Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales/Archive 2

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 02: 2003

1 Legal acceptability of Camilla as his consort
2 'Controversialness' of his opinions on architecture &c.
3 Use of the definite article in certain titles
4 Is 'HRH' enough a part of his title?

Legal acceptability of Camilla as his consort

This mentions two problems with his marriage to Camilla: 1) her divorced status, and 2) the issue of her title. I thought the really really big problem with the marriage was that she is a Roman Catholic and that British monarchs are forbidden to marry Roman Catholics. Please advise. - Montréalais

As far as I know, Camilla isn't Catholic; her former husband, Andrew Parker Bowles, is. If she was catholic, that would have been made a big issue in the media. But I've only heard it mentioned once and no-one followed it up, which suggests it was wrong. It doesn't appear in Jonathan Dimbleby's book on Charles, which hints that Charles seriously considered asking her to marry him in the early 1970s. That suggests there wasn't a problem, so she mustn't be Catholic. JTD 19:02 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

If she were a Catholic, then, strictly speaking, she wouldn't have been able to divorce in any case. And Charles wouldn't even be able to consider marrying a practising Catholic, because he would automatically lose his place in the line of succession. Deb 21:46 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

Well, Parliament has proposed legislation that will render the old acts banning marriages to Roman Catholics and divorcees moot. When that happens, Charles is free to marry Camila. And if she were Catholic, couldn't she just convert to the Anglican Church?

You refer to the Succession to the Crown Bill, which failed to gather support and was withdrawn before its second reading by its introducer, Lord Dubs, IIRC.

James F. (talk) 15:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies, I was unaware that the bill was withdrawn. It doesn't seem to matter at any rate, since most of the major issues revolving around the Charles-Camilla marriage seem to have been resolved if they are now engaged. I suppose all that's left is the people's blessing, the Queen and Parliament gave theirs.

'Controversialness' of his opinions on architecture &c.

His opinions on architecture and the environment have often grated with professionals in these areas, including architects and scientists. They believe his opinions are often uninformed and his use of the power of his position to push such opinions has sometimes had unfortunate consequences for the UK - for instance, holding back the development of British architecture and miring it in endless echoes of classical styles.

I'm not sure that this paragraph is NPOV, especially since there's, well, no actual sources cited, just a general statement. If this is, indeed, a consensus view among architects and environmentalists, I suppose it should stay, but as it is, this statement gives no real support for that. john 02:23 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

It is a completely inaccurate one sided POV addition that requires instant removal.

His opinions have been criticised by some organisations in the architecture area; correct, but
His opinions have been praised by others including what are called 'community' architects and indeed by many younger architects who are themselves critical of the standard, content and quality of British architecture in the post-war to the 1980s period;
His concern with the environment, once derided as 'looney' in the 1980s is now widely shared and indeed praised by environmentalists, by greens and others as far-sighted and ahead of his time. Many of his passions in the 1970s and 1980s are now mainstream in townplanning (eg, minimising travel by locating work and homes close by, instead of a policy of residential zones and office developments far apart which he criticised and which are now universally blamed for the traffic chaos blocking up so many streets in urban centres). The policies were not changed because of him, but other people independently have reached the same conclusions;
The idea that his opinions have had "unfortunate consequences" for the UK is patently POV and very debatable. Even his critics say that in retrospect his criticism of the proposed 'carbuncle' development to Britain's National Gallery was proven correct. Few today would make such a proposal and most look on what was proposed with horror and are relieved someone spoke out and stopped out.

Far from being criticised the way the paragraph suggests, Charles' ideas have moved to the mainstream. Some of New Labour's policies are strikingly close to what he was suggesting 20 years ago. The main criticism of him are from elite groups in the higher levels of architecture who resented that anyone would query what they were doing, and in particular that Charles has been proven correct and reflective of a large mass of public opinion while they have been shown to be out of touch. The irony of a prince being more in touch with ordinary people's attitudes on planning has not been lost on some people! ÉÍREman 03:05 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

As the paragraph is so monumentally POV and one sided, I am going to remove it. If something like that goes in, it should be written in a proper NPOV manner, sourcing decent references. ÉÍREman 03:05 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

I thought as much, but I don't feel like I know enough about, well, the UK, to make a final judgment. Thought I should bring it up, though. john 03:09 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

OK, you've yanked it, and looking back I agree it's POV. However, Prince Charles' public statements on a variety of issues have been quite controversial. Let's list a few:

architecture.
organic farming.
genetically modified organisms
nanotechnology.

And didn't Blair specifically assign a PR flack to explain his government's policies to the Prince because of the Prince's repeated questions about them?

Seeing we've devoted endless paragraphs of this article to Charles' sex life, isn't it worth spending a bit of time discussing the fact that he has expressed, and continues to express, controversial views on a variety of issues, both from the merits of those views and whether it is appropriate for him to be expressing them? --Robert Merkel 05:59 30 May 2003 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me, so long as it's done in an NPOV manner. john 06:07 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Use of the definite article in certain titles

One minor change. I spoke to the Prince of Wales's staff today and they said that his Scottish title isn't HRH Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay, but HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay. They were quite clear about it. The first form is absolutely incorrrect so I have adapted the reference to the title accordingly on their advice. ÉÍREman 01:49 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Oops, I think I did that. Sorry for the error. certainly makes sense, although one wonders why he isn't just HRH The Duke of Rothesay, no? john 01:55 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

I was very surprised too. They said that Prince Charles is 100% wrong anywhere. Any use of the name '"Charles is wrong outside Scotland, but in Scotland for some reason (which they themselves did not know the reason for), he is The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay. Presumably it is to do with ancient Scottish royal titles. I presume use The {name} was a way of indicating that the heir to the Scottish throne was not just an ordinary duke but a royal duke, which might not have been obvious if only referred to by a dukedom. And come to think of it, the status of the male heir apparent is clear in England and Wales because his official title includes the word Prince, showing his status is above any other peer. FearÉIREANN 14:22 30 May 2003 (UTC)

A prince of the United Kingdom is not generally born a peer; he becomes a peer when he acquires a peerage title. The current Prince of Wales did not become a peer until his mother ascended the throne, and he became Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay. "Prince" is not a title of the peerage; Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount and Baron, in order of precedence, are the titles of peers.

Use of "The" is a formal convention and is still used in England though it has somewhat fallen out of favor among members of the press.

--ScottyFLL 23:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, "The" in front of a Prince/Princess's name indicates that they are of the Blood Royal; that is, they are a monarch's child. Princess Margaret's staff, for instance, was quite particular about her being referred to as "HRH The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon." --Dramain703 15:46, 27 Aug 05

"The" in front of title of a Prince or Princess indicates that they are the child of a sovereign. Hence, The Prince Charles, but only Prince Michael of Kent. Bbombbardier 15:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Is 'HRH' enough a part of his title?

Minor quibble here. We use several styles for his titles here, including:

His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales, Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor

Re MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR: It is improper to refer to a British royal who is entitled to the style Royal Highness, with a surname. From the Official Website of the British Monarchy: "The Queen is the fourth Sovereign of the House of Windsor (adopted as the Royal Family's official name in 1917), but she does not have a surname as such. In 1960, The Queen declared that those of her descendants not entitled to the style of Royal Highness, and female descendants who married, would in future use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor (before their marriage, The Duke of Edinburgh was known as Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten). This decision linked the surname of her husband with their descendants, without changing the name of the royal house." NOTE that it says Windsor is the "official name": it does NOT say it is a surname. Indeed, if surnames were used in the traditional sense, all of Queen Elizabeth's children would carry her husband's adopted last name, Mountbatten. See http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page3379.asp --ScottyFLL 23:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to include surnames for royalty. According to the Prince's office, his surname is Mountbatten-Windsor. It was only added in after consultation with Buckingham Palace and (the then) St. James's Palace. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\^{(caint) 00:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)}

.. and ...

HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay

Which one should be use? Specifically, should the HRH be shown to be part of the title (i.e., shown in a different weight or incline), or is there some special distinction made between 'HRH' and the full form, 'His Royal Highness'?

It is just shorthand. But that is the form the Prince's office said is correct regarding his title in Scotland. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\^{(caint) 00:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)}

Charles is known as the Duke of Rothesay in Scotland. It is not an English title.

In the United Kingdom, the title Prince of Wales has precedence over any other subsidiary title. Charles has MANY other titles, including Duke of Cornwall, Earl of Carrick, Baron Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Great Steward of Scotland, and Earl of Chester. He was born a prince of the United Kingdom.

"HRH" is the accepted abbreviation for His/Her Royal Highness. It is used when writing. One does not SAY, however, "HRH", but rather "His [Her] Royal Highness".

"HRH" is not a title, but rather a "style". Consider it a form of address, like Mr. or Ms. When addressing an envelope, it precedes the actual title (e.g., HRH The Prince of Wales; HRH The Duke of York). "HRH" is the standard and accepted abbreviation for "H-- Royal Highness", which is almost never spelled out.

While not technically incorrect (it's simply a style issue), it really isn't necessary and is redundant in an encyclopedia article to use it at all: princes and princesses of the United Kingdom are all Royal Highnesses.

--ScottyFLL 23:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

It is currently Wikipedia policy to use styles in thay form. That may change but until it does that is the standard format. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\^{(caint) 00:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)}

There are also other styles, such as used for his siblings:

HRH The Duke of York (Andrew Albert Christian Edward Mountbatten-Windsor).

Thus:

His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales, Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor

... or ...

His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales, Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor

... or ...

HRH The Prince of Wales, Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor

... or ...

His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales (Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor)

... or something else?

James F. (talk) 18:09, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

re revert.

1. Disambigulation references usually occur at the top of the page, not the bottom, on wikipedia.

2. Under our naming conventions, the official title is placed first in bold, then the personal name in bold italics afterwards. Removing the title at the start is contrary to the standard naming conventions applied in all royal pages on wikipedia. FearÉIREANN

1 - Usually, yes; but ths one is very long. 2 - then thw para needs a rewrite, to remove the duplication. And why did you revert my other changes? Andy Mabbett 00:44, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't think disambigulation works at the bottom. People need to be able to see it immediately. As to the italics, there was a discussion about this ages ago and the general view was that, in view of the length of the article and the use of bold, bold italics, italics, etc italicising the links in the disambigulation at the top broke up the heavyweight look of the page and made it less intense and more visually appealing. I think I made three changes, - disambigulation, italics in the disamb, and name. I hope I didn't inadvertently make more. If so, apologies. I'll correct that. (Though not now, as I have to go to bed. I am already an hour late going to bed! :-) FearÉIREANN 01:10, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think it is important to state categorically that he is The Prince of Wales later on, as people regularly and wrongly call him Prince Charles, something he has not been since February 1952. You can't explain the name at the very start, but it does need explaining, hence the apparent duplication. (I have broken the opening paragraph in two to make it less complicated looking.) FearÉIREANN 01:14, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

He was still The Prince Charles in 1952. He became a peer of the realm on his mother's accession to Queen, when he automatically gained the titles Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay. The title Prince of Wales is not automatically attained. Charles did not acquire the title Prince of Wales until 1958, and was not invested until 1969. --ScottyFLL 23:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

We should probably start a Charles, Prince of Wales (disambiguation) page. --Jia ng 08:26, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There are also other styles, such as used for his siblings:

HRH The Duke of York (Andrew Albert Christian Edward Mountbatten-Windsor).

Thus:

His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales, Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor

... or ...

His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales, Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor

... or ...

HRH The Prince of Wales, Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor

... or ...

His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales (Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor)

... or something else?

James F. (talk) 18:09, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

re revert.

1. Disambigulation references usually occur at the top of the page, not the bottom, on wikipedia.

1 - Usually, yes; but ths one is very long. 2 - then thw para needs a rewrite, to remove the duplication. And why did you revert my other changes? Andy Mabbett 00:44, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

We should probably start a Charles, Prince of Wales (disambiguation) page. --Jia ng 08:26, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)