Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 01: 2002

Use of surname

Surely his surname 'Windsor' should not belong in this page title. He should be described simply as 'Charles, Prince of Wales'. His surname would only come into play if the monarchy was abolished or he was removed from the line of succession. After all, his mother isn't referred to as 'Elizabeth II Windsor' or 'Elizabeth Windsor II' or the Spanish king as 'Juan Carlos Bourbon y Bourbon'. JTD 04:08 Dec 22, 2002 (UTC)

But he isn't a monarch yet. Prince Harry is at "Henry Charles Albert Windsor", although his brother is at Prince William of Wales, so we're being rather inconsistant. -- Zoe

I moved him, and unlinked the original page in Zoe's quote above to avoid creating a double redirect. Harry's now at Prince Harry of Wales. -- Someone else 00:25 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

I agree, Zoe. I've checked other references on Wikipedia and noticed it. I've renamed the page to match the correct title, 'Charles, Prince of Wales'. When I get the chance I'll rename Harry's page as 'Prince Harry of Wales' even though technically his actual formal name is 'Prince Henry of Wales' as 'Harry' is just a parental nickname. (Hell, if we call him 'Harry', maybe Prince William's page should be 'Prince Wills of Wales' to use his nickname. Too much consistency and we will also go mad!!! I think I've been hit by that dreaded bug 'wiki-itis'. ) JTD 06:02 Dec 22, 2002 (UTC)

Although his present title is Prince of Wales, he is not the only Charles to have held this title - Charles I held it officially and Charles II unofficially. If you plan on keeping it here, you need to cross-refer to both of them. --Deb

But as they went on to become king, surely they are entered in Wikipedia as kings, not as princes of wales. (I thought the rule was to apply the most common unambiguous usage name.) Putting on my historian's hat, I don't know of a single person who if you refer to 'Charles, Prince of Wales' would think that refers to anyone other than the current Prince Charles, nor a single person who would describe Charles I as 'Charles, Prince of Wales'. But I will do what you suggest. (The one thing I really like about Wikipedia is how seriously we take it, and in our desire to getting things right. Wikipedia is growing into a treasure-trove of information and analysis, far better than most encyclopedias I've ever encountered!) JTD 18:49 Dec 22, 2002 (UTC)

My point is that, if someone were reading an old work which referred to, say, Charles I at the time he was Prince of Wales, it might well call him, "Charles, Prince of Wales". Someone who then tried to find him in wikipedia would be confused by what they found. (Okay, maybe only an ignoramus would be confused, but we are doing it in order to impart knowledge to others who don't have it, aren't we?) --Deb

Former monarchs and their titles

In the text it says Constantine II kept the title "King of Greece" but if the monarchy was legally abolished how could he?

In general, people refer to former kings by their former titles, though of course some people object to this. What's NOT done is to refer to "claimants" who have never reigned by the titles they claim: this is the difference between Constantine and his son: his son never reigned. FWIW, Constantine maintains a website at both www.kingofgreece.org and www.formerkingofgreece.org <!> -- Someone else 22:19 Dec 24, 2002 (UTC)

How ironic, they are both down ATM. - Lucky13pjn 15:31, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Public acceptability of Camilla as his consort

Also is Diana the reason it is seen as unacceptable for Camilla to have the title "Princess of Wales"?

It is not so much Diana, though there would be an emtional link between the term 'princess of wales' and Diana in most people's minds. It is the fact that Camilla is seen as the person who wrecked Diana'a marriage to Charles. That of course is a debatable point; people who knew both Charles and Diana say that there marriage had little hope even without Camilla because the couple were highly incompatable (Diana indeed was the author of much of that because she 'pretended' to like Charles' interests - hunting, living in the countryside, religion, etc - only to reveal that it was a pretence after the marriage). People have warmed somewhat to Camilla because (a) she was clearly his 'true love' (they had dated in the 1970s, but he was slow to propose, lest he make a mistake and pick someone who wouldn't be approved of by the people. She gave up waiting, met and married someone else, and then found herself in an unhappy marriage, as did he!) (b) she has had the full force of the St. James's Palace spin machine working to improve her image; (c) she clearly is devoted to him; (d) she has been accepted as a form of step-mother (in the absence of a marriage, a step-partner perhaps?) by his sons.

So people are increasingly willing to accept her as Charles's wife, presumably with some title (especially as they are now a couple in the 50s with a long history behind them), but without the beloved Diana's 'princess of wales' tag or wearing the crown as queen consort. To use a parallel, some people might accept (someday) an American president who is gay having a longterm partner but they would not accept that boyfriend having an official state role. It is a case of a pragmatic solution to a relationship, without giving it formal constitutional acceptance.

Re - the issue of a deposed monarch's titles. Ex-monarchs are frequently accepted as being entitled to use their title as a form of courtesy title. This comes from the belief that a person inheriting a throne has been given it by God (and the people), and so either the monarchs themselves (through abdication) or God (through death) can take it away. Most states have no problem with this. Some even give ex-monarchs diplomatic passports, or even use them as roving ambassadors abroad. Occasionally a state, often for personal reasons among its politicians, may kick up a fuss. The relationship between Constantine II and Greek politicians has long been strained. His political meddling in the mid 1960s was widely blamed for causing the coup that produced the regime of the colonels. Former Greek prime minister (under the monarchy) and President of the Republic Constantine Karaminlis called Constantine '(King) Paul's naughty little boy'. Andreas Papandreou blamed Constantine for his treatment of his father, who served for a while as Constantine's Prime Minister before being axed. And Constantine thinks the politicians shafted him by not allowing him to return to Greece in 1974 prior to the referendum on the monarchy. So Constantine is hated by the political elite (and much of the electorate) in the way, say, King Michael I of Roumania, King Simeon of Bulgaria, Crown Prince Alexander of Serbia or the late King Umberto II of Italy never has been. JTD 22:15 Dec 29, 2002 (UTC)