates over historical importance of the subject are irrelevant. Rmhermen (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. An English speaker who types "Charles III" on Wikipedia will expect to be greeted with this Charles III.--Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 20:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You know, right now, this week and likely this month, that is true. But there is zero way of saying that it will be true in a year. What if he dies in a week? What if his entire tenure as king, and as Charles III in fact, is one week's time? But yes, right now, this is the target that most people expect. But we aren't writing for right now, and what is recent and in the news is not what is the criteria for primary topic. nableezy - 20:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

We are writing for right now as we expect people to come here right now and read updated content. We can change the name when he dies, but it’s a virtual guarantee as long as he’s alive he’s the Charles III. The Kip (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You are looking for the future. As I pointed out above, it can be done at a later time if warranted. Also, there are way, way more pageviews for the English Charles than the Spanish Charles. (also won't most researchers would type Carlos III instead?) 2001:4453:54A:CA00:1961:5035:C97A:EE3 (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You have it backwards here, when the sources support that this Charles III is the primary topic against all other Charles III, then this article is titled at this name. Not well I presume that this will be the primary topic so until it is proven otherwise in some unknown time then this is titled as though it is the primary topic. nableezy - 21:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment When Charles III, more famous as Charles V, was born in 1500 the Holy Roman Enpire accounted for 5% of the world's population and Spain accounted for 2%. The UK accounts for 0.87% of the world's population and Charles' powers are de jure, but will certainly never be used. Jon698 (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  He was Charles II in the Burgundian realm and I in Spain - never III.irrelevant any way as his article isn't entitled Charles III. DeCausa (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nomination and Powers. Any move back to this title after reestablishing status quo should be based upon weighing notability wit the other quite-notable Charles IIIs. --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Charles is a historically irrelevant king who serves a ceremonial role and as a tourist trap for Americans. It is recentrism to give him sole control over the Charles III name. Jon698 (talk)
• Support, unimpressed with arguments of consistency. I don't at this time WP:PRIMARYTOPIC favours this title. Cakelot1 (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  • I have reverted the rather abrupt and inappropriate closure of this discussion to allow more people the opportunity to respond. One hour of discussion is not sufficient for enough people to see and respond here.

  Noah^Talk 20:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Beyond that, this isnt a vote, and nearly every single oppose comment is directly at odds with our policy on naming and primary topic. nableezy - 20:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  They absolutely are not. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not state that the person's achievements are relevant. It also does not state that we for some reason must disregard any significance an individual has achieved before e.g. becoming King. It's absolutely clear from measurables such as page views on Charles' previous article, compared with page views on Charles III of Spain's article, that this Charles is the most significant Charles to the readers – by far.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  20:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  First test: A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. -- Clearly this Charles III is the person people are searching from now on

  Second test: A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. -- Don't see any reason why this Charles III wouldn't have enduring notability even after his ascending the throne IlkkaP (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, it seems that most people citing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC definitely relied on test two way too hard. It could be that Carlos III (of Spain) would be the primary topic in the Spanish Wikipedia even after the English one formally takes the throne, but this is the English version, which would you like it or not would bias it into what's commonly used in English. 2001:4453:54A:CA00:1961:5035:C97A:EE3 (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support the comments re consistency should be tossed as uninformed/mistaken, frankly, due to the indisputable lack of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose and instead go for Charles III of the Commonwealth Realms as another user said above. "of the UK" does not tell the whole story, he is King of the Commonwealth. --WR 20:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• He is not "King of the Commonwealth" but "Head of the Commonwealth". He isn't King of all 56 Commonwealth nations but only the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth Realms. AviationEnzo (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per the fact that he the King of 14 other Commonwealth realms, not just the UK, and for consistency with predecessors. 2605:B100:13A:6B07:107:FAD0:951:BA7A (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Just like Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, George V, and many more before this Charles III. –– MayThe2nd (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose name is in line with other modern British monarchs, and this Charles is going to get more traffic than any other bearer of that name before, irrespective of how much any of them have achieved, this is the one a general audience will be looking for.

Also please quickly close this discussion, the article is going to get millions of views over the next few days, the discussion notice on top won't be doing it any favors. -jonas (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that "...the discussion notice on top won't be doing it any favors...". Having this discussion here acts as a magnet for editors who may agree or disagree with the current setup and prevents the rather evident issue of editors creating several new sections about the article titles prior to this move request being opened. Best keep it all in one place than have it spread around, and the fact of the matter is that the title of Charles' article (and his actual title, quite frankly) is definitely going to be a point of discussion for at least the next few days. Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support makes sense to me given the sheer number of people named Charles III. Would be consistent with Charles I of England and Charles II of England.--Woko Sapien (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. He won’t be king for that long. Shwcz (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  WP:CRYSTAL — if he lives to 96, that would still be 23 years —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support: The only way this would be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would be due to WP:RECENTISM. I see a bunch of people saying that it doesn't fall in line with conventions of British monarchs, but that's not true. All British monarchs have been named in accordance with WP:NCROY - it just happens to be that the previous monarchs were the primary topic of their names (as in, they were much more significant than other people named Elizabeth II, George VI, etc.), while Charles III of the United Kingdom is not the primary topic of Charles III. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 21:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support move to Charles III of the Commonwealth Realms since (1) a few hours of media frenzy do not determine the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; in a year's time this factor could hypothetically change, but that's highly speculative; (2) WP:WORLDWIDE: this is an encyclopedia about world knowledge written in the English language, not an encyclopedia about what is important to English-speaking countries. Boud (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Either Charles III or Charles III of the United Kingdom. PS - "Charles III of the Commonwealth realms"? Absolutely not GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. He has been king of the United Kingdom for less than a day. While he is certainly notable on his own right, I fail to see how he would be the primary topic for Charles III, seeing as there have been many other notable Charles III's in history. JIP | Talk 21:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Let's be consistent with precedent. Pretty sure someone decided to move the Charles III page to redirect to the disambiguation page only today. This is English Wikipedia, it seems fairly obvious that King Charles III of the United Kingdom is going to be far and away the most prominent Charles III in the English-speaking world. Let Spanish Wikipedia debate him vs. Charles III of Spain. Valadius (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. I've rarely hear about or read about Spain's Charles III. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's an argument in favour of encouraging different knowledge in different language encyclopedias rather than trying to correct the unavoidable tendency in that direction. That policy would lead to keeping Spanish physics and English physics articles different in content, and Spanish maths and English maths different in content. Boud (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Precisely. As much as possible, each Wikipedia should seek to be a translation of the others, not a completely new approach at knowledge. We should avoid English-bias which dismisses Charles III of Spain based on the thought that English speakers won't look for him.

  It will do no harm to refer to Charles as Charles III of the United Kingdom, or Charles III of the Commonwealth. El Dubs (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support: The presumption is against his being the primary topic, given that he just became king. This can be revisited if and when the preponderance of published English usages come to refer to him. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support: Based off the List of current monarchs of sovereign states: it seems there are 11 countries where royal monarch pages has the name of the country listed, i.e. Philippe of Belgium, Abdullah II of Jordan, etc. and 16 pages that do not i.e. Felipe VI (Spain), Tupou VI (Tonga), etc. Being as there are 20 or so articles using the title of "Charles III" I think it'd be pertinent to include the country in His Majesty's title/page. Snickers2686 (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose due to consistency with predecessors, and that in English speaking Wikipedia at least, he is likely a more notable Charles III DRYT.Motorsport (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, keep as Charles III. Is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC even hours into his reign based on sheer number of subjects. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support: As stated by many others above, Charles III of Spain remains, as of now, much more relevant historically, and this Charles III is only the primary topic because of recentism. Main article should be the DAB. DominikWSP (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support: I am quite shocked by the amount of opposes, there is no way that he is more significant than Charles III of Spain, who reigned for 30 years and had a significant impact on his country and the rest of the world. -- Maykii (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  We don’t disambiguate by historical significance, we do it based on what the most likely intended search target is. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Regardless of the long term significance of the Spaniard, we should put articles where our readers expect to find them and if someone is searching for Charles III now and for the foreseeable future, the odds are very strongly they're not looking for the Spaniard. Oppose any construct such as "of the Commonwealth Realms" as inconsistent with our other articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support: per WP:COMMONNAME Charles III would usually refer to Charles III of Spain. From this point on a disambiguation page is needed. --Plumber (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This page is now the primary meaning of Charles III, and “of the United Kingdom” is just as bad as “of England”, thanks to the other kingdoms. Moonraker (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Disagree You are correct is a major difference between using "of the United Kingdom" and "of England" but I would argue England would be out-of-place as the WP:COMMONNAME for the Commonwealth is the United Kingdom, not Kingdom England and a list of others. So following WP:RECENTISM the name change to King Charles III of the United Kingdom would be fitting, while King Charles III of England, etc. would be inappropriate.

  Detsom (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support: There are enough other "Charles III"s of substantial notability that it's presumptuous to declare this one the Primary Topic. "Charles III of the United Kingdom" is a perfectly cromulent disambiguation following WP standards and practices. The !votes citing "consistency" are just demonstrating that they don't know what they're talking about, because look at those 20 other "Charles III"s. Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  • So, JasonAQuest, which other Charles III do you say is the primary meaning, and what do you base that on? Moonraker (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
    • None of them are. That's why "Charles III" should go back to disambiguating among them. (That is the proposal that I supported, so I'd think that the meaning of "support" would be obvious.) Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  There is none, which is why Charles III should be a disambiguation page the way it was prior to an admin move warring it out in favor of this article. nableezy - 21:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think you're confusing the concepts of 'moving' and 'move warring'. The Land (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  No, you moved this first at 17:37, 8 September 2022, were reverted, another person moved it again, they were reverted, and then you moved it once more. You did move war, and you violated multiple policies in doing so. Here is the first deletion you made to make way for the move, and here is the second. You should still be self-reverting yourself, but then again the legacy admins who could never pass an RFA of this place arent known for actually following the rules. nableezy - 21:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Weak Support There are several other significant Charles III's, though maybe not so many as one might think. Seems like a judgment call that could go either way. Very very strongly oppose "of the Commonwealth Realms", a nonsense Wikipedia neologism. john k (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with you that "of the Commonwealth Realms" is silly, but "the United Kingdom" is the WP:COMMONNAME of the area most directly associated with monarchy and is much more fitting. Detsom (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Additionally, I would certainly consider Charles III of Spain along to be significant enough to warrant changing of name based on WP:NCROY. Detsom (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support, no PRIMARY by long-term significance. If there's no consensus, BOLD move should be reverted.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support, take Charles III of Spain, Charles the Simple etc. There are a bunch of other Charles III's running about, several of whom had a far greater impact on the world than Charles ever has and probably ever will. Making this the primary topic would be an example of WP:RECENTISM. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Recentism can be positive. If an article suddenly becomes massively more likely to be the intended search target, Wikipedia can respond to that with a page move as has happened here. Reacting to the recent news makes Wikipedia a more helpful encyclopaedia for our readers. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Will far and away be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the foreseeable future. Strong oppose "of the Commonwealth Realms" as clearly failing WP:COMMONNAME. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support "Charles III of the Commonwealth realms", second choice "Charles III of the United Kingdom", oppose "Realms" as miscapitalization. There is no legal entity called "the Commonwealth Realms", so the ar should be lowercase. "of the Commonwealth realms" does not itself need to pass COMMONNAME, since it's a descriptive title. I would encourage the closer of this RM to discount any !votes based on the idea that being the king of the Commonwealth realms in 2015 automatically makes someone the primary topic, and likewise any !votes pleading consistency, as that argument does not trump arguments of ambiguity. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ♦ jaguar 21:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

How do either of those even begin to support your position here? How many results here refer to the topic of this article? nableezy - 21:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

From now on, vast majority of English language Wikipedia users expect to land on this article when searching for Charles III, not on a selection list of 20 or so other Charles IIIs, regardless of their importance to the history. IlkkaP (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

And this is based on what exactly? nableezy - 21:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Common sense? Khuft (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear. You've fallen into a Wikipedia bear trap. That's called WP:OR and is forbidden. DeCausa (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

No. It would be OR if I added non-referenced material to the article. We're on the Talk page here, where we're exchanging arguments in order to reach consensus. Stating that most people looking for Charles III are likely to be looking for this one is just obvious, based on the fact that he's the current monarch of the most well-known monarchy still in existence - but just in case you don't trust my judgement on it, many other wikipedians have added statistics and rationale that support this claim in this discussion. Khuft (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Why do you think this is more well known than the Spanish monarchy, the Saudi monarchy, the Japanese monarchy and so on? Yes, obviously, right now, this is the most searched for Charles III. But the requirement be that it be the primary topic in comparison to all other Charles III's combined, and part of that is determined by usage in sourcing. There is quite obviously nothing besides news accounts in the last 12 hours that have ever primarily referred to the subject of this article as Charles III. It is strictly the same systemic bias that the rest of the project deals with, people think whats important to them is definitionally the most important thing. But we, as always, base our decisions on the sources, not on the personal feelings of a group of Wikipedia editors. nableezy - 00:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

And god forbid that an encyclopedia informs those readers that there are other notable monarchs with the same name. Vpab15 (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This article already has ”For other uses, see Charles III (disambiguation).” as the very first line. IlkkaP (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Please don't make me divulge into the cluelessness of your response, Nableezy. ♦ jaguar 23:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This monarch may be more well known because he's monarch of 15 countries, whereas the monarchs of Spain and Saudi Arabia are each monarchs of only one. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

For your information the most well known Charles III, Charles III of Spain, was monarch of the Kingdom of Spain and the Spanish Empire, a vastly larger and more important kingdom/empire than what this one-day-king of a medium-sized European nation is king of. In addition, he held far more political power over his kingdom and empire than this merely symbolic British king. Charles III (of Spain, obviously) is clearly the primary topic. --Sveinkros (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose He is not only the King of the United Kingdom. There are 14 other countries in which he is the sovereign. Keivan.f^Talk 21:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's consistent with several hundred years of predecessors and it avoids the "Charles III of...what?" issue. Based on readership numbers of his article going into today's events, there's no reason to believe that interest in him will suddenly wane, so WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is already met. —C.Fred (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. We need to maintain consistency. Per articles on other monarchs, e.g. Harald V of Norway. Also, there are other kings called Charles III including Charles III of Spain whose historical importance is far greater and more established than this essentially new man and one-day-king. The goings-on here is a textbook example of UK-centrism. --Sveinkros (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  English-centrism is not wholly unreasonable on the English Wikipedia. The Spanish Wikipedia may prefer to prioritise Charles III of Spain. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose As others have said, people searching for "Charles III" most of the time are going to be looking for this one. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It’s not who’s “more important”, it’s about primary usage, and we can already say that the vast majority of those seraching for “Charles III” will be searching for the current King of Canada, Jamaica, and all those other realms. —ThorstenNY (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  WP:COMMONNAME is for names that have prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources. What proportion of these sources are about the current King of the UK? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support. From an encyclopedic point of vue, there is no reason for this monarch to have a different treatment than all the other Charles III. Elme12 (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  From the point of view that an encyclopaedia is supposed to be useful to its readers, we have to consider which Charles a reader is most likely to be looking for when searching for Charles III - and it’s this one. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• As "Charles III of Great Britain" Given WP:NCROY, WP:COMMONNAME, and established convention, it appears that the decision most consistent with established convention (see George II of Great Britain for instance) would be to move the current page to be titled "Charles III of Great Britain." This is the style consistent with what I've seen for other British monarchs and, as per WP:NCROY, the monarch's most relevant title should be used in their article title. This is indisputably Charles' title as King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not that of reigning monarch of the Commonwealth Realms. Given established precedent in Wikipedia's reference to other British monarchs, and WP:COMMONNAME, it is my personal opinion that using "Great Britain" in his title as opposed to "United Kingdom" is preferable, as it follows common usage and custom (as well as being more specific, since the UK isn't the only united kingdom). I've seen debate about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and I think there won't be any clear resolution on that issue; therefore, I would recommend that, given the sheer number of monarchs bearing the name Charles III out there (of Spain, France, Monaco, etc.), that Charles III be a disambiguation page and not the name of any one person's article. Theologus (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Change to Oppose After reading a few of these comments, I don't think that keeping the article as titled would be an example of WP:RECENTISM or in violation of custom. British monarchs on the English Wikipedia do tend to have their articles titled only by regnal name and ordinal number, and I see no reason to deviate from that. In reference to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, although historically this Charles is (and likely will continue to be) less relevant than others of his name, he is indubitably the primary topic here. This is the English Language Wikipedia, after all, and I would say that anyone more recent is more likely to be considered a primary topic. Why should anyone care about Charles III of Spain or of France when this Charles III is alive today? He's clearly more relevant to the modern reader, and statistics have already been given to show that. Theologus (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as said by User:Rmhermen, the use of Charles III in this case seems entirely normal, the consistency in the naming of former British monarchs is important in this situation. As well I would put that because Charles III is the only currently reigning Charles III that then there can be the clear knowledge that one is looking for him when searching it up, especially at this present time. As well Charles III is the monarch of more than only the United Kingdom, as he is as well he is the monarch of all commonwealth realms, yet it would not make sense to list them out in the title and Charles III sums it up quite nicely at least in my opinion on this topic. --CIN I&II (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. The page views tool suggests that the “Charles, Prince of Wales” article was at least two orders of magnitude more sought-after than “Charles III of Spain” over the last 90 days, and that gap is only going to widen over the coming weeks. I think we can safely say that >99.9% of readers searching for Charles III will be expecting to find this article. Therefore keeping it under this name is tremendously helpful to our readers. When public interest reverts to the mean, the decision can be revisited, but I would still expect this Charles to be by far the most likely search target for a general audience.

Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose While I completely agree that this is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the arguments that for English Wikipedia, Charles III mostly likely refers to this Charles III. I'd be more on the fence if there was a good alternative disambiguation instead of the non-WP:COMMONNAME Charles III of the Commonwealth Realms and problematic Charles III of England. I know that he is the King of the United Kingdom but using Charles III of the United Kingdom presents much the same issues. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 22:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose this is the Charles III most people will be looking for. Why make their life harder? Khuft (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Making this article the primary topic would be an example of WP:RECENTISM. Privybst (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  No, that would presume Charles as Prince of Wales was less prominent / known / searched than Charles III of Spain. As per Barnards, that was not the case. Khuft (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agree with User:Privybst w/r/t WP:RECENTISM. Detsom (talk) 03:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support The UK is not the centre of the world (Redacted). sfs (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Opinion on a reigning monarch doesn't effect the name of an article, it should not change the name of this article on it and the current name specifically in at least my opinion is entirely positive due to that he is the only reigning monarch as Charles III and that this is in line with former British monarchs, see George III. CIN I&II (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  You're lucky that lèse-majesté is no longer a thing. ;-) --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  In addition to the above comments, he is also King of Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Canada. They are all separate titles, he is not King of the United Kingdom when he is in any of these nations. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't wish to divulge into the sheer idiocy of your statement, Cloudo. ♦ jaguar 23:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Per naming of similar royal accounts and for the sake of ease of access for common everyday users. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 22:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed strongly, with this comment. While writing for Wikipedia is a hobby, it's one with an audience. The needs of the audience need to be kept in mind, common everyday users. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Shuddering at the thought that I'd have to type "Charles III of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth realms" each time I'd want to look up his page... Khuft (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support as per George II of Great Britain and William III of England. BD2412 T 22:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Both of these examples date from before the creation of the United Kingdom, let alone autonomous, constitutional monarchies. It was only in 1937 that George VI became the King of Canada, so I presume similar split titles started elsewhere at similar points. The above only had one title, no matter how many colonies underneath them. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - He is a living and notable monarch linked to a notable event. His reign extends beyond the United Kingdom. Lastly, such change would make it incosistent. Mat Jarosz (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose It would be very useful to users who have become accustomed with the naming conventions of the last several British monarchs as simply their regnal name and their ordinal. I also agree with many of the other folks here who have cited page visit statistics compared to Charles III of Spain. I believe that most users who will search for a monarch named Charles III will be searching for this specific Charles, as substantiated by past page visits preceding today's events. Also, I don't believe it is necessarily a biased viewpoint that the relevance of the British monarchy to users of English Wikipedia is substantial, at the very least in this specific case. Similarly, I don't believe claims of WP:RECENTISM are entirely reasonable, either, as a subject's relation to recent events doesn't necessarily discount its importance to current culture, and thereby current interest and usage by users.

JoshyBigMac (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support

Support renaming as there are many Charles III's. Besides the recentness I see no reason we shouldn't stick to the current convention. Most people have known him as "Prince Charles" or "Prince of Wales" so not sure there will be a lot of confusion with other historical Charles IIIs as others have mentioned. Queen Elizabeth was considered exceptional given the length of her reign, among other things. Charles III of United Kingdom hasn't been King long enough to warrant an exception to the current convention yet. Detsom (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I would hold off on naming him as Charles III until he chooses his regnal name. He had previously said he debated reigning as George VII in honor of his grandfather. Intersting (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's already been confirmed that he's chosen Charles III. -- The Man Known as Rektroth (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. You are correct is stating that the naming convention for royalty is clear; it is clear that articles on British monarchs going back to George III are simply named by their regnal title, not "[Monarch's first name and ordinal] of [Country]" as you claim. I would also contest your claim that "there is no evidence that the current King of England is the primary topic with respect to long-term significance", as every British monarch going back to George III, including Charles, Prince of Wales[4], have far more page views than all other royalty of the same name combined. And the heavily mentioned fact in this thread that he's only been King for a few hours is wholly and completely immaterial as to whether or not he is the primary topic. Arguments of what each Charles III's achievements are and their historical significance are irrelevant and should be ignored. Charles III of the United Kingdom is clearly the primary topic. -- The Man Known as Rektroth (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Looking at all-time pageview stats, 'Charles, [former] Prince of Wales' has many times more page visits than any other Charles III, as well as higher daily averages and medians (most other Charles III's don't have enough traffic to even generate a median stat in the tool). Even with a short reign, I doubt that will decrease the amount of traffic this page gets in the next decade, so the WP:RECENTISM points should be thrown out. 'Charles, Prince of Wales' had 61,850,725 pageviews before today, versus 1,667,956 pageviews for Charles III of Spain, for example. Similarly, none of the other Charlie 3's get anywhere near the traffic of the former Prince of Wales' page. CoatGuy2 (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  +1  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  23:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support as it would be consistent for other monarchs having names in common with others. There have been many Charles III across history. Using the name alone should only be the case when there is zero (or close to zero) ambiguity, which is true for his mother, but not so much him. Funnyhat (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support Obviously, even if it is a primary topic. By the way, I just woken up into a shocking news when I found out about it. MarioJump83 (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Not primary topic.★Trekker (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support for now being the new monarch and will add "of the United Kingdom" at the end. ApprenticeWiki ^work 22:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  The issue at hand, though, is that he's not just of the UK, he's of 14 other nations as well. Each of those titles are separate and equal. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Personally, Im less and less convinced of this, as our article is at Monarchy of the United Kingdom. The commonwealth realms just follow that, but I think we're on safe ground using the same name as that article as the disambiguation here. nableezy - 00:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  The Commonwealth Realms don't "Just Follow that". They all have separate pages, see Monarchy of Canada, Monarchy of Australia, etc. WanukeX (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• What barnstar should be devised for the brave person who's going to close this mess?? DeCausa (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The usages for other recent English/British monarchs as precedent in several comments is given undue weight: looking at all monarchs without a qualifier, only William IV has enough other candidates on the disambiguation page for there to be a meaningful argument over which one, if any, should get primacy over the others. 96.252.41.90 (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. He just doesn't have the notability (as Charles III) to be the primary topic of Charles III. Tad Lincoln (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as notwithstanding recency and shortness of his reign thus far, he is well and truly the primary topic regardless. Shadow007 (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:IAR. The assertion that the "Charles III" name fails WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does appear accurate; however, it's obvious that this is an excessively legalistic interpretation that prevents us from "maintaining Wikipedia" in an accurate and accessible format. Charles as an individual is a far more prolific figure than the others mentioned, and "Charles III" is the name used to reference this individual. Furthermore, as "Charles III" is both his regnal name and consistent with WP titling for monarchs since George III, it seems entirely appropriate to me. Marquisate (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: for what it's worth, the Encyclopædia Britannica is using "Charles III". — RAVENPVFF · talk · 23:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  This seems inaccurate; the URL remains "Charles-prince-of-Wales" and a direct search of Britannica brings up Charles III of Spain first and doesn't even show Charles III of the UK yet, though this is likely to change. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 23:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Dylnuge: It appears that though Charles' page's URL itself isn't changed yet, but the article for the Prince of Wales title per se displays no one, and implies it is vacant (as it now it is until when/if King Charles gives the title to Prince William, or surprises the world otherwise.)--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 02:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Makes sense, and I suspect Britannica will update their article title, URLs, search results, etc. Wikipedia also doesn't necessarily have any reason to copy what Britannica does. I was just noting that at this time, they haven't done anything to change the search results or URLs. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 04:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the main consideration is whether a given user is more likely to be searching for one entry over all others combined. While not to diminsh the significance of some historical rulers, and even ignoring the certain increase in interest following a 70-years since change by WP:CRYSTAL, the benefit of being a living person regularly present in the media surely tips this in his favour. Epsilon.Prota (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support. There have been many important kings Charles III in history, and this new Charles III isn't even very notable yet compared to some of those found in the disambiguation page. MaeseLeon (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose primarily on grounds of consistency, and secondarily on grounds of likely search frequency. Pages on other British monarchs are either titled with just the name or, in the case of Charles II, with of England. WP:Recentism is an essay rather than a policy, and the policies it references are focused on content rather than page naming. Page naming should prioritize ease of use, rather than neutrality between popular and obscure topics. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose It is more probable that when searching Charles III an individual will be searching for the current Charles III as head of state of UK instead of another Charles III. It is also not right to list the article as "of United Kingdom" because it does not consider Commonwealth countries that have and do not have him as head of state. "of Commonwealth countries is also not right" he will not be head of state for all of them. Also it would discount other territories outside the commonwealth in which he plays a constitutional role. Tindy1986 (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose primarily on grounds of WP:IAR because of search frequency and ease of use. Public discussion of "Charles III" will be about this person and not someone else. --\/\/slack (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose if we had Elizabeth II for years, I don't see a reason to not have simply Charles III. --bender235 (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  There are far fewer Elizabeth IIs then there are Charles IIIs. It's very clear who the primary topic is for the former. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 23:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support moving to Charles III of the Commonwealth realms: The reason for this Charles to not be just "Charles III" is that he's not more important than all of the other Charles IIIs. He's not the primary topic. 186.212.221.243 (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support: There have been many rulers throughout history named Charles III. There were far fewer rulers who were named "Elizabeth II," hence why the "of United Kingdom" suffix was not appended to her name. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - ease of use, and lack of notability of other holders of this regnal title AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time. According to WP:PTOPIC,

  "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term"

  I would bet good money that most people who are going to search for Charles III are going to be looking for the current King, so therefore the current King is the primary topic for the term "Charles III". SkyWarrior 23:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Charles III is a completely appropriate title in this case. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC also applies here. – Handoto (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support. A hypothetical move of Charles III of Spain to Charles III would be a lively debate, for this one, there's nothing to discuss. You should be extremely wary when you find yourself thinking that the most recent thing is the primary topic. Also, just "of the United Kingdom" is fine, it's purpose is to disambiguate, not list every country he is the king of. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[ᴛ] 23:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support. This change is clearly in line with WP:NCROY. There's no "standard" of having British monarchs specifically not be linked in this way and not all others are (e.g. George II of Great Britain). It's clear Elizabeth II was the primary subject being searched for under that name, but less clear with Charles III. There's also no reason this move can't be redone at a later time; it's not like primary topics never change, and it seems premature to treat the new Charles III as the obvious default. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 23:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support Charles III → Charles III of the United Kingdom, given there are many Charles IIIs, and there is a a question mark over which Commonwealth countries he will be king of. But Oppose Charles III (disambiguation) → Charles III: that should stay as it is now, with Charles III becoming a redirect. Then the argy-bargy can be confined to deciding which article it should redirect to. (My vote is to redirect it to the new king.) Samatarou (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  While there may be a question of which Commonwealth countries he will be King of long term, he is automatically king in any country in which his mother was Queen. That includes Australia, Canada, New Zealand, even Antigua, which said in April that it would cut ties with the monarchy after QEII's death. They're all automatic. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - As per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - The newly minted Charles III is the only monarch or ruler of his name on the disambiguation page who has ever ruled over substantial English speaking territories. There is a strong expectation that a primary speaker of the language will know him by name alone, and not by any one of his many titles, of which it may be difficult to identify primacy. - Jz4p (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support No primary topic, this title represents bias in favour of the UK and the English-speaking countries. PatGallacher (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, this bias is one shared by our readers. Many of the nations he is now King of primarily speak local Creole dialects, and the official languages of the countries Charles is King of include Hiri Motu, Tuvaluan, Maori, French, etc. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support, no primary topic, considering long term significance. As for the arguments against this on the grounds of consistency; the proposed name is consistent with how we disambiguate British monarchs who are not the primary topic for their regnal name - Anne, Queen of Great Britain, George I of Great Britain, George II of Great Britain.

I suspect, however, that this is the wrong time for this discussion; we should hold it again in a few months when the coverage of the subject has reduced. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Those examples are not a direct comparison. I'm not familiar with the governance history of each of the nations, but Canada didn't convert from a monarchy to a constitutional monarchy until 1867, Australia in 1900. And it wasn't until the Statute of Westminster 1931 that a separate Canadian title was established, meaning that only George V, Edward VIII, George VI, Elizabeth II are comparable in terms of the distinct titles. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

None of them are really comparable in terms of distinct titles; for example, Charles won't be an Emperor, but the first three you listed were. Overall, however, I'm not sure what point you are making? BilledMammal (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: 'A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.'

Since the beginning of records for pageviews in July 2015, 'Charles, Prince of Wales' had gotten 61,850,725 pageviews as of yesterday. If you add up the pageviews for all the other Charles III articles listed on Charles III (disambiguation), they total 24,672,659 (I won't link to every single page in the tool, but feel free to check my math!) Which is to say that historically, this Charles III accounts for 71% of pageviews for pages on the Charles III disambiguation page, more than satisfying the guidance that a primary topic should be a more likely search term than all similar terms combined. And I see no reason that his being King of the UK should negatively affect traffic to his page. CoatGuy2 (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Also per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. It would be WP:RECENTISM to consider a relatively powerless monarch to have greater enduring notability and educational value than many of the other Charles III's. BilledMammal (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

He does have long-term significance. His name may have changed a few hours ago, but he notable and widely searched before that, so it's not recentism. This topic has a long history of being more widely searched than the other figures on the Charles III disambiguation page, and it's unreasonable to assume that will change. You personally might think that Charles III of Spain or Charles III of Bohemia is more important/significant than Charles, former Prince of Wales, but what matters to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is that far more Wikipedia users have searched for this topic (and almost certainly will continue to do so) over the long-term. CoatGuy2 (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Primary topic does not say what you think it does; it doesn't establish that usage alone determines what a primary topic is, and in fact establishes the opposite. BilledMammal (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment It appears that many of the !votes in opposition are against the proposed disambiguation, rather than the need to disambiguate. It may be worth discussing alternative forms of disambiguation. BilledMammal (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Also King of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and many others.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose -- He isn't only "of the United Kingdom", he's the king of 14 other commonwealth realms. WanukeX (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  The countries he is king of is irrelevant; the open question is whether or not he is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC under this name or merits disambiguation. "of the United Kingdom" clearly serves the disambiguation purpose (there is no monarch of the UK alone and not other commonwealth realms). Page titles don't otherwise need to completely encompass a person. A person who is known for acting and directing work, but primarily acting, could appear at a page called "Name (actor)" without this implying they never directed, for instance. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  • No, there are two open questions. First, what is the correct title for an article about this guy? And second, is this guy the primary topic for the name "Charles III," even if that exact name is not the correct name for his article? The proposal suggests that he is not the primary topic, because it would redirect "Charles III" to the DAB, instead of to this article. To answer the original comment, though, WP:SOVEREIGN states, "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state." So it's consistent with the guideline to use the name of a realm in the article title, even if it is not the only realm over which he has sovereignty. --DavidK93 (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as he is king of several countries. Also the proposer's reliance on WP:Recentism is misguided since that is about article content, not article naming. The reality is that anyone searching for "Charles III" will probably be looking for this guy. Richard75 (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: The original article (disambiguation page) located under the title Charles III should not have been moved without discussion in the first place. We need consensus to displace the disambiguation page and treat this one-day-king as the primary topic as compared to Charles III who ruled for three decades, and the other Charles III, not the other way around. «No consensus» in this case means the disambiguation page stays under the title Charles III, and that there is no consensus that a new king is suddenly the primary topic, or that we should ignore the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) (compare: Harald V of Norway, not just Harald V; or for that matter Charles II of England). --Sveinkros (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Tisnec (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose -- Adding to this discussion: check Google News, search for "Charles III", and search only for stories between Sept 1st 2021 and Sept 1st 2022. (the search query to do this is: "charles iii" when:1y before:2022-09-01. Most of the news stories in the past year mentioning "Charles III" are about him; and certainly, all the notable ones are. Then check [Ngram], where since the year 1824, any mention of a "Charles III" has been practically non-existent in the corpus; until 2008, with reference to (speculation regarding) the current one. Since 2012, he has been the most talked-about "Charles III" (again, due to speculation on his future reign) on Google N-gram. Much of this rebound in popularity for the term "Charles III" was caused by a play that came out in 2014 and was widely popular in the UK and on Broadway, was widely covered by the news media, and turned into a radio play, then into a film which aired in the UK and US. So the strongest arguments against this move are: WP:COMMONNAME, since Charles III has clearly been used to refer to him for more than a decade, consistency (with Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, George V, Edward VII and more; and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Beyond that, "of the United Kingdom" is clearly innacurate or at best incomplete. DFlhb (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support: There are 20 other Wikipedia pages for people named Charles III. I believe a disambiguation page is both clearer, fits with the established format better, and avoids undue weight. Tisnec (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per most of the above. "Charles III of the United Kingdom" is not accurate and I'm just not feeling Charles III of the United Kingdon, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu. Come on people. I think we can file this under the heading of WP:COMMONSENSE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's common sense that no one is suggesting that strawman of a ridiculous page title. Titles are to identify the subject of an article, which "of the United Kingdom" accomplishes fine (there's no king of just the UK who isn't also king of other commonwealth realms). This is an extremely common practice on Wikipedia; for instance James Maxwell (actor) has writing and directing credits. The appropriate title there wouldn't be "James Maxwell (actor, theatre director, writer, husband, father, human)" because a single item serves to differentiate him from, say, James Maxwell (scholar). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  • @Ad Orientem and Stanley Bannerman: WP:SOVEREIGN explicitly states, "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state." Obviously, you're free to feel however you wish about this. But if your concern is that it would violate naming guidelines to only refer to one of the multiple realms of which he is monarch, the guideline in fact addresses the matter. --DavidK93 (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

    Your point is certainly valid, but my problem with the guide is that "most commonly" is pretty subjective in this case and depends where you live. Even outside the Commonwealth Realms, e.g. USA, one could argue "of England" is more common than "of the United Kingdom", even though it is probably factually incorrect to say this post 1707. Stanley Bannerman (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: Other Charles IIIs are regional leaders or have different spellings in original languages. Therefore we can ignore Charles III of Spain and Charles the Simple. Sharouser (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Partial Support - I support this article having the title Charles III of the United Kingdom, per WP:SOVEREIGN. (I don't know why articles for other recent UK monarchs don't follow the guideline.) The guideline explicitly states, "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state." This preemptively refutes claims that the proposed article title is incorrect because Charles reigns over other realms. However, recentism notwithstanding, I believe that this Charles III has already become the primary topic for Charles III, and therefore Charles III should redirect to this article and the DAB should stay at Charles III (disambiguation). --DavidK93 (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  As to the change in naming convention for recent monarchs, that's the result of Statute of Westminster 1931, which legally recognized the various Dominions as independent nations. It wasn't the same as full sovereignty (Canada's came in 1982), it was enough to require new titles like King of Canada. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support for clarity and consistency, and to avoid giving unjustified prominence to just one King Charles III of many. It's in accordance with how we name other pages, it just plain makes sense, and... to be honest it's a little embarrassing feeling as if some proportion of British Wiki has suddenly decided that our Charles III is the one that counts, so to speak. FlyingMeeces (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Coatguy (far above here) looked at the page views for all Charles IIIs on the disambiguation page. Under his previous article title, this Charles III received 71% of all views. The public has spoken, 61.8 million to 24.6 million, and that's while he's just the heir apparent, not the guy appearing on bank notes. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose (I think I've remembered which way the vote goes): People looking for the new king will expect him to be at Charles III. The current form of Charles III (disambiguation) looks as I would expect it to. The previous form did not extend any of the people called Charles III the privilege of being the primary topic. If the arguments above about Charles III of Spain being just as or more significant, he wouldn't just be sorted between Charles III of Navarre and Charles III of West Francia. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: He is king of the 15 Commonwealth realms which have independent monarchies, so could equally be titled Charles III of Tuvalu. Furthermore, in the coming months/years/etc if you say Charles III people will no doubt immediately think of the modern day King, rather than some 18th century Spanish one. Stanley Bannerman (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC) On a further point this has not been an issue before e.g. George V vs George V (disambiguation) so not sure why we are even discussing this.Stanley Bannerman (talk) 02:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support-ish I much more prefer Charles III of the Commonwealth, but The UK will do as a second choice. The current format is recentism and English bias at its height and we should seek to do better there. Since there are other Charles III similar or greater significance, Charles III should be a disambiguation. An English speaking user is indeed most likely going to be looking for this Charles, but the disambiguation page will see them to the right place. El Dubs (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: It seems rather likely that if one is searching for "Charles III" on English Wikipedia, they will (99 times out of 100) be looking for the King of 15 countries including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. The British/Commonwealth Royal Family is a global interest topic Yeehaw45 (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: For consistency and the fact that he is King of many other Commonwealth realms. LtGen (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per consistency. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support: This seems entirely consistent with the recommendations under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Arguments that this is inconsistent with Charles' predecessors don't appear to recognize the far lesser need for disambiguation. If users get to the DAB page by searching on "Charles III," they are just one link away from Charles U.K.'s page if that's what they were looking for. If they area searching for a more historical Charles III, they are similarly closer to their actual search target. BPricePople8 (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose There were lengthy discussions before that settled on using just the monarch's regnal name for articles about the Commonwealth Realms' monarchs. Hence, we have Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, etc. There's no sound argument for why this page should be different by way of attaching Charles' article to one country when he's king of 15. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's not a real argument, and it has already been addressed by others here. The article on the monarch of four sovereign entities (the two kingdoms of Denmark and Norway and the two duchies of Schleswig and Holstein that were not part of either kingdom) is just titled Christian VII of Denmark, and the same goes for numerous others. We use the most common country designation. The same goes for British monarchs. Apart from that, if anyone is the primary topic it's Charles III of Spain, an important monarch with 29 years as king under his belt, who was monarch of the Kingdom of Spain and the Spanish Empire, a vastly larger and more important kingdom/empire than what this one-day-king of a medium-sized European nation is king of, and who held far greater political power as well and left a lasting legacy, as opposed to the merely symbolic Charles III of the United Kingdom. --Sveinkros (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment If you could link to those lengthy discussions, that'd be a big contribution to this discussion. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[ᴛ] 02:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, for this reason, he should be detailed "Charles III of the Commonwealth". El Dubs (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per above comments, page views show a vast majority of hits for any of the Charles IIIs point to this Charles III (prior to his rise to the throne). And that majority is only going to get bigger with him now being the king. Frank Anchor 02:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose As a person of dual citizenship in both the UK and NZ, it is obviously wrong to favour one realm over another. The neutrality, simplicity and consistency of the current title makes the most sense. E James Bowman (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose none of the other Charles III are alive and this one is the one most people will be searching for Cidician (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Abstain On one hand, consistency. On the other hand...let's be honest, the simplicity adds a certain irresistible gravitas. I mean, yes, the other arguments like fairness to the realms too; it's a tough call. I will say though as noted above, Charles III of the Commonwealth is a bold idea albeit likely too risky. Ironically, the simplest name without title may be the most WP:NPOV.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 02:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  An alternative option would be "Charles III Windsor". It's unconventional, but it should address editors concerns about focusing on United Kingdom to the detriment of the other realms he is king of. BilledMammal (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  The more I think about it, the more Charles III Windsor does sound right, although it might cause confusion as if that is his surname (which it is kind of, but not really). It sounds neutral and pleasant though without being long-winded.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 03:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The concerns leading to the omission of "of the UK" from other British monarchs (i.e. the legitimate concerns of other Commonwealth subjects) are just as valid as they were yesterday. The current title does not, by its 11 characters nor by its omissions, express a judgement about Charles' current or expected historical importance relative to any other King Charles. The "common name" principle is not helpful for this purpose because it would not lead to any form of his regnal name, but instead to "Charles, PoW" which is no longer accurate. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose No such titling is used for other British monarchs and I see no reason why it should be different on this article. MrJ567 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Charles I of England, Charles II of England, and George II of Great Britain all seem to have that sort of titling and were British monarchs. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose He won't be king of just the UK any more than his mother was queen of just the UK (even if like his mother he will more than likely be officially wrongly numbered in those other nations). Waerloeg (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Carlos III of Spain should be primarily named that, not have his name anglicized. Half of this fight seems to be based on the assumption that monarchs should have their names shoehorned into an English rough equivalent rather than the actual name they went by or that their primary country used. 2600:1017:B82D:E6B7:E1FA:F75B:6E29:5A7C (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. Charles III should redirect to Carlos III of Spain. Pavlovius (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose He is the current and best known incarnation of Charles III. Period. JadeKrusade (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Weak because I agree with the concerns of recentism, but oppose because he is ultimately not just king of the UK, he's king of a lot more than that. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose As per User:Rmherman. (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aydenholtonvlogs (talk • contribs)

• Oppose per opposers. I do think Carlos III should not be a disam page though - that's silly. Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Readers are certainly much more likely to be searching for this article than for Charles III of Spain—whose article title already contains natural disambiguation. Granted that in a few centuries Charles III of Spain's historical significance may make him the more likely search target again, but unless the subject of this article changes his mind and decides to reign as "George VII" or something else, this is who the great majority of readers who type "Charles III" will be searching for in the foreseeable future. The proposed title may be technically correct—although that seems to be disputed—but it seems like unnecessary disambiguation. Hatnotes should be adequate to bring readers searching for other Charles III's to the disambiguation page or other articles. P Aculeius (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support There are many monarchs throughout history with the name Charles III with equal, if not greater, historical significance. Curiocity1 (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: It depends. Strong Oppose for Charles III of the United Kingdom (he is king of other independent nations). Strong Oppose for Charles III of the Commonwealth (there are many Commonwealth nations with their own heads of state). Strong Oppose for Charles III of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Realms (that is UK-centric and diminishes the other nations). Support for Charles III of the Commonwealth realms (it is not UK-centric, does not diminish the other independent nations, and does not presume to be head of state of all of the Commonwealth. 122.106.220.75 (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Charless III of the United Kingdom is not accurate. For example, like his mother under the constitutions of Canada, New Zealand, Australia he is known as "separately" and legally distinct as the King of Canada, the King of New Zealand, and the King of the Commonwealth of Australia. Some of the other Commonwealth Realms have this automatic inclusion, some of them do not and will require a change to the constitution, of which some are looking to remove entirely and become republics. Charles III of the Commonwealth is incorrect as he is not the head of state for all Commonwealth Nations, Charles III of the Commonwealth realms would be more correct but it is not an offical title used anywhere, risky and confusing. If Charless III of the United Kingdom was selected then we would have to also have a page for Charles III of Canada, Charles III of New Zealand, Charles III of Papua New Guinea and so on, which is far from ideal. Charles III of each of the individual Commonwealth realms? That is would be more descriptive but horrid in application. It is not as straightforward in that a catch-all descriptor can be appended. Skippingrock (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of disambiguation options

The current proposed disambiguation options are as follows.

1. Charles III of the United Kingdom
2. Charles III of Great Britain
3. Charles III of the Commonwealth realms
4. Charles III of the Commonwealth
5. Charles III Windsor

If there is no consensus, or a consensus that he is not the primary topic, but no consensus on what the disambiguation should be, it may be useful to the closer for us to discuss these and identify which is the best option. BilledMammal (talk) 03:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

"Charles III of the United Kingdom" is the only appropriate option among these. There is no sovereign "of the Commonwealth" or "of the Commonwealth realms". Likewise, "King of Great Britain" hasn't existed since the 1800 Act of Union, which united the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland. Before the Act of Union, the Kings of Great Britain held Ireland as a separate realm with a separate crown, much like the Commonwealth realms today are separate realms with separate crowns. 68.96.220.168 (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I mostly agree, although I could be convinced of a "commonwealth" one, and I do think that "Charles III Windsor", despite being unconventional, would also be appropriate as natural disambiguation. BilledMammal (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

"Charles III of the United Kingdom", that's it. The rest? no way. GoodDay (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Andrew

No mention of his pretty famous brother anywhere in the page. Even the Alec Baldwin’s page mentions all of his (much less relevant and much less controversial) brothers. Is this really the “free encyclopedia”? Does “free” only mean that people don’t need to pay to read it, or is it also free from the interference of politics and power? Cicalinarrot (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

His brother Nicholas is mentioned in the page, albeit briefly. Which brother are you talking about? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Prince Andrew's controversies belong to – and are already well covered in – his own article. They are not relevant to Charles' article just because they are brothers.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  19:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

That’s not what I said. I said they are brothers and siblings are almost always at least mentioned in the biography, and they surely are if they’re famous. I found this out because it wasn’t clear to me and I want this information to be on the page. It’s supposed to be there, no doubt about it. The controversy, of course, belongs to Andrew’s page, but they’re still brothers. Cicalinarrot (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think I agree; normally there's a brief "personal life" section, and (in)famous sibs are mentioned and linked there, and even obscure ones will often at least be enumerated. This article has huge chunks on his personal life -- it's practically all "personal life", frankly, given that the royals are the world's biggest soap opera, and he's never had a real jobs or accomplishment in his life -- but this has fallen between those various stools. I'd like to suggest that the "Early life, family and education" section, mentioning as it already does his sis, at least passingly refers to Andy and Ned. As for the controversial angle, there may be a case to mention his reported role in "forcing out" his brother from his various official roles, and to settle the legal case against him, but I don't know if that'd be Due Weight or not. (For example, the Guardian: "After an intervention by his mother, the Queen, and his older brother, Prince Charles, Andrew last week announced he would “step back from public duties for the foreseeable future”.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

New Image

What do we think of changing the image to this? Charles Prince of Wales.jpg I recently found it and believe it fits better.

Charles_Prince_of_Wales

Is this the talk page of Charles III, current King of England? I get redirected here from his page. Isn’t Andrew, duke of York, his brother? I had to open three more wiki pages to try to understand it, I’m starting to get paranoid. Cicalinarrot (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is regarding the king of England. JaySDEA (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Someone deleted my section.

I also got redirected from here. HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The image looks good. HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support, blue background on previous image is overpowering imo Benica11 (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support, just think he looks better in this picture Thinker21 (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support, per Benica11 and Thinker21. Leiho7 (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support, this image is far better that the one that has the king grinning inanely. There will often be nothing for him to grin about (as now). Moonraker (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Hatnotes

We seem to be getting several hatnotes being added, see here. The one on the engineer I've deleted twice. WP:1HAT tells us to try to stick to one hatnote. I don't think the engineer, who averages nine hits a day, is important enough to disambiguate in this article. Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Charles Winsor is literally a different name. —ThorstenNY (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The hatnote currently says, ""Charles Windsor" redirects here. For the engineer, see Charles Winsor." I don't see that is useful. TFD (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

King or "presumptive king"

@Dgreaser: Could you please explain why (1) you made this edit here and (2) why coronation is required for someone to be a monarch? — B. L. I. R. 19:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• The edit is plain wrong. Charles III became king the moment his mother died and will formally be proclaimed as such tomorrow. Edward VIII was king during 1936, but was never crowned. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"King Charles" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect King Charles and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 8#King Charles until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to those who have kept the article in decent shape

At least the article is well curated. Thanks to all those who have contributed and stewarded the article. Very often a figure is suddenly thrust into the limelight and their Wikipedia page is a total mess. All the work is appreciated. Anna (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The move log is quite messy, though. wizzito | say hello! 19:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You'd think that it was Willy on Wheels that just died instead of the queen.... —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm

Is Charles the king of 14 commonwealth realms? This article says that some of those countries only recognize the queen as the head of the state (for example Jamaica). Uwsi (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, are you questioning whether only the queen can be head of state and not a king? Or are you questioning whether being head of state is the same thing as being king of those realms? Powers ^T 19:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Quoting from the linked article:

The Queen’s death is a precarious moment for some of Britain’s wider Commonwealth realm, 14 countries of which recognise the monarch as their head of state. In many cases their constitutions state that the Queen, specifically, is the head of state. In these countries, constitutions will need to be amended to refer to her successor. In countries such as Jamaica, where there is a strong independence movement, and Belize, these constitutional changes will also require a referendum, according to Commonwealth experts.

– Joe (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I should have read the article. I understand the question now. The issue is that several nations recognize Elizabeth II, specifically, as sovereign in their constitutions and those constitutions would need to be updated in order for them to adopt Charles as their king. We may need to consider different wording. Powers ^T 19:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the Jamaican constitution, apparently it's not quite that specific, but it does use "Her Majesty" throughout. So one could argue on the one hand that there's currently an interregnum, or that "she embraces he", to reverse the old 19th century grammarians' doctrine. I'm not going to try to make either case, and I think neither should the article, other than by reference to reliable sources. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Definitely an intriguing complication. My feeling is to treat the Commonwealth Crowns as instant descent due to inheriting their form from the British Crown and only include this issue if a Commonwealth Realm invokes this ambiguity (by taking an action like explicitly confirming Charles' accession on a different date, declaring a republic retroactive to Elizabeth's death, etc.) Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's any current suspicion that it became a republic by legal accident: "Charles is now King"-- Jamaica Gleaner. I'd imagine that there will in due course be a tidying up exercise, unless the monarch wishes to identify as Queen Charles when on the island. Economy of effort might be to have a combined referendum (please check your preference between "His Majesty", or "an elected ceremonial President"), but that's especially idle speculation on my part. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"This article was amended on 8 September 2022 to refer to Jamaica having a strong republican movement, rather than 'independence movement' as an earlier version said, and to Barbados becoming a republic (rather than 'independent') in 2021. The countries became independent in 1962 and 1966 respectively." CasparRH (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Name

Do we know for certain that he will be King Charles III, I think I remember hearing somewhere that he may choose King George VII. He can take anyone of his names. Rlt152152 (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  19:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok thanks for letting me know. Rlt152152 (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we should revert the rename then, just until we have a verifiable name. - Andrei (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

A Clarence House confirmation taken from a Reuters, indeed a reliable source, is well within the guidelines of WP:V.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  20:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

(ec)Revert to what? He's 100% certainly no longer "Prince Charles", whatever else he might decide to be. We have multiple independent significant references for this, from reliable secondary sources, as required. If he changes his mind before it's formally proclaimed, then we can move it (someplace else) at that point. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

He is also already being referred to as King Charles III in media (e.g. [5]). Al-Muqanna (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles is not the King of Canada

Charles is not the King of Canada 2600:1700:57AC:2830:612C:FDA2:5F35:E3A3 (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Source? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Canada became a republic when you weren’t looking (sarcasm) Dronebogus (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Those sneaky Canucker Rangers! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, he is. Vince1073 (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
He most certainly is King of Canada. Our monarchy is considered separate from that of the UK, but when Elizabeth died, it passed to Charles. (Though it is premature to call him Charles III as I believe his ascension isn't offiicial until tomorrow, plus he may choose to use a different name, which is his prerogative.) If the OP is indicating that Canada has now become an American-style republic, this may be in the future, but likely not until a referendum indicates public support for such a thing because it would require millions of dollars in expenses to overhaul our governmental system and also the drafting of a new Constitution and that was a HUGE headache last time around. 23skidoo (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The anon commenting may also be a far right adherent. There is currently a woman touring the country as the self proclaimed Queen of Canada. Her followers, basically Canada's version of QAnon, claim to believe her nonsense. Whatever the case, this matter is moot, the Queen or King of Canada is represented by a local Governor General as head of state, but indeed Charles is now King here. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hashtag not-all-anons-commenting. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Republicanism is more prevalent among the far left than the far right. Just sayin'.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:C1EF:96BD:8AA:DDBD (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry Mobile editor, but he is King of Canada. Just wish the Canadian Constitution would replace the word "Queen of Canada", with "Monarch of Canada". GoodDay (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Stylistic query as to pre-accession usage

I don't know what the custom in the UK is or whether Wikipedia has a consensus on this question: What is the proper usage for photographs and the like from before his accession as King? That is, at various times today the infobox photo has shown Charles in 2021 or 2017. Obviously there are probably no public photos (yet) of him since he became King, and I certainly see no problem with continuing to use older images in the future. My concern is not with the images themselves; rather, I'm wondering what the correct way to refer to him in connection with older images is. That is, consider the caption "Charles III in 2021" (last year). He wasn't King yet and I wonder whether the more proper usage there would be simply "Charles in 2021" (or something similar), although of course I also understand the desire to show respect. 1995hoo (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need to "show respect", my view is that you're right in that referring to him as Charles III when speaking of him in the past is inaccurate.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  20:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"Charles, then Prince of Wales" seems like a sensible referring style. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The opening/lead

When she was alive, we used "Queen of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms". For Charles, we should use "King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms". This is per WP:WEIGHT, WP:COMMONNAME & whatever else you got. We don't need to go through all this -list all the realms- arguments again. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear that all the commonwealth realms allow for a King; some are very specific in that the Queen is their constitutional monarch. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Perth Agreement and previous constitutional convention makes it pretty clear, I'm not sure which country's constitution requires the monarch to be a queen. —WildComet ^talk 20:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Jamaica likely requires amendment. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Probably not, but the queen's death may hasten their desire to become a republic. BilCat (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

For the moment they're still realms. They didn't become republics upon Charles III's accession. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that. Jamaica has been slowly working it's way toward republichood for over 10 years, and more so since Barbados became a republic last year. This may hasten the process. BilCat (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I know. By the time William becomes king, there'll likely be only four realms left. That's not a knock against Charles, but rather a nod to the mid-to-late 21st century. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, @Red-tailed hawk cited an order-in-council, not the constitution of Jamaica itself as currently in force. Either way, it would be a matter of Jamaican law to determine whether a textual reference to a specific or generic queen or king could be treated as a generic reference to the present sovereign—and then a separate matter whether the text is self-amending by implication, or if there needs to be a formal process. Is this seriously at issue in that jurisdiction, and what do the relevant authorities say? TheFeds 21:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The document you're linking to is a high-level summary of their constitution, not the constitution itself. Did you mean to link a different pdf? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

See this tweet. [6]--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

infobox picture

the info box picture has been changed over and over again. and there's no consensus for it so this is a talk section just for it, I'm taking a page out of the book of The Talk sections of Olivia Newton-John and Mikhail Gorbachev and doing a !vote section.

Cast your !vote

• 
  Option 1
• 
  Option 2

I have compiled a gallery of all the candidate images, Just sign under your choice(s) 4me689 21:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Option 1

1. Shwcz (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Option 2

1. --Marbe166 (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
2. much clearer and better photo, can use until an official royal photo of some sort comes out  — Amakuru (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
3. --Ladderstuff2 (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
4. much more official looking in my opinion —Cooluncle55 (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
5. AlanTheScientist (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
6. The best of the two. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
7. Both are good, but this one is the better. As noted above, there will probably be an official (public domain) image released shortly anyway. 23skidoo (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
8. I guess it's an attempt to correct where he was leaning in towards Biden in the original, but it looks absolutely bizarre to have the curtains crooked behind him. --B (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
9. As above, useful as≈ interim prior to official image Epsilon.Prota (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
10. Definitely the better of the 2, a lot clearer than the first one
11. Although an outdoor portrait would be nice, 2 is definitely the better portrait, it wouldn't look out of place on a postage stamp ;) Samatarou (talk)
12. More recent, good quality. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
13. Better Picture. --Lucthedog2 (talk)
14. --Llwyld (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
15. His cheeks aren’t so red here Someonefromohio (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2022 (3)

Please can you amend King Charles’ “spouse” from Camilla Parker Bowles to “Camilla, Queen Consort”. She has not been “Parker Bowles” in years and it’s not correct. 5.151.76.251 (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is to keep it. DrKay (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Curious as to why (and when was this consensus reached - if it was a while ago it may need to be revisted now the field has changed). Her title - though not official until the 9th - has been recognized. It's a similar quandary as to why media continue to erroneously refer to the Duchess of Cambridge as Kate Middleton, despite the Palace officially indicating on the day she married William that she was not keeping her maiden name. We don't refer to Michelle Obama by her maiden name, for example (but we would if she chose to use it, of course). 23skidoo (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The name of a spouse given in infoboxes (and elsewhere) are as it was before the marriage – this is a common convention across Wikipedia. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 21:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

And do so for Michelle Obama, in BHO's infobox: "Spouse Michelle Robinson ​(m. 1992)". Makes sense, otherwise we'd have a lot of less-than-info-rmative-boxes saying things like "Mr Smith; Spouse. Mrs smith." 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles III premature?

Although we won't have to wait long (likely tomorrow) to find out, as UK media is reporting it may be premature to call him Charles III today (Sept. 8) as it is his right to choose another name when he ascends on the 9th. He could choose George, Philip or even Arthur. Most likely it'll be Charles III, but I've seen others cases where Wikipedia has paused on naming somebody until it's official. 23skidoo (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Nope. He ascended the throne already today and Clarence House already announced he's charles III. It's official now. DeCausa (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Someone on WP:RDH says it's actually not official until it's confirmed by Parliament, but that is just a formality. 2601:648:8201:5DD0:0:0:0:256B (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Certainly Victoria and Edward VII and George VI chose differently than the first names listed in their accession proclamations, but those were different eras. I concur there's enough solid sources as to Charles III to run with it whatever the technicalities of what they might choose to do at the accession council.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The technicalities are done. it's nothing to doing with parliament - solely royal prerogative and Clarence House has made the announcement. DeCausa (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Curiously enough, Clarence House press releases aren't the final word on royal ceremony and formality. They should really get with the programme, no? (Or perhaps the UK population should...) But it's not parliament (either the body, or expected to be the location), it's the privy council, acting as the Accession Council. They're responsible for the Proclamation of the new monarch -- so he'd better have decided his name by that point -- and at some point thereafter by the reading and signing of the Oath -- so he'd really have to made up his mind by then. So unless there's the world's biggest change of mind before then, or he drops death himself before that happens, it's a done deal, and plenty done for Wikipedia purposes. Which after all, is to report what reliable sources say, not to come up with wacky theories of our own. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding the 9 September 2022 dates for Australia, New Zealand, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.

I have withdrawn my personal support from my proposal.Bbraxtonlee (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Hello. I get that we usually put dates for where they happen, however, I feel that in the case of that the Commonwealth realm is 15 countries big, we should put some footnote or efn after the "8 September 2022 – present" to note that it was actually 9 September 2022 in Australia, New Zealand, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu. People are already getting confused, as that when you go on the monarchy pages for those countries, people are changing it back to "8 September 2022". Example If a US President died in Australia on 9 September 2022 but it was 8 September 2022 in the US, we would put that his term ended in 8 September 2022 in the infobox. Thank you for considering. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's stick with Sept 8, which was the date in the UK, where she died. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay Yes I am aware we use the date of where they die as the date we use here in wiki. However, the office/royalty date is different, as it is affecting the actual country. My U.S. President example above explains it. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

In staed of trying to imagine new scenarios, lets look at a real one: Zachary Taylor died in the US at 10:35 PM on July 9, 1850. This is obviously on July 10 UTC; yet Millard Fillmore's article clearly gives the 9th as the start of his term. Animal lover |666| 23:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Should we consider an addition to "Notes"? -- Zanimum (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Zanimum What I was considering is either a footnote/ref/etc. either in the infobox or in the actual article when it first mentioned the date. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you want consistency within an article. If the article is about New Zealand, such as Monarchy of New Zealand, you would use 9 September. However since Charles primary place of residence is the UK, then on this article, you'd use 8 September. El Dubs (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Supertrinko Yeh I actually thought about that before I posted it but I feel like that concerns his personal info (stuff after the royalty in infobox). As a native Kiwi, I would be extremely confused as to why everywhere says the 8th of Sept when he assumed royalty on the 9th here. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It surprises me that on Wikipedia we don't use a template for all dates and provide an option to choose local time, or the time where the event occured. El Dubs (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Bbraxtonlee: As well-intentioned as you are, I think you're making it up as you go along. Deaths are ALWAYS recorded as at the place where they occurred, and according to the time zone of that place at that moment. The fact that the Pacific nations did not discover the Queen had died until the morning of 9 September, does not mean anything. She in fact ceased to be Queen of Australia, New Zealand, PNG, Tuvalu etc at the moment of her death, on 8 September 2022, and that is the date, the only date, that will appear wherever relevant. If a US President died in Australia on 9 September, THAT is his date of death for all purposes, despite the fact that it was still only 8 Sept in the US. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@JackofOz I agree on the death part and I am not arguing that. But the office part I will disagree with. Example: Biden dies in Australia now, 9 of September. In Wikipedia, we would put he died on the 9 of September. However, he left his office on the 8 of December because that is the time America is observing. How would it be possible that Biden left presidency on 9 of September yet Kamala Harris would become President on 8 of September? I think I should reword my original claim because people are mixing up the death and offices/royalty and mixing them. In New Zelanad, Australia, Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu and Solomon Islands, their start date for THEIR KING is the 9 of September. Notice how his infobox says "King of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms". But again, I'm not arguing the death date, please be aware of that. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think your logic is sound, but -- as I commented in one of the many other sections on this page, all alike -- it needs a source. After all, we don't even have an exact time of death, so maybe he became King of New Zealand at 11:59pm local time, or maybe there's some convention -- or someone decides to invent one -- that the NZ monarch runs on British Summer Time, etc. Might be better to keep it as Sept 8 until clearly cited otherwise, to avoid any appearance of OR. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Monarchy New Zealand put out a press release dated 9 September which said "The Queen died earlier today." Is that good enough? StAnselm (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Something a little more robust as a source is article, which includes, "Buckingham Palace has announced that Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth has died today", and it's dated 9 September. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Would a "footnote" at Elizabeth II's death date (intro & infobox) & a footnote at Charles III's accession date (intro & infobox) cover the problem, concerning Australia, New Zealand, Tuvalu & Solomon Islands? Otherwise having September 8/9, 2022, would kinda look silly. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: YES! Obviously it would need consensus as I have tried to do that and it has gotten taken down for "confusion purposes" but yeah. And we should try to find all the other countries monarchies press releases to use as sources. Someone already mentioned New Zealand's: Monarchy New Zealand Dated 9 September 2022 "The Queen died earlier today."Bbraxtonlee (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Would "8 September 2022 (UTC)" be acceptable? Only needed for global figures like the Royal family where clarifying the date is important. El Dubs (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Supertrinko: Yes, but we might need to build a consensus as it is prone to be taken down. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I think such a consensus needs to be built at a more general level, since it's something that could develop into a guideline for across Wikipedia. Handling events that impact multiple time zones has been an issue on Wikipedia for a long time. El Dubs (talk) 04:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll go along with the adoption of a footnote for both bios. GoodDay (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Supertrinko and GoodDay: Same to both comments. We can definitely start here because it is obvious there isn't a general rule on it. So maybe one of us could create a whole new section asking for a consensus for support or opposition on adding the UTC. The one thing I would say is to use the BST as that is the place where it all happened and we should still respect that the monarchy is based in the UK, just that it spans across multiple countries. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Create a whole new section meaning here on the talk page. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 04:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

About regal naming

There is a bit of problem, here, now: a king is allowed to choose his regal appellation freely, and Charles, the Prince of Wales hasn't yet divulged his choice. As such, it's premature to call him King Charles III. It's probably going to be his appellation, but for all we know, he might very well, even by custom, choose to go by one of his other names. He might even want to do so, to break the connection with Charles I and II. Especially the latter, given his well-known debauchery.

And in fact, if he fancied it, by King Fancypants or such. Such is the royal prerogative. So let's not get ahead of ourselves. Decoy (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Less likely, as precedent only seems to cover the case of a monarch choosing one of their first/middle names. Not impossible, I'll grant. But more to the point, he is very definitely no longer "Charles, [the] Prince of Wales", and he has chosen his regnal name, and announced the fact. Short of a massive plot twist between his prime minister and his press office (in that order, oddly, but there we are) announcing it, and the Accession Council ceremoniously Proclaiming it, it's a done deal. And is certainly a done enough deal for wiki purposes. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

He has divulged his choice. [7] Al-Muqanna (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Poundbury is about Environmentalism New Classical architecture, not personal taste

Since 1993, Charles has worked on the creation of Poundbury, an experimental new town based on his architectural tastes.

Suggest edit "based on his architectural tastes" to "as a replicable experiment of an environmentally sustainable alternative to surburban sprawl. It has nothing to do with taste, taste is the consequence of the provision of using local materials and crafts - in the same way that sustainable cuisine uses locally farmed food. 181.230.187.119 (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Classical_architecture

It has to do with both. You can build both modernist and more classical looking houses either with industrial methods and materials or with local materials and crafts, and all four combinations are also actually used. Poundbury is definitely on the classical side in taste.151.177.56.148 (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Camilla Parker Bowles

It has been stated elsewhere that the maiden name or highest title of one's own right should be used in info boxes but Camilla is referenced as the King's wife by her name when with her first husband.

Should it not be Camilla Shand? Or is their precedence for choosing the name previous to marriage? 173.212.65.254 (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Arms and Royal Standard

King Charles III, upon his accession today, immediately inherited the Royals Coats of Arms for use in England and Scotland, and the two corresponding Royal Standards. These should be added to his Arms section. 2600:8803:F51C:D900:EDD0:C1EE:9A69:2ACB (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

You mean King Charles III don't you?

Don't know what you mean about this "heir apparent" business 103.93.115.18 (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes we do. Prince William is now the "heir apparent". GoodDay (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)