Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Charles, Prince of Wales article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5


Contents

[edit] Children

Why is there no mention anywhere of the fact that the man has children? They're mentioned in passing at the very end, but not the fact that they were born. I'd put it in myself but I wouldn't know where to begin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.215.71 (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prince of Wales's Institute of Architecture

Spelling Wales's, as opposed to Wales or Wales', per government website.[1] Stubble 16:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Navy

"From February 1976 until December 1976 he served in the Royal Navy". Later, the article says he was in the RN for 5 years, 1971 to 1976. Which is correct? GrahamBould 10:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Air Force rank

The Prince's official website states that he is currently Air Chief Marshal (as well as Admiral and General). In Jeremy Paxman's On Royalty, which I looked at a few days ago, I think he says that the Prince's most recent promotions were to the ranks of Vice-Admiral and Marshal of the Royal Air Force (no mention of Lt-General). His most recent promotions were on 14 November 2006, after Paxman's book came out, so obviously he refers to the promotions of 14 November 2002, which were indeed to Vice-Admiral, but also to Lt-Gen and Air Marshal, not Marshal of the RAF. The Paxman version struck me as strange at the time (why Marshal of the RAF but not Admiral of the Fleet and Field Marshal?) Paxman mentions the detail of how proud the Queen was to sign the document promoting her eldest son to these ranks. Assuming I have not misread his words, is it the case that Paxman made a mistake; that he doesn't know the difference between an Air Marshal and a Marshal of the Royal Air Force? It seems to be so. I wonder if anybody else has picked up on this.

In 'Walking Backwards', The Guardian 23 November 1998 Roy Hattersley correctly described the Prince of Wales as a Rear-Admiral and Major-General, but incorrectly described him as an Air Marshal: at the time of writing he was an Air Vice-Marshal. I find Lord Hattersley easier to forgive: just imagine what Paxman would say if a University Challenge competitor had made the same mistake.--Oxonian2006 10:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible he's not familiar with the ranks of the RAF and assumes "Air Marshal" is a contraction of "Marshal of the Royal Air Force". Obviously doesn't stop it being a mistake, though... Proteus (Talk) 11:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

I don't know how to change it, but someone seems to have put some grafitti on the photo.... Guineveretoo 12:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Princely bibliography

I've been working on a bibliography of the books of which Charles, Prince of Wales is author, co-author, illustratrator, designer, narrator, or for which he has written the foreword, introduction or preface. It's a list of about three dozen, and it may not be complete, but I'm nearly done with what I have here.

As it is, it's about four screenloads in length, which is not terribly long, but the main article is terribly long, so I'm wondering where to put it. Any ideas, anyone? — Athænara ✉ 10:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography of Charles, Prince of Wales? † DBD 12:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, excellent suggestion. Done. — Æ. ✉ 04:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] King George?

I once heard that when Charles becomes king, he will not be called King Charles as this is bad luck. Instead, he will be King George. Has anyone else heard this? Rogwan 21:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Try reading the article. † DBD 21:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
My bad! Rogwan 21:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing in the article that proves he is considering ditching the possibility. In fact, all that I've ever read shows no quotes from him at all - it is all outside speculation.FlaviaR 18:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apostrophes

bob Ok, so it's a small point, but I can't let miscorrections pass. As the wiki article says, possessives of nouns in s depend largely on pronunciation. By way of quick poll, I want to know, who here says, in the case of "Clarence House is the Prince of Wales'(s) official residence":

  • Wailziz
  • Wailz

† DBD 11:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think most people say Wailziz, I know the BBC does. [2] Also, The Prince of Wales's own home page uses the form "Wales's" rather than "Wales'" MrMarmite 22:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not a matter of being "correct" or "incorrect". This is a matter of style; any given publication adopts a manual of style and sticks to it. Some style guides recommend rules which take pronunciation into account, and others don't. Neither is more "correct" than the other. The CMS would recommend "Wales's". - Nunh-huh 22:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heir Apparent of sixtenn nations?

According to the Commonwealth of Nations article, Charles would only succeed automatically to the British throne. The 15 other Commonwealth nations would have their governments confirm him seperately. Charles would be tecnically 'Heir Presumptive' of the 15 other realms. GoodDay 22:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what Heir Presumptive means. Heir Presumptive means that there is a possibility that someone can be born who would move you down a step in the line of succession. It doesn't have anything to do with confirmation or acclaimation or anything other than birth order. Heir apparent means that no one can be born to displace you from 1st place in the succession, so it's the right term. - Nunh-huh 23:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, I do understand what 'Heir-Presumptive' means. What I meant was, on the day the Queen dies, Charles automatically becomes King (assuming he's alive & hasn't renounced the succession). The 15 other nations could (theoretically) reject his succession & choose another (say Prince William), though unlikely. GoodDay 00:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but that has nothing to do with "Heir Presumptive". - Nunh-huh 00:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand, PS- check out heated current debate at Elizabeth II. GoodDay 00:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Lots of arguing, but mostly about politics rather than anything actually in articles :) - Nunh-huh 00:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where is the mention of his real name?

And the fact that he is mostly German? Xavier cougat 17:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Charles' real name is Charles Philip Arthur George. It isn't necessary to note that The Prince's ancestry is "mostly German". His nationality is British and he is a member of the British royal family. Charles 18:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
His citizenship is British. He's also a subject of the Canadian Sovereign, making him a member of the Canadian Royal Family as well. But, regardless, his ancestry is not "mostly German," his descent is also Greek, Scottish, English, Danish, Dutch, and more. --G2bambino 19:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I saw the family tree and I think it should state what the nationality of his ancestors are. He certainly is not English or British. Xavier cougat 20:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
We're all African when you get down to it. Doops | talk 20:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
That is not helping. That is just saracasm. The point is for many years I thought the familiy was British and they are not. And they changed their names. In the Charleton Heston article his original name is mentioned very early. Why is this hidden for these people? Xavier cougat 21:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The name was changed to Windsor long before Charles was born. His name has never been changed. --G2bambino 21:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The point is that he and his mother are not British. And it is noteable that Windsor was just a name that was made up. I think that is notable about him and his mother. Xavier cougat 21:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
But they are British, alongside being a whole slew of other nationalities. As well, everyone's name was made up at some point. Who cares if the current dynastic House of the Commonwealth Realms changed theirs nearly a century ago? All that info's covered at House of Windsor anyway. --G2bambino 21:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
They have little British in them. And I was shocked when I first found out about how they try to hide their ancestry. And that they did not pay taxes. Seem like the article is a white wash. Xavier cougat 21:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand. Where does it actually state Charles is British anyway? --G2bambino 22:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Well most people think so. And thats why it should be brought up here that the Royal family are not the same ancenstry as the ones they rule. Xavier cougat 22:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The "ones they rule" are of all ancestries: English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish, sure; but also Indian, Pakistani, Jamaican, etc. -- and that's just in the UK alone, putting all the other commonwealth realms. My comment earlier wasn't just a joke: it's not for you to say what a person's nationality is. Charles was born in Britain, raised there, lived his life there; if he considers himself British, then he is. The notion that our ancestors define who we are has a name: racism. Doops | talk 22:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
That is not racism. Are you accusing me of racism? All I said is his ancenstry is notable and educational. So it is racist for me to want to know my geneaology. I think you need to apologize to me. Xavier cougat 23:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
To the contrary, I think genealogy is a fascinating subject. I just don't think it means anything. Research your ancestry by all means; that doesn't make you racist. Doops | talk 05:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The point here is that it should be known and it is notable that the rulers of Britain are mostly German. And they changed their names to hide their german roots. Xavier cougat 12:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Why "should" it be known? Charles has not changed his name at all. He has no surname. Charles 12:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
^ a b As a titled royal, Charles holds no surname, but, when one is used, it is Mountbatten-Windsor, although, according to letters patent dated February 1960, his official surname was Windsor ...........and Windsor is a phoney name made up to avoid the letting the fact out that he is german. These are facts. And people should know. 21:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


Well that's what an encylopedia is for: to give interested and notable info. Isnt his last name Windsor now? and it was Saxe before? Why wouldnt you want people to be informed? Is there some reason this is hidden? Xavier cougat 14:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not hidden at all. It's covered extensively in the Wikipedia at George V of the United Kingdom, House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, House of Windsor, and elsewhere. The change in family name occurred long before Charles's birth. It's got nothing to do with him. Doops | talk 15:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Few would read that article compared to the one on the modern royals. Xavier cougat 15:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Charles wouldn't be "Saxe" anything, anyway. If you are adamant that his "real name" is so important, you ought to have known this beforehand. Charles does not have a surname. He is the member of a Royal House. Charles 20:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, he does have a surname; it's Windsor. This was made clear in a number of official statements - and not just from George V, who agreed to the name change in the first place. After the present Queen's accession, it was said by Prince Philip's uncle, Lord Mountbatten, that "The House of Mountbatten reigns in England (WTTE)." This was naturally because of Elizabeth's marriage to a man with the official last name of "Mountbatten". Queen Mary, however, became furious & made the Queen issue a statement to the effect that the British Royal Family's surname was Windsor. While she later said that her younger descendants would be "Mountbatten-Windsor (as a sop to her husband's understandably wounded feelings)," Charles and Andrew are still officially surnamed "Windsor" - tho' I seem to recollect Andrew calling himself "Mountbatten-Windsor" - Anne certainly calls herself that (re: her signature on her marriage certificate). But, as to the other nonsensical "charges", Charles is NOT "mostly German". If people are going to insist on being racist, he's MOSTLY "Scottish" - look at his own grandmother! He's at least 25% Scots, and the rest is more or less a mish-mash of Europe - AND Africa thrown in; this much has been brought up recently in discoveries about Queen Charlotte.FlaviaR 18:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong, I'm afraid. As a titled royal, Charles does not have a surname. He belongs to the House and Family of Windsor, but that does not make it his surname. There was no statement of the Royal Family's surname, it is all regarding the House name with the distinction made for the male-line descendants of the grandchildren of the sovereign. I could call or sign myself Charles Smith if I wanted to but that would not make Smith my surname. Charles 11:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
If Windsor isn't a surname then why if you look at the Line of Succession to the Throne do you find, once you get about 20 or 30 names down in the list, so many people whose last name is "Windsor"? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_British_Throne 64.131.188.104 (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
That'll teach me to tailor my terms for people less familiar with the subject - of course you are correct, it's a House name, not a surname as you & I use them; thanks for the clarification.FlaviaR 18:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it WOULD make it your surname. In English law, one can simply take a new name, and it becomes your name. Mayalld 15:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a decree on the matter, there is no surname for the royal house. More often than not, they do not use surnames, so under English law, wouldn't that make their "surname" nothing? Charles 00:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The decree was merely one way in which a name (or lack thereof) could be adopted. More unusual that deed poll, statutory declaration or simple adoption of a name, but not incompatible with them. The declaration merely defines a starting point, and those covered by it are free to adopt other names, just as we all are (for example William and Harry have adopted Wales as a surname) Mayalld 05:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, they have not 'adopted' that name – it is merely used by them, per Royal tradition † DBD 13:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Which is exactly what is meant by "adopt other names". William and Harry both habitually use the surname "Wales" in any circumstance where a lack of a surname might be inconvenient, and that this was not recorded as their surname when they were born. If that isn't adopting a name, then we clearly have very different understandings of the English language. Mayalld 13:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
You're completely missing the point: the name change has nothing to do with Charles. --G2bambino 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Anyone reseaching charles should realize that he basically a german and his name is phoney. Xavier cougat 19:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Why should they "realize" something like that? Sounds like a case for xenophobia on your part. And "phoney" is a loaded word to describe something. Charles 20:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The name "Charles, Prince of Wales" is phoney? Really? --G2bambino 20:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
To repeat: we are all basically Africans; all our names are phoney. Doops | talk 20:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
that is ridiculous. you are being disruptive and trolling. Xavier cougat 21:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
To the contrary, judging by your edit history your only purpose at Wikipedia is to cause useless argument on talk pages. You haven't actually edited a single article here, but have only engaged in bizzarre quarrels like this one at Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster, Talk:Ted Kennedy, Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Talk:George W. Bush, Talk:Communism, Talk:John Lennon, Talk:Rush Limbaugh, and Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales. I doubt you should accuse anyone of being a troll. --G2bambino 22:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Well that is your opinion. I am raising valid points and getting ridiculous replies like 'we are all african' I keep trying to state my point: most people want to know this about Charles, that he is German. And what his real name is. I did have an editor help me with this and got the % of German he is. The name Windsor was just made up. It is purposefully deceptive. This should be brought out that commoners do not change their names like this. This weirdness of the Windors (Saxes? Waleser whatever they are calling themselves now ) should be brought out. And if you think I am a troll it is your duty not to feed me so do not. Now one editor and I are making some progress. But you and that other one just are being disruptive. Please stop. Xavier cougat 22:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you can rest assured I will. --G2bambino 22:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

For actual figures, see [3]. The UK% (English + Scottish) rises rather significantly from 19% for Charles to 49% for Prince William, while the German % (Royal + German) falls from 66% to 35% - Nunh-huh 22:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent Charles is 66% German and his mother is 40% German Diana was 60% British. Xavier cougat 23:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Fascinating link, Nunh-huh. You forgot to note that Elizabeth's Royal percentage, at 39%, is fully matched by her English percentage (and, indeed, her Royal/German share is smaller than her English/Anglo-Irish/Scottish/Welsh share). So she's definitely cleared! But of course, despite all the learning and research which went into those figures, they're ultimately wholly fictitious, since each line gets cut off either at the limit of genealogical record (where somebody's ancestors are unknown he/she is assumed to be 100% X, which is of course not true) or at the 14th generation. It's ultimately impossible to calculate such a thing, since there's no starting point; every ancestor has his/her own ancestors, ad infinitum -- and pretty soon we're all back in Africa again! (Which isn't a joke but a serious point.) Thanks again, though; fascinating link. Doops | talk 05:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Ditto, minor point re an earlier post is that Phil the Greek was a Danish prince of largely German descent, so Chas and Wullie aren't Greek at all, as far as we can tell. Of course a majority of the British population are English, and hence originally Germanic immigrants who displaced the Britons, but then on that logic there are very few Americans in the U.S. who are American, and as far as we know it all goes back to Africa, as Doops says. Bit on the news today about Orangutans being found to walk upright rather more than expected, wonder if our primate ancestors count as "Royal" in the ethnic scheme used in the article? ..... dave souza, talk 20:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
"there are very few Americans in the U.S. who are American" sure that is true. And we do not have Kings and Queens and Dukes. The point is that it should be mentioned that the inherited ruler of England is not English. I am very proud Mr Washington fought that war to get rid of Royalty. In the US all men are created equal and no one is better than someone else because you can claim this ridiculous 'royalty' thing. Its a con they have been playing on the English. Xavier cougat 23:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "In the US all men are created equal". Yes, but some much more equal than others. The US has its royalty and ruling class, they just don't have the honesty and decency to call it such - so do us a favour and take your ridiculous views elsewhere. How about those untouchable Kennedys? The Bush dynasty? Skull and Bones? At least we acknowledge our social systems; you lot come up with this egalitarian and "all equal" nonsense that exists only on a piece of paper which the likes of Bush choose to ignore at will. Tell the Blacks and Hispanics of America that they are just as equal as the Whites - you'll get an interesting response. Oh, and by the way, if you think the Constitution is such a strong and important influence on US life why don't you tell your Christian extremist fundamentalists to get out of politics and government. -- 86.17.211.191 09:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It's factually wrong to insist as the "much more equal than others" poster does that unequal accumulations of wealth and unequal accumulations of influence can result ONLY from (or even PRINCIPALLY from) unequal operation of laws. Americans can arrive at positions of relatively greater wealth, political power, and cultural influence WITHOUT having decrees with the force of law mention them by name as being guaranteed such positions regardless of what they do or what anyone else does. (You mentioned "the untouchable Kennedys", but no law was passed guaranteeing Joe Kennedy Sr. that he and his kids would have positions of influence. That was a result of his own actions, crooked and straight.) But Prince Charles's future position in the UK scheme of things is mandated by law. Cite the U.S. statute that appointed Henry Ford as Viscount of Vehicles, Sam Walton as Marquess of Markdowns, or Roy Kroc as Burgher of Burger-Joints. Americans can also hit LOWER levels of wealth and influence by a shared FEELING of disenfranchisement when no such disenfranchisement or feelings thereof are mandated by law. But in the U.K. a law will TELL you that you are a commoner and that you are worth less than a peer NOT because of historical operation but, rather, ONLY because the long arm of the State says so.64.131.188.104 (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
And with this comment, we have uncovered your ridiculous vendetta against royalty. Charles 01:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it's not just royalty where he has a ridiculous vendetta - check out his contributions. But he has now been blocked indefinitely. --rogerd 04:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ding dong, the troll is dead! Well, permanently banned at least... RIP Mr. Cougat, and good riddence to bad rubbish. :-) CanadianMist 20:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] most directly involved

What evidence is there for this idea that he will concentrate on the UK, as if to undermine his role as heir to all the titles? There can surely be no constitutional reason for suggesting he will only partially inherit those roles. Such conjecture doesn't belong so early in an article unless it's supported by a good source.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldanon (talk • contribs) 20:15, 1 June 2007

It's not really conjecture as the sentence in question only says he is expected to be more directly involved in the UK - as he will live there. These words included here are a direct result of the lengthy debates over the opening sentences of the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article, wherein one or two editors were adamant that the UK be given absolute priority over the other 15 Realms. Trust me, this compromise sentence is a lot better than what they proposed. --G2bambino 00:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative medicine - Coffee enemas

He believes in Gerson Therapy and taking coffee enemas - anyone want to add this in? Here are my source: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1248282,00.html

Also he is supposed to be the defender of the Church of England but he doesn't want to exclusively defend Christianity but he support all faiths:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=926


thats because hes pagan CRAP I JUST RELEASED A HUGE MAJOR ROYAL FAMILY CONSPIRACY. I am being serious.--Kizkyran (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Diana chronicles" revelations

According to this review in the New Yorker, the soon-to-be published book The Diana Chronicles has much detail on Charles, some of it of a rather delicate nature (go read the link if you want to find out more). Does anyone have an opinion (or, even better, a Wikipedia policy) on what the boundaries are for discussing details of the private lives of public figures, when such details have been published in reliable sources? Grover cleveland 07:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Empire

Is it really necessary to mention that fifteen of the sixteen Commonwealth Realms are former colonies of the British Empire in this particular article? Such information is already covered in detail at Commonwealth Realm and British Empire. --G2bambino 18:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is obviously relevant. Readers might be wondering why on earth the heir to the British throne is also heir to 15 other countries scattered all over the world. TharkunColl 18:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Why would they wonder such a thing? Even if they did, the answers already lie at Commonwealth Realm and British monarchy. --G2bambino 18:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
We can't assume our readers know the background. And it is common practice on Wikipedia to briefly describe something, then place a link to a more detailed article. Why would anyone wish to avoid mentioning the British Empire in this obvious context? TharkunColl 18:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I think because there is only so much "relevant" information that can be included; though it is related, we don't state that he inherits the Throne of the United Kingdom because the Act of Union merged Scotland and England into one monarchy. What is immediately germane to Charles is that he's currently in line to be king of sixteen individual countries. --G2bambino 18:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. john k 03:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I concur with john k and TharkunColl. G2bambino seems to want to have this same discussion on a number of articles about royals. G2bambino, you need to stop being quite so touchy about Commonwealth/former colony issues. The information is pertinent. RockStarSheister (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prince Charles's Article Title

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

The result of the proposal was Article moved back. I don't see a real consensus below, but the discussion kind of stalled, and the old title has the virtue of stability and in line with WP:COMMONNAME. Duja► 07:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does Charles's article link to "Charles, Prince of Wales", when all other male royals have theirs as - Example: "Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh" and not Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and also "Prince Andrew, Duke of York" and not Andrew, Duke of York ?? Is it because he's a Prince and his father and brothers are all either Earls or Dukes?? PoliceChief 17:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly so. Although the Prince in "The Prince Charles" and the Prince in "The Prince of Wales" are two very different concepts, it was successfully argued when the naming guidelines were laid out that because the concepts are communicated using the same word, it should not be duplicated. It also does make some (non-aesthetic) sense for the person familiar with the title: the Prince of Wales is necessarily a royal prince anyway, so we need not mention this; the Dukes of Edinburgh and York certainly need not be royal princes, so we do mention that these two fellows are (this is actually in place of using a surname in the article title). I for one would not have anything against Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, but I certainly won't start a debate on it. -- Jao 18:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that since Charles is really HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, etc, etc, that this article should follow the format used by other royal peers. Think about it in the German... He would be Prinz Karl, Fürst von Wales. That illustrates the difference, he is royal because he is a cadet prince on one hand and holds the highest "peerage" (if the Wales title is indeed considered to be such) on the other. Charles 22:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
But as Jao said they're communicated using the same word, which isn't the case in German. (Besides, he's not in any sense royal because he's the Prince of Wales, but only because he's a cadet prince; and "Prince of Wales" isn't a peerage title, and certainly not the highest such.) Marnanel 02:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
These are two different titles of prince though. I would even describe them as homonyms. Charles 10:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes. That's pretty much what Jao said above: it was successfully argued when the naming guidelines were laid out that because the concepts are communicated using the same word, it should not be duplicated. Nobody has said that "prince" as a royal title is the same concept as "prince" as in "Prince of Wales" (which is the only example of its kind in the UK in modern times, I might add). Marnanel 18:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
A problem with this is that as writen, he is not of royal birth. Prince Charles, blah blah, denoted him as royal birth. (Prince William of Wales, Princess Beatrice of York) Charles, Prince of Wales denotes married to the royal. (Diana, Princess of Wales, Sarah, Duchess of York). Prince Charles of England (or of Wales or UK) would be in better keeping with conventions.Creol 17:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it does not denote that! Name, Title of Place, in wikipedia title, "denotes" a person, called, Name, who was/is Title of Place... Diana and Sarah had/ve those titles because that form is the one officially used, in real life, for divorced peeresses – the official use for Prince Charles is "HRH The Prince of Wales", which is an unsuitable title... † DBD 21:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, the only other British Prince of Wales not to have ascended the throne is at Frederick, Prince of Wales, so, where Charles goes, so does Fred. † DBD 21:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Arthur Prince of Wales never ascended the throne either. Are you going to say that since he is pre-1707 he is not British but English? I'd say that too often "British" isn't an adjective of citizenship referring to people who lived in The UNITED KINGDOM of GREAT Britain after England and Scotland merged, but, rather, is an adjective of geography referring either the island of Great Britain or all of the British Isles. Therefore the Tudors were British. It's not good English but simply to avoid this ambiguity I'd say Frederick is the only other "UK Prince of Wales" never to reign. That qualifier leaves a clear implication that there was at least one other Prince of Wales who never reigned, but that such other Prince was English and not UK. 64.131.188.104 (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
He is not a Prince of England, nor is he "Prince Charles of Wales". The latter is the form used for a son or grandson of the Prince of Wales. I feel that the article should be titled Prince Charles, Prince of Wales. Charles 17:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by a "prince of England", anyway? Marnanel 00:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As do I think "Charles, Prince of Wales" should be moved to new page "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales" as even Charles's children, have the styles Prince William of Wales and Prince Henry of Wales, as he holds the style Prince of Wales and to distinguish between all Princes of Wales, whether he be the official holder of the position or the spouse, they too have their names after the princely title, and then location of father's royal title. PoliceChief 21:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't really give you carte blanche to go in and move the article while we're still talking about it, though... Marnanel 00:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. I wish it to be known that I oppose the move and am requesting its reversal. We are in discussion here. † DBD 06:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Please don't be bold here. Charles, Prince of Wales is usage, and need not be regularized, at least until someone other than the heir to the English throne again effectively claims the Principality of Wales. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If there is a majority that wish for the article to be reverted back to "Charles, Prince of Wales", I will personally initiate the revertion, but with the support of other wikipedians, who'd stated their support for the move, I took the decision, maybe not well-informed one, to move the page to "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales", I am only too happy to accept scrutiny for my actions PoliceChief 18:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that offer. Please move it back to "Charles, Prince of Wales", since we had not completed our discussion of the matter. Lethiere 09:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I favour Charles, Prince of Wales. Having two Princes is unnecessary duplication. DrKiernan 11:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Popular culture - a bit tabloid?

I just removed a section which detailed a rant by Morrissey (from the Smiths). It said much more about Morrissey than about Charles. Morrissey also criticizes other world leaders, such as President Bush, and I looked to see if similar comments were made on G.W. Bush's page. No surprise, nothing there. Not even a popular culture section, although he has been lampooned in popular culture quite a lot.

Given the respect accorded to the US President, it seems reasonable to accord similar respect to Prince Charles, or anybody for that matter. Living persons and all that. The popular culture section could reasonably contain information regarding things where Charles has contributed to popular culture, but it doesn't seem appropriate for other items in which Charles played no part himself.

Comments? Trishm 05:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just removing scurrilous speculation according to WP:BLP, which applies to talk pages as well. Trishm 22:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming of Prince Charles

Charles wrote at 22:40 on 2 September 2007 (UTC):

I think that since Charles is really HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales,

I have just been in discussion with staff members of one of The Prince's Charities about the styling of HRH's name. They have been directed by Clarence House to always refer to Prince Charles as HRH The Prince of Wales, and that the various charities of which he is president always have a capitalised T, viz, The Prince's Charities, The Prince's Drawing School etc Ibrown 17:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well of course, just as the Duke of York is always called The Duke of York and not "Prince Andrew" or anything like that. He is also though "Prince Andrew, Duke of York" just as the subject of this article is also Prince Charles, Prince of Wales (two different types of prince, one as the son of a queen and the other as Prince of Wales, equal to Prinz vs Fürst). We, however, will not be naming this article "The Prince of Wales" or "HRH The Prince of Wales". Charles 17:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh no, I wasn't expecting anyone to rename the article "The Prince of Wales". I was trying to ensure that people realised that there is a styling which The Prince's Charities have to follow, and that articles on The Prince's Drawing School should be styled accordingly. Ibrown 09:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this ok, Im not sayin he is, but...

There Are somethings that point to him as the AntiChrist, here are a few...


p=70 r=90 i=9 n=50 c=3 e=5(227) p+r+i+n+c+e=prince c=3 h=8 a=1 r=90 l=30 e=5 s=100(237) c+h+a+r+l+e+s= charles o=60 f=6(66) w=0 a=1 l=30 e=5 s=100(136) w+a+l+e+s=wales prince(227)+ charles(237)+ of(66)+ Wales(136) = Prince Charles of Wales which has a numerical value of 666 in both the hebrew and english. The numerical values for the hebrew charaters in his name r 50+60+10+20(140)+90+200+30+60(380)+40+6+10+30+60(146)=666 —Preceding unsigned comment added by David-buchanan-haha (talk • contribs) 04:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Prince Charles of Wales" tells me all I need to know here – you know nothing about the man, and haven't even read the article. † DBD 14:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course, there's a book, The AntiChrist and a Cup of Tea by Tim Cohen, that explores the possibility that The Prince of Wales is, indeed, the Antichrist awaited by the tin-foil hat crowd. - Nunh-huh 15:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Prince Charles a Muslim?

Is Prince Charles a (closeted) Muslim? Any connection with Islam? tharsaile (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If he were a secret Muslim, we'd hardly know about it, would we. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Charles could not become a Muslim while being in line for the throne, because he shall be the future head of the Church of England. The is *no way* Charles could possibly change religion without abdicating. Volantares (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Abdication is something a monarch might do (and even then, in this case, only with Parliament's approval and that of all the 15 other Commonwealth Realms). It doesn't apply to people in line to the throne. If Charles became a Muslim while Elizabeth II was still reigning, then when she died, he would be bypassed and Prince William would become King William V. If Charles became a Muslim after he'd become King, there's no telling what might happen. He might be deemed to have abdicated, which in law is the same as having voluntarily chosen to step down; or, as you seem to be suggesting, he could abdicate first and then convert. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I've heard rumors about Prince Charles being a Muslim too. Or, rather, about him being very interested in Sufism, even though not as a Muslim convert proper. In any case, although we cannot be sure whether he's Muslim/Sufi or not, it's clear he's interested in comparative religion in general, via the Traditionalist School approach in particular, having written articles on the subject as shown here. Thus, if no one minds, I'm adding the "Category:Traditionalism" tag to the article. -- alexgieg (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Some of the above statements are simply incorrect. The Act of Settlement makes no mention of Islam at all. All it says with respect to religion is that the monarch must not be, nor ever have been, a Catholic (or married to one). No doubt there would be pressure on Charles to renounce the throne if he became a Muslim - though this in itself would require an act of parliament - but as the law currently stands the mere fact of being Muslim would not disbar him. TharkunColl (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Error on When Charles Became Prince of Wales

The article reads, "He has held the title of Prince of Wales since 1958, and is styled "His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales", except in Scotland, where he is styled "His Royal Highness The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay"."

Charles became Prince of Wales in 1968 when he was twenty, not in 1958, when he was ten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.49.65 (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not true. He was created Prince of Wales on 26 July 1958, when he was nine years old. The investiture was held on 1 July 1969, when he was twenty. (The reason given was that the queen wanted her son to be old enough to understand the ceremony's significance when it was (eventually) held.) - Nunh-huh 17:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Camilla, Princess of Wales

While Camilla has been given the title Duchess of Cornwall, my understanding is that the Prince of Wales' wife must be given the title Princess of Wales (she can be given others though, too). I'm sure many of us are willing to acknowledge that she is not addressed as such for aesthetic reasons (controversy with the media/public/etc), but I think this fact should be mentioned (once perhaps) in this article (and hers as well, if it hasn't been there either.) It should be mentioned since she officially has both titles. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure that when they married they slipped in the title once or twice because they had to do so (because she must be referred to as such in such circumstances). Volantares (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Time-magazine-cover-prince-charles.jpg

Image:Time-magazine-cover-prince-charles.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diana's date of death

I note that there is no way for people to edit this webpage on Prince Charles. I suppose that is logical. However, I note that in the data located under his photo where it shows his spouses, the date of Diana's death is 1996. Could someone please correct that to 1997? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlhawken (talk • contribs) 06:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No date is given in the infobox for her death. The date of her death is at Charles, Prince of Wales#Death of Diana, Princess of Wales, where it belongs. -- Zsero (talk) 06:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
A range of dates following a name will always be interpreted as a lifespan, absent indications that it is something else. I've inserted the appropriate indicators. - Nunh-huh 08:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. Would any reader think she was born in 1981, and died at 15? Check Princess Anne, Prince Andrew, Princess Margaret, or John McCain, Rudolph Giuliani, Ted Kennedy. -- Zsero (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
One just did. One shouldn't have to perform a mathematical operation to determine that the numbers - which appear to be birth and death - are feasible, or must be otherwise interpreted. Check the guidelines for the template. - Nunh-huh 08:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
One doesn't need to perform a mathematical operation to realise that Diana wasn't born in 1981. We can't make WP idiot-proof and shouldn't try; any normal person looking at a span for Diana that starts in 1981 does not think it's her lifespan. I've checked the guidelines for the template, and they do not say anything about this; I noticed that you advocated your position on the talk page, but I didn't see any great wave of agreement. And usage seems to be against you, as in the examples I just gave, which were the first six (3 UK and 3 US) that it occurred to me to check. -- Zsero (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
One can avoid misleading presentations of data, and we indeed should try not to misrepresent data. See the example on the template guidelines, at [[4]] toward the bottom of the page. - Nunh-huh 16:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That's not the template guideline, it's the talk page, and all you're citing is your own opinion. The fact that you've expressed that opinion elsewhere doesn't give it more weight. I don't see any masses agreeing with you there.
The main disadvantage of your preferred style is that it slops the line over; if you insist on keeping the (m.) and (div.), perhaps we could shorten her displayed name to just "Diana", since it's not as if that would confuse anyone. -- Zsero (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
If you'd like. What's "slopped over" on one person's page won't be on someone else's slightly wider page. If line length and clarity conflict, we need to opt for clarity. - Nunh-huh 19:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Point is to keep it short, and for you not to claim that your own preference is a guideline. The first six examples I looked up all had the date range, I see no reason at all why this one shouldn't follow the same convention. Unless you care to do a wider survey and find that the examples I found were outliers, or point to some sort of guideline or something that makes your view more than just that. -- Zsero (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Brevity is for newspapers, not encyclopedias, and Wikipedia isn't limited by space. The "view" that an encyclopedia should present data clearly should be one that we all share. - Nunh-huh 20:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
But infoboxes are about presentation, and space in them, especially horizontal space, is scarce. And the view that spouses should be listed in infoboxes by "m.", "d.", and "div." rather than by yyyy-yyyy, seems to be limited to yourself. Here's an idea: why don't we both stop this and wait to see whether anyone else has a word to get in edgewise? -- Zsero (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
fine by me. - Nunh-huh 22:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Patrilineal descent

I noticed that in the article about Prince William it is noted that if we only looked at his patrilineal descent, Charles would be a part of the House of Oldenburg. Because he is to be king, I think thos os important to put in under ancestry. Would someone please copy the following into the article about Charles. -Folkmann, 12.45 21st of March 08 (CET)


Charles's patriline is the line from which he is descended father to son.

Patrilineal descent is the principle behind membership in most royal houses, and can be traced back through the generations - which means that if Charles were to choose an historically accurate house name it would be Oldenburg, as all his male-line ancestors have been members.

House of Oldenburg

  1. Egilmar I of Lerigau, dates unknown
  2. Egilmar II of Lerigau, d. 1142
  3. Christian I of Oldenburg, d. 1167
  4. Moritz of Oldenburg, d. 1209
  5. Christian II of Oldenburg, d. 1233
  6. John I, Count of Oldenburg, d. 1275
  7. Christian III, Count of Oldenburg, d. 1285
  8. John II, Count of Oldenburg, d. 1314
  9. Conrad I, Count of Oldenburg, 1300 - 1347
  10. Christian V, Count of Oldenburg, 1340 - 1423
  11. Dietrich, Count of Oldenburg, 1398 - 1440
  12. Christian I, King of Denmark, 1426 - 1481
  13. Frederick I, King of Denmark, 1471 - 1533
  14. Christian III, King of Denmark, 1503 - 1559
  15. John II, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg, 1545 - 1622
  16. Alexander, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg, 1573 - 1627
  17. August Philipp, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck, 1612 - 1675
  18. Frederick Louis, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck, 1653 - 1728
  19. Peter August, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck, 1696 - 1775
  20. Karl Anton August, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck, 1727 - 1759
  21. Friedrich Karl Ludwig, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck, 1757 - 1816
  22. Friedrich Wilhelm, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, 1785 - 1831
  23. Christian IX, King of Denmark, 1818 - 1906
  24. George I, King of Greece, 1845 - 1913
  25. Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark, 1882 - 1944
  26. Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1921 -
  27. Charles, Prince of Wales, 1948 -

Some people seem to forget; Just as one may change one's surname so also ones house can be changed. Thus Charles' royal house is windsor and nothing else...--Camaeron (t/c) 12:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That remains to be seen when and if he actually comes to the throne. He may also choose to go by Mountbatten, or Mountbatten-Windsor. (For that matter he may decide to change it to anything he likes, but that would be pure speculation.) -- Zsero (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but until then he is still a member of the house of Windsor (per the Queen's declaration in 1952)...--Camaeron (t/c) 17:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Camaeron, you are wrong. He may be a member of the House of Windsor but that does not change his membership in the House of Oldenburg. By definition, every dynastic agnatic descendant of a member of a Germanic house is also a member of that house, regardless of whether there are other house memberships. The Orléans, the Nassaus of Luxembourg (via Parma) are all members of the House of Bourbon, the Queen of the Netherlands is a member of the House of Lippe (although she is the head of her own house) and so on. Charles 22:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
That is POV my dear Charles...houses may and can be changed by the person who is a member of the house. See my very personal history...the noble house of Bylandt split into three branches that no longer accept being part of the former house...it is all perfectly legal...even though agnaticlly it would be a very different story...--Cameron (t/c) 23:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
My personal history dictates otherwise (German family) but I am not entering that into this equation. It is not POV, it is practice. One can be the member of more than one house. A person cannot renounce or change that patrilineal descent. Charles may become the head of the House of Windsor someday but he is still a member of the House of Oldenburg. Houses don't replace each other, one simply becomes primarily used. Your anecdotal example of Bylandt is fine, the fact of the matter is personal opinions don't change anything and also that Charles is a junior member of the House of Oldenburg. Charles 23:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
My Bylandt example was a German house also...I agree one can't change ones descent but dont accept that one can be a member of more than one house...I think we shall have to agree to disagree...= )--Cameron (t/c) 17:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
How would we treat the House of Plantagenet? which includes the House of Lancaster and the House of York? -- GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I think everyone agrees that a person can belong to a house while belonging to a cadet branch of that same house, which would solve these cases. For instance, there's no argument that Elizabeth is both a member of the House of Wettin and a member of the House of Windsor – at least I think there isn't. The problem with Charles is that he is obviously not a member of the House of Wettin, so if he is a member of the House of Windsor (and he is, per official decree) that leaves two options: either the House of Windsor has ceased to be a cadet branch of the House of Wettin, or there are now two Houses of Windsor, one consisting of the agnatic descendants of Albert and Victoria (a cadet branch of the House of Wettin) and the other consisting of the agnatic descendants of Philip and Elizabeth (a cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg). I think Charles (the user, not the heir), as well as our House of Windsor article, is getting at this latter solution, and I tend to agree that this is how it is to be seen, but of course an official citation would be nice. In this case, Charles being both a Windsor and an Oldenburg would be no less complicated than his mother being both a Windsor and a Wettin. -- Jao (talk) 04:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You should also all remember that It's only because of the wars and anti-german feeling that there is a House of Windsor. If WWI and WWII never had been, they would stille be called the House of Hannover, or at leats the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha... Folkmann 21.11, 2 May 2008 (CET)
Charles is neither a Hanover nor a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Wettin). He belongs to neither of those houses in the male line. Charles 19:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Assassination Attempt"

Wasn't it Charles that was subject of an "assassination attempt" involving an aerosol spray, possibly taking place in New Zealand? I forget the details... Anyone have any idea? 83.100.143.2 (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Perhaps you ought to take it to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities...--Cameron (t|p|c) 19:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leeds United Supporter

In the Leeds United vs Gillingham match programme (Saturday 3rd May 2008) page 65 it states "It's not a widely publicised fact that Charles is a mad-keen Leeds fan, apparently." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garygash (talk • contribs) 19:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charles has considered George as a regnal name?

There has been speculation by others in this regard, but he has specifically denied it, according to one of the references in the article. Do we have a citation that he has considered rejecting Charles III as a regnal name? fishhead64 (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diana did NOT become Princess of Wales by marrying the HEIR APPARENT.

The sentence in this article 'By marriage to the heir apparent, Lady Diana received both the title of the Princess of Wales and the style of "Her Royal Highness"' should be changed. If you marry the Heir Apparent to the Throne you can't receive the title of Princess of Wales unless the Heir Apparent has been created Prince of Wales. Or you will at some later point in the future when he is created Prince of Wales. The sentence 'By marriage to the PRINCE OF WALES, Lady Diana received both the title of the Princess of Wales and the style of "Her Royal Highness"' would be correct, unless the marriage was insufficient and a royal document was issued upon her wedding that conferred the title and style upon her. If marriage makes it automatic and no royal document is necessary, the article should state as much. Princes of Wales do not become so automatically. But they DO become Dukes of Cornwall (if their parent is a Monarch) automatically. No cadet son of a Monarch has ever AUTOMATICALLY become Duke of York -- it has required a royal document each time. Nor has the extinction of each creation after one generation been specified in the grant, but has occurred by chance each time (except for one run before the Tudors). These facts show that it is not obvious what happens automatically and what happens by royal will, and so when a Royal Family member acquires a title or style automatically without royal action we should say as much.64.131.188.104 (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson