This page 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. |
Spelling Wales's, as opposed to Wales or Wales', per government website. [1] Stubble 16:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
"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)
prince charles 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 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)
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? Athaenara ✉ 10:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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":
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)
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)
And the fact that he is mostly German? Xavier cougat 17:35, 30 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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I favour Charles, Prince of Wales. Having two Princes is unnecessary duplication. DrKiernan 11:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
Charles wrote at 22:40 on 2 September 2007 (UTC):
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)
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)
Is Prince Charles a (closeted) Muslim? Any connection with Islam? tharsaile ( talk) 14:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
This page 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 07: 2008
His name in parenthesis (Charles Philip Arthur George) is in bold, unlike his mother, grandfather, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.62.198 ( talk) 17:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Charles is categorized as a member of the House of Glücksburg. Why do editors insist upon "censoring" this? I am going to re-add it until the removal can be justified, which it cannot. The house he is a member of called Windsor is defined differently than the house he is a member of called Glücksburg and someone can be a member of both. Charles 18:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, which is why undue weight shouldn't be given to anything other than Windsor, which is his House, by royal decree.
Proposed:
Ancestry
Patrilineal descent
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. Through his father, Charles is descended from the House of Glücksburg. As it currently stands, per the Letters Patent issued in 1960 [1] by his mother, he shall reign as a member of the House of Windsor, though he may issue Letters Patent of his own amending that name.
(follow with (collapsed?) list of ancestry in the House of Windsor, and then House of Glucksburg)
Also removed some WP:OR around 'correct' house name. Prince of Canada t | c 21:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I recently uploaded to the Commons this photograph that I shot while on vacation this year. For your consideration on this article. I've left it portrait, but it could stand to be cropped in landscape to close in on the couple. It's reasonably high-rez so there's a lot to work with. Mattnad ( talk) 14:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
MOS prefers that images 'face' text, though deprecates flipping images to conform. Can we find a good image of Charles that faces left? Anyone? Prince of Canada t | c 10:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll start by admitting that I don't know terribly much about noble titles. However, I may be under false impressions regarding those given to Charles. Is he recognised as Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Earl of Chester, etc., throughout the United Kingdom, including Scotland? Or, are those titles not recognised within Scottish jurisdiction? -- G2bambino ( talk) 16:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I just realised that my last suggestion doesn't work; once Charles accedes to the throne, it would look like this:
As though Charles were only king in Scotland. Of course, where this problem would really present itself is on previous male monarchs' articles. -- G2bambino ( talk) 20:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
On a related point just how far is the title "Duke of Rothesay" actually used in Scotland? I presume the court circular uses it, and presumably also any charities he's involved with, but does the Scottish specific media call Charles "the Duke of Rothesay" when elsewhere he'd be called "the Prince of Wales"? (And was there any fuss over the title used for Camilla in Scotland?) Timrollpickering ( talk) 21:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Cheers. Prince of Canada t | c 06:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Twice now, Mountbatten's quoted words to Charles have been highlighted using a quote template. Is this necessary? The words, though pertinent to this article, aren't central to the character of the Prince of Wales. I think they should simply be within the body of text. -- G2bambino ( talk) 14:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Can we get his portrait revealed on his birthday? That was great. Grsz 11 →Review! 23:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest moving this article to Prince Charles or The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales. Personally I'd prefer the latter. At the moment HRH seems to be styled as the divorced wife of a Prince (eg Diana, Princess of Wales or Sarah, Duchess of York)! -- Cameron * 13:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh#Piped links for discussion on this matter. -- Miesianiacal ( talk) 21:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Could someone replace the bizarre table in the Arms section with some prose that is intelligible to non-British people? I can't make heads or tails of half of it. For example, there is a section called "Supporters" (with no explanation as to what as a "Supporter" is), that states:
Dexter a lion rampant gardant Or imperially crowned Proper, sinister a unicorn Argent, armed, crined and unguled Or, gorged with a coronet Or composed of crosses patée and fleurs de lis a chain affixed thereto passing between the forelegs and reflexed over the back also Or
Is that vandalism or is that text supposed to be there? If so, what the heck does it mean? And why does it end with "or"? And why are the ors capitalized? Parsing this table seems to require some very specialized knowledge, which is not in line with the
WP:JARGON and
WP:MTAA guidelines. If the table cannot be replaced entirely, it should at least be augmented with some explanatory text.
Kaldari (
talk) 21:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's a paraphrase:
I have also changed the description of the crown of the Prince of Wales from 'coronet' to 'crown'. A coronet never has arches, the headgear of the Heir Apparent to the British throne and the Prince of Wales (both follow the same design) has two arches and is correctly described as a crown. [See also the article on here on Coronets, where the headgear for the Heir Apparant is correctly described as a crown, not a coronet]. Ds1994 ( talk) 11:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is there a neutrality disputed indicator next to the listing of HM The Queen as HRH The Prince's mother? I was pretty sure we were convinced :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.9.161 ( talk) 23:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
[outdent] The original header I had above was more clearly associated with the tag in the article. Another user subsequently expressed a dislike of the header and changed it at the other talk page; I thus changed it here to match. Regardless, is it really so difficult to simply click on the link? -- Miesianiacal ( talk) 03:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
There is enough notable criticism in RS of his ignorance of scientific matters and his support for unscientific (=alternative medicine) medical practices that we could easily have a separate article on the subject. It could be entitled:
Here's a recent one:
What think ye of the idea? Right now we have an article that is about as whitewashed of any form of criticism as any article I've yet seen. Even on this controversial subject there is only this meager mention of the subject:
The subject needs to be developed into a whole article. Here's a search to start with:
-- Fyslee ( talk) 00:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
[outdent] There's a difference between a source saying the Prince's views are "nonsense" and you saying the Prince's views are "nonsense". Cameron's point, I believe (and he may correct me if I'm wrong), was that we all should stick to the former and avoid the latter. I take it that one of you will soon present a proposal for additions/alterations to the page? -- Miesianiacal ( talk) 23:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The sections and content dealing with the first marriage, adultery, separation, divorce, remarriage, death of Diana, etc., aren't in chronological order and needs some fixing, probably by making some different headings. -- Fyslee ( talk) 03:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
That header may have a double meaning. Regardless, as the punctuation format used here to indicate a possessive has been very long-standing, I think it would be up to anyone wishing to change it to gain a consensus for the move. It seems utterly unnecessary to me as not only is the Charles' form completely permissible outside Wikipedia, but Wikipedia:MOS#Possessives very clearly states that either Charles's or Charles' is acceptable, as long as consistency is maintained. User:JohnArmagh should make his case here as to why only the former is to be used. -- Miesianiacal ( talk) 20:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The lead section needs to be developed much more. There are many subjects that are covered and only a few are mentioned in the lead. It can't stand alone as a complete summary of the article. If a subject has its own heading, it deserves mention in the lead. -- Brangifer ( talk) 00:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
He's '...a fan of Leonard Cohen' yet there is no mention of the Goon show and the fact that he was made an honorary patron of the Goon Show Appreciation Society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.102.179 ( talk) 00:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The infobox should include Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. By Glücksburg house law and by European convention (excluding the UK) he is a member of that house and is also widely regarded as such. He couldn't be in the line of succession to the headship and ducal title if he wasn't a member of the house. Urban XII ( talk) 06:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, a certain user appears to be wikistalking me constantly interrupting my editing with edit conflicts. It is not acceptable to move the information on his place in the line of succession of his own house to the most obscure section of the article. Articles on other royals and nobles who are in the line of succession to the British throne prominently feature this in the lead section. The line of succession to the headship of his own house is much more relevant than being number 200 in the British line of succession. Urban XII ( talk) 06:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Now that we hear that the Queen is taking steps to have Prince William take on some of her duties and responsibilities, it seems clear that the Queen has not and does not intend for Charles to ever hold the title King. Would such a statement really be construed as opinion, for the purpose of inclusion in the main article?
Has there ever been discussion of this here in the talk section of this article?
Can William take or be given the thrown as King before the death of Charles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.130.47 ( talk) 20:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I can't help feeling, having not read this section, that it's not perticularly fair and has portrays the Prince in a much better light than what a more balanced article would.
For example, there are phrases which delibrately give the impression that Diana was 'unstable and temperamental', there's hear-say 'one by one, she apparently dismissed each of Charles' long-standing staff members and fell out with his friends' and only at the end it's noted that Charles cheated on her!!!
I think we should rewrite the divorce section to make it more balanced - does anyone have any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardeast ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I thibk it's the complete opposite, it doesn't mention Diana's many affairs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.85.218 ( talk) 22:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the paragraph where it's mentioned that Prince Charles will become the longest serving Prince of Wales in British history in April 2011:
Edward VII was Prince of Wales for just over 59 years from late 1841 to early 1901. Charles became Prince of Wales in 1958, so wouldn’t he have to wait until 2017 to become the record holder? — EgbertW ( talk) 21:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Surely he should have been created Prince of Wales just after his grandfather died on 6 February 1952? ( HaroldLockwood ( talk) 16:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC))
Why? ( 92.12.40.174 ( talk) 19:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC))
Charles will be the longest-serving Heir to the Throne in 2011. ( 92.13.64.160 ( talk) 17:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC))
Like that's a title a guy reall wants -- just sitting around, twiddling thumbs, waiting for the phone call reporting that Mum has kicked the bucket so that he can pick up luggage and move into the big bedroom. One must be patient with these things, of course. Sixty years or so of waiting, hum-dum-dum. Gee, that wall on the clock certainly ticks slowly...
Actually Prince Charles is very active, and has tremendous work for various charities and humanitarian organisations etc He most certainly does not "Sit around twiddling thumbs".
I dunno, but does anyone have any details about this assasination attempt? Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF5wrFJp9Jo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borninbronx10 ( talk • contribs) 11:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
this attempted assassination. 23-year-old David Kang fires a starting pistol at the Prince of Wales during an Australia Day speech in Sydney Australia, on January 26, 1994. David Kang's attemp was regarded withe the protest of boat people. David Kang has become a lawyer now.(XJG) 19: 09, 13 June 2010
what i dont understand is why is there not a subsection in the article devoted to all unusual incidents and threats?-- 70.162.171.210 ( talk) 01:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
It is surely true that PoW has been criticised by top architects for his perceived interference in architectural projects. I think this needs to be balanced by a statement that his involvement is generally popular and applauded by most people. But it needs a reliable source. Any thoughts? Kittybrewster ☎ 21:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
As a public figure he's certainly generated a lot of controversy, with many thinking he should not succeed his mother on some of the various thrones. Is a perception section wikipedia like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.169.106 ( talk) 18:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
File:HRH The Prince of Wales Allan Warren.jpg is a very nice formal portrait of the Prince but I am not sure where to put it. It should certainly be included in the article. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold ( talk) 22:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
There are far too many images of him with Camilla. There should be at least one with Diana, apart from the commemoration medal.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 09:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
All the footnote links after 23 link to the wrong number and there's a footnote N 2 in the middle. I won't mess with it, because I don't know why it's there, but it looks wrong. -Loyal Subject of the Queen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.20.94 ( talk) 20:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} Please change at 'Built environment': and Saxon villages of Transylvania,[43][44][45] where he purchased a house.[46] to: and Saxon and Szekler villages of Transylvania,[43][44][45] where he purchased 2 houses. source: www.transylvaniancastle.com 89.149.63.82 ( talk) 11:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The article says "Charles assisted with the establishment of a National Trust for the built environment in Canada, after lamenting, in 1996, the unbridled destruction of many of the country's historic urban cores. He offered his assistance to the Department of Canadian Heritage in the creation of a trust modelled on the British variant, and, with the passing of the 2007 federal budget by his mother's representative in Canada, a Canadian national trust was finally fully implemented."
I cannot find any evidence of this Trust. Could someone please provide a source, or perhaps point out what part of the budget act contains a provision for this trust? -- Munchkinguy ( talk) 08:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
This page needs to be updated as he is now married to Camilla Bowls Parker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.52.98 ( talk) 12:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The article as written implies that they separated due to Charles having an affair with Camilla. However he has stated that he did not consort with Camilla until after the separation, and Diana has admitted to seven or eight lovers - several before the separation. The article should be more balanced, and less hostile to Charles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 ( talk) 04:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible to include that there have been rumors that Charles would simply step aside and allow William to reign? Or should they just be dismissed as only rumors? There are plenty of sources that mention the idea, and apparently polling in the UK shows some support for the idea [5] [6] [7] [8]. Hot Stop ( talk) 15:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Under heading 12, "Issue," both on the page and in the right sidebar, it would be quite helpful and should be briefly noted (in parentheses) that, Henry is most widely known as "Harry." In the main article (and exclusively virtually everywhere in the press) he is mostly referred to as "Harry." It should be noted in the "quick facts" sections as well, so that one doesn't have to read the whole article (or do an internet search) to figure out who "Henry" is. Priscilla-jesus ( talk) 21:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Charles holds the title of Personal Aide-de-Camp in the United Kingdom, and that article lists his military rank as "Admiral". If this is correct, it should have some mention here. SeanNovack ( talk) 17:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
How is he a practicing member of the Church of England and the Church of Scotland? (Not saying he isn't, I know he is, as is the Queen, I just want to know how it is possible). One is Anglican and the other is Presbyterian, and they have conflicting theological beliefs. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 17:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
As a Master of Arts, he should also have the suffix "MA" after his name. Is there a reason why he doesn't or has it just been missed off? 87.194.214.89 ( talk) 11:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not certain but the last section on ancestry it says: "In the United Kingdom, in the absence of any future decrees to the contrary, Charles will use the name Windsor as a monarch." Does this mean, as king, he will continue to be part of the House of Windsor? SDSpivey ( talk) 23:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, he will use the name Windsor and that will be the name he is refereed by officially. However, he also a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (A cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg) in the male line through his father Prince Philip. It really has no meaning, but it is a technicality. Andrew0921 ( talk) 07:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
An Order-in-Council issued in 1960, which is the legally controlling document concerning the name of the British dynasty and its members' surnames. It says, in relevant part, "...Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor." (London Gazette, issue 41948, Feb. 8, 1960, p. 1/1003. See also the Times Feb 9, 1960 p. 10E.) Andrew0921 ( talk) 07:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
(UTC)
The article on Prince Philip can be used as a citation if needed. Prince Charles is indeed a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (itself an extension of the House of Oldenburg) in addition to being a member of the House of Windsor, Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg in the paternal-line and Windsor in the maternal-line. This fact was mentioned in article because it is relevant and has encyclopedic value, and to not mention it almost seems to deny the refutable fact that the children of Prince Philip and Elizabeth II belong to both houses through the male and female lines respectively. Andrew0921 ( talk) 15:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The article on the House of Glücksburg even mentions that Charles is a member of that house. Nobody is denying that he is a Windsor, or that Windsor is his official surname. It is, however, an encyclopedic fact that he is also a member of the House of Glücksburg. and the fact is mentioned because of it's relevance to the article. Precedence is given to his being a member of the House of Windsor first and foremost by listing it above Glücksburg, but the fact remains that the mention of Glücksburg has encyclopedic value. Andrew0921 ( talk) 15:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I second what Andrew0921 says above. A source for Charles being a member of the House of Glücksburg/Oldenburg is Michel Huberty, L'Allemagne dynastique, Volume 7, Giraud, 1994, ISBN 2901138071, ISBN 9782901138075. This is in its nature a genealogical question, the issue of which name he is using a different issue altogether, using the name Windsor changes nothing (the British royal family has actually not settled on one name, but are using several, including Windsor, Mountbatten-Windsor or sometimes only "Wales" (for some of them)). I find it puzzling how some British nationalist editors are seemingly trying to remove his ancestry from the article. Fact is that he is both a patrilineal member of the House of Glücksburg the way the traditional system of genealogy works, and using a different name in the UK under a new system created there in 1952/1960 (which has nothing to do with genealogy/ancestry). In Europe except the UK and the field of royal genealogy internationally, "house" means family in the sense of agnatic lineage ( patrilineality), this has been the system since Roman times. It is a system used by genealogists, and not necessarily a "name" actively used by those considered to be part of the house. This system, and the post-1952/1960 practice in the UK, are obviously not compatible, so the neutral and sensible solution is to list both house names, the house name per the traditional system used by European genealogists (such as Huberty), and the UK-specific system/name. (The House of Windsor is categorized as a cadet branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Charles is obviously not a member of any branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, so if he were to be a member of a house called Windsor, it would be a different house than the House of Windsor that is a cadet branch of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha).
An encyclopedia should not push one point of view only when this can be viewed differently. If a living person (Elizabeth) claims something completely at odds with the way things have worked for thousands of years, we should at the very least mention both positions on the matter. Garn Svend ( talk) 14:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
As Charles was born in 1948, he must, even in Britain, have been considered a member of the House of Glücksburg at the time of his birth. It was only in 1952 and 1960 that his mother issued her Windsor statements. It's only appropriate for this article to have the house he was born into, even by the then British system, listed first. The two Windsor statements actually refer to the name only. Even if the family of Charles is using a new name, it will still be a cadet branch of the parent house of Glücksburg. The 1952 and 1960 Windsor statements say nothing on this issue, so it's reasonable to follow standard, agreed on practice in the field of royal genealogy.
In 1917, George V declared that: "all descendants in the male line of Queen Victoria [i.e., male line descendants of Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha], who are subjects of these realms, other than female descendants who marry or who have married, shall bear the name of Windsor". This did not change until 1952, so Charles was not considered a member of a house of Windsor from 1948 to 1952. Even his mother was not a member of such a house by the provisions of George V's declaration following her 1947 marriage until starting using the name in 1952, she was by marriage a member of the house of Glücksburg, and possibly with her husband's newly adopted surname of Mountbatten. Patrilineality was the system used for house membership everywhere in Europe including the UK until 1952, well into the marriage of Elizabeth and Philip as well as the life of Charles. Garn Svend ( talk) 14:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I came to the article curious about what his actual name is. It seems like the article might discuss this issue a bit. It sounds like it is Charles Mountbatten-Windsor for personal purposes and Charles Windsor for the purposes of his official King/Prince actions based on some of the above posts. I saw in a documentary that he entered the name Mountbatten-Windsor in the official documents of his marriage to Camilla which is consistent with this idea. So now I'm curious what the actual names of William and Harry are. -- Davefoc ( talk) 06:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
If you by name mean surname, it is officially Windsor for some members of that family and Mountbatten-Windsor for other members. But even the ones who are theoretically called Windsor, in practice always use Mountbatten-Windsor. The topic of genealogical-historical house membership and ancestry, of course, is a separate issue. Garn Svend ( talk) 10:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "ancestry" section at the bottom of this page, add the following suffixes to 4 of Prince Charles ancestors:
67.162.11.74 ( talk) 18:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The move of the Prince Charles' new Canadian royal standard into the coat of arms template has drawn my attention to what seems to be an inconsistent and confusing arrangement. The template highlights the Prince of Wales' arms for the United Kingdom and, thus, also contains banners that derive from or are directly related to those arms; namely, the banners for the United Kingdom and Cornwall and the defaced Royal Standard of Scotland. However, the banner of the Duke of Rothsay, and those for Wales and, especially, Canada are completely unrelated to the coat of arms. Why, then, are they included within the template? My feeling is the latter three, at least, should be separated out. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Post-Nominal letters OM
46.246.177.230 ( talk) 13:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Why isn't there anything about this in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.14.251.213 ( talk) 23:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article be titled "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales," instead of "Charles, Prince of Wales." Though it may be implicit with his title, being a Prince, in the sense of territorial nobility (i.e., "Prince of Wales," or "Prince of Monaco," etc.) is different from being the Royal son of a monarch and being styled as a "prince" (i.e., "Prince Charles," or "Prince William"). So, Prince Charles is both; he holds the title, or rank of "Prince of Wales," AND is also a son of the monarch, and thus a "prince" and hence, the article should be "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales." This is the case for all the other members of the Royal Family on wikipedia: Prince William is "Prince William, Duke of Cambridge," or "Prince Andrew, Duke of York," or even "Princess Anne, Princess Royal." It should also be noted that this does not apply for the wives of the married princes. So, the wife of Prince Charles is "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" and not "Princess Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall." Even if the wife of Prince Charles was referred to as the "Princess of Wales," like Diana, Princess of Wales, she would still be "Diana, Princess of Wales" and not "Princess Diana, Princess of Wales." This is due to the fact that they are married into the Royal Family and not the son (or daughter) of the monarch. A good way of looking at this is the German use of "Prince." In German, "Furst" is used as a title of nobility; in the sense like "Prince of Wales," whereas "Prinz" is used for the family members of the monarchy, like "Prince William." Thus, the article should be about "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales," not the simple "Charles, Prince of Wales." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.190.10 ( talk) 06:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could the clause Prince Charles was three years old at his mother's ascension in the first paragraph be changed to Prince Charles was three years old at his mother's accession W4rd3n ( talk) 12:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article be titled "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales," instead of "Charles, Prince of Wales." Though it may be implicit with his title, being a Prince, in the sense of territorial nobility (i.e., "Prince of Wales," or "Prince of Monaco," etc.) is different from being the Royal son of a monarch and being styled as a "prince" (i.e., "Prince Charles," or "Prince William"). So, Prince Charles is both; he holds the title, or rank of "Prince of Wales," AND is also a son of the monarch, and thus a "prince" and hence, the article should be "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales." This is the case for all the other members of the Royal Family on wikipedia: Prince William is "Prince William, Duke of Cambridge," or "Prince Andrew, Duke of York," or even "Princess Anne, Princess Royal." It should also be noted that this does not apply for the wives of the married princes. So, the wife of Prince Charles is "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" and not "Princess Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall." Even if the wife of Prince Charles was referred to as the "Princess of Wales," like Diana, Princess of Wales, she would still be "Diana, Princess of Wales" and not "Princess Diana, Princess of Wales." This is due to the fact that they are married into the Royal Family and not the son (or daughter) of the monarch. A good way of looking at this is the German use of "Prince." In German, "Furst" is used as a title of nobility; in the sense like "Prince of Wales," whereas "Prinz" is used for the family members of the monarchy, like "Prince William." Thus, the article should be about "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales," not the simple "Charles, Prince of Wales." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.190.10 ( talk) 06:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could the clause Prince Charles was three years old at his mother's ascension in the first paragraph be changed to Prince Charles was three years old at his mother's accession W4rd3n ( talk) 12:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} Under the headline "Philosophies and religious beliefs" at the end of the section saying
"Sir Laurens van der Post became a friend of Charles in 1977, a relationship which led him to be dubbed the "guru to Prince Charles", and made godfather to Charles' son, Prince William. From him, the Prince of Wales developed a focus on philosophy, especially that of Asian and Middle Eastern nations, and New Age theology, praising Kabbalistic artworks,[70] and penning a memorial for Kathleen Raine, the Neoplatonist poet, who died in 2003.[71]
The following information should be added:
"In connection to this his interest in the thoughts of René Guénon and other exponents of the Traditionalist School of thought and Perennial philosophy should be mentioned. In 2006, for instance, he gave an introductory speech for a Sacred Web conference.
Source: Video: http://www.sacredweb.com/conference06/conference_introduction_video.html Text: http://www.sacredweb.com/conference06/conference_introduction.html
Commentator1983 ( talk) 22:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Why is it not a reliable source? This is a quote from his speech:
"Temenos Academy and Sacred Web are also, of course, dedicated to an exploration of the role of Tradition in the modern world, the subject of this Conference, and, indeed, to a critique of the false premises of Modernity – a critique set out in one of the seminal texts of the traditionalists, René Guénon’s The Reign of Quantity.
Many find this teaching difficult, not least because it asks us to question our very mode of being; and perhaps because it asks us to question an ideology, in the form of Modernism, that has become so set in our minds that any other way of being seems in some sense fanciful and 'unrealistic'."
And you can verify that he actually said so just listening to his speech following the link to the video I gave in my first contribution on the subject.
I am arguing that the short form of a British royal prince or princess in the opening of the article should include the "The" where applicable, as in "The Prince Charles." I argue that this is distinctive and meaningful as indicated on the British Monarchy's website. I would not, however, include HRH in the opening as this would be like using "Mr" which is not consistent with Wikipedia style as that is purely an honorific. The use of "The" indicates that the prince is a child of the monarch.
The use of "The" is not simply an honorific.
The Royal website does indeed use it, though not consistently, and this is standard practice. I think it's important to remember that the use of "The" is not required, but is meaningful to the title and does exist as part of it.
True, it is not incorrect to say "Prince Charles." However, it is more correct, or formal, to say "The Prince Charles," as this indicates that the individual is a child of the monarch. This is integral to the full princely title and I believe that the name used in the opening should be informative on this point. To the contrary, Charles' son, Prince William, is not The Prince WIlliam. I think it's useful to indicate this distinction where it does exist.
"...one of the Prince's Transylvanian ancestors": any sources about this? Kreuzkümmel ( talk) 14:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
" .......through his great-grandmother Queen Mary, the blood of many Magyar noble families, including several of the Bathory voivodes of Translyvania, flows in his veins. In Romania, by way of Queen Mary's ancestry, he descends from Vlad Dracul, Voivode of Wallachia (father of the original Dracula) and thus from the Bassarab dynasty who were very possibly derived from Genghis Khan himself".
I know that Philip is his father's name and that George is his maternal grandfather's name, but is there any significance to the name Arthur? It is not his paternal grandfather's name. Axeman ( talk) 03:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The source you mention (which I assume you overlooked) denies the fact. It's unfounded, untrue and unsustained thus it serves no purpose or enrichment to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HansRoht ( talk • contribs) 05:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
"The Prince's Charties" and the "The Prince's Charities Canada" are two separate organisations; one is not under or within the other, as DrKiernan's recent edits imply.
If having information about both together in one article is causing confusion, the article The Prince's Charities Canada can be made. I have never been certain the article The Prince's Charities was the right place to put information about The Prince's Charities Canada. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Should the article mention that Charles gave up smoking when he was eleven? ( 92.7.26.60 ( talk) 14:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC))
Would it not be better to place all the criticism the Prince attacks into a more coherent section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.93.239 ( talk) 21:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Hyloscirtus Princecharles. This is the latin name of the new frog species, which scientists have discovered in Ecuador. Got its name from Prince Charles because he occupies years for the conservation of tropical forests and animals, and for this purpose established a special fund for helping. Fairy tale says that the princess kissed the frog, and she turned into a beautiful prince. But this time the opposite happened. Allow me to be funny, the prince became a frog. 78.2.83.247 ( talk) 13:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
sur
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
This page 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. |
Spelling Wales's, as opposed to Wales or Wales', per government website. [1] Stubble 16:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
"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)
prince charles 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 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)
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? Athaenara ✉ 10:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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":
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)
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)
And the fact that he is mostly German? Xavier cougat 17:35, 30 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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I favour Charles, Prince of Wales. Having two Princes is unnecessary duplication. DrKiernan 11:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
Charles wrote at 22:40 on 2 September 2007 (UTC):
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)
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)
Is Prince Charles a (closeted) Muslim? Any connection with Islam? tharsaile ( talk) 14:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
This page 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 07: 2008
His name in parenthesis (Charles Philip Arthur George) is in bold, unlike his mother, grandfather, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.62.198 ( talk) 17:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Charles is categorized as a member of the House of Glücksburg. Why do editors insist upon "censoring" this? I am going to re-add it until the removal can be justified, which it cannot. The house he is a member of called Windsor is defined differently than the house he is a member of called Glücksburg and someone can be a member of both. Charles 18:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, which is why undue weight shouldn't be given to anything other than Windsor, which is his House, by royal decree.
Proposed:
Ancestry
Patrilineal descent
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. Through his father, Charles is descended from the House of Glücksburg. As it currently stands, per the Letters Patent issued in 1960 [1] by his mother, he shall reign as a member of the House of Windsor, though he may issue Letters Patent of his own amending that name.
(follow with (collapsed?) list of ancestry in the House of Windsor, and then House of Glucksburg)
Also removed some WP:OR around 'correct' house name. Prince of Canada t | c 21:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I recently uploaded to the Commons this photograph that I shot while on vacation this year. For your consideration on this article. I've left it portrait, but it could stand to be cropped in landscape to close in on the couple. It's reasonably high-rez so there's a lot to work with. Mattnad ( talk) 14:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
MOS prefers that images 'face' text, though deprecates flipping images to conform. Can we find a good image of Charles that faces left? Anyone? Prince of Canada t | c 10:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll start by admitting that I don't know terribly much about noble titles. However, I may be under false impressions regarding those given to Charles. Is he recognised as Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Earl of Chester, etc., throughout the United Kingdom, including Scotland? Or, are those titles not recognised within Scottish jurisdiction? -- G2bambino ( talk) 16:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I just realised that my last suggestion doesn't work; once Charles accedes to the throne, it would look like this:
As though Charles were only king in Scotland. Of course, where this problem would really present itself is on previous male monarchs' articles. -- G2bambino ( talk) 20:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
On a related point just how far is the title "Duke of Rothesay" actually used in Scotland? I presume the court circular uses it, and presumably also any charities he's involved with, but does the Scottish specific media call Charles "the Duke of Rothesay" when elsewhere he'd be called "the Prince of Wales"? (And was there any fuss over the title used for Camilla in Scotland?) Timrollpickering ( talk) 21:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Cheers. Prince of Canada t | c 06:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Twice now, Mountbatten's quoted words to Charles have been highlighted using a quote template. Is this necessary? The words, though pertinent to this article, aren't central to the character of the Prince of Wales. I think they should simply be within the body of text. -- G2bambino ( talk) 14:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Can we get his portrait revealed on his birthday? That was great. Grsz 11 →Review! 23:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest moving this article to Prince Charles or The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales. Personally I'd prefer the latter. At the moment HRH seems to be styled as the divorced wife of a Prince (eg Diana, Princess of Wales or Sarah, Duchess of York)! -- Cameron * 13:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh#Piped links for discussion on this matter. -- Miesianiacal ( talk) 21:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Could someone replace the bizarre table in the Arms section with some prose that is intelligible to non-British people? I can't make heads or tails of half of it. For example, there is a section called "Supporters" (with no explanation as to what as a "Supporter" is), that states:
Dexter a lion rampant gardant Or imperially crowned Proper, sinister a unicorn Argent, armed, crined and unguled Or, gorged with a coronet Or composed of crosses patée and fleurs de lis a chain affixed thereto passing between the forelegs and reflexed over the back also Or
Is that vandalism or is that text supposed to be there? If so, what the heck does it mean? And why does it end with "or"? And why are the ors capitalized? Parsing this table seems to require some very specialized knowledge, which is not in line with the
WP:JARGON and
WP:MTAA guidelines. If the table cannot be replaced entirely, it should at least be augmented with some explanatory text.
Kaldari (
talk) 21:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's a paraphrase:
I have also changed the description of the crown of the Prince of Wales from 'coronet' to 'crown'. A coronet never has arches, the headgear of the Heir Apparent to the British throne and the Prince of Wales (both follow the same design) has two arches and is correctly described as a crown. [See also the article on here on Coronets, where the headgear for the Heir Apparant is correctly described as a crown, not a coronet]. Ds1994 ( talk) 11:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is there a neutrality disputed indicator next to the listing of HM The Queen as HRH The Prince's mother? I was pretty sure we were convinced :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.9.161 ( talk) 23:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
[outdent] The original header I had above was more clearly associated with the tag in the article. Another user subsequently expressed a dislike of the header and changed it at the other talk page; I thus changed it here to match. Regardless, is it really so difficult to simply click on the link? -- Miesianiacal ( talk) 03:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
There is enough notable criticism in RS of his ignorance of scientific matters and his support for unscientific (=alternative medicine) medical practices that we could easily have a separate article on the subject. It could be entitled:
Here's a recent one:
What think ye of the idea? Right now we have an article that is about as whitewashed of any form of criticism as any article I've yet seen. Even on this controversial subject there is only this meager mention of the subject:
The subject needs to be developed into a whole article. Here's a search to start with:
-- Fyslee ( talk) 00:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
[outdent] There's a difference between a source saying the Prince's views are "nonsense" and you saying the Prince's views are "nonsense". Cameron's point, I believe (and he may correct me if I'm wrong), was that we all should stick to the former and avoid the latter. I take it that one of you will soon present a proposal for additions/alterations to the page? -- Miesianiacal ( talk) 23:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The sections and content dealing with the first marriage, adultery, separation, divorce, remarriage, death of Diana, etc., aren't in chronological order and needs some fixing, probably by making some different headings. -- Fyslee ( talk) 03:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
That header may have a double meaning. Regardless, as the punctuation format used here to indicate a possessive has been very long-standing, I think it would be up to anyone wishing to change it to gain a consensus for the move. It seems utterly unnecessary to me as not only is the Charles' form completely permissible outside Wikipedia, but Wikipedia:MOS#Possessives very clearly states that either Charles's or Charles' is acceptable, as long as consistency is maintained. User:JohnArmagh should make his case here as to why only the former is to be used. -- Miesianiacal ( talk) 20:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The lead section needs to be developed much more. There are many subjects that are covered and only a few are mentioned in the lead. It can't stand alone as a complete summary of the article. If a subject has its own heading, it deserves mention in the lead. -- Brangifer ( talk) 00:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
He's '...a fan of Leonard Cohen' yet there is no mention of the Goon show and the fact that he was made an honorary patron of the Goon Show Appreciation Society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.102.179 ( talk) 00:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The infobox should include Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. By Glücksburg house law and by European convention (excluding the UK) he is a member of that house and is also widely regarded as such. He couldn't be in the line of succession to the headship and ducal title if he wasn't a member of the house. Urban XII ( talk) 06:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, a certain user appears to be wikistalking me constantly interrupting my editing with edit conflicts. It is not acceptable to move the information on his place in the line of succession of his own house to the most obscure section of the article. Articles on other royals and nobles who are in the line of succession to the British throne prominently feature this in the lead section. The line of succession to the headship of his own house is much more relevant than being number 200 in the British line of succession. Urban XII ( talk) 06:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Now that we hear that the Queen is taking steps to have Prince William take on some of her duties and responsibilities, it seems clear that the Queen has not and does not intend for Charles to ever hold the title King. Would such a statement really be construed as opinion, for the purpose of inclusion in the main article?
Has there ever been discussion of this here in the talk section of this article?
Can William take or be given the thrown as King before the death of Charles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.130.47 ( talk) 20:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I can't help feeling, having not read this section, that it's not perticularly fair and has portrays the Prince in a much better light than what a more balanced article would.
For example, there are phrases which delibrately give the impression that Diana was 'unstable and temperamental', there's hear-say 'one by one, she apparently dismissed each of Charles' long-standing staff members and fell out with his friends' and only at the end it's noted that Charles cheated on her!!!
I think we should rewrite the divorce section to make it more balanced - does anyone have any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardeast ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I thibk it's the complete opposite, it doesn't mention Diana's many affairs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.85.218 ( talk) 22:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the paragraph where it's mentioned that Prince Charles will become the longest serving Prince of Wales in British history in April 2011:
Edward VII was Prince of Wales for just over 59 years from late 1841 to early 1901. Charles became Prince of Wales in 1958, so wouldn’t he have to wait until 2017 to become the record holder? — EgbertW ( talk) 21:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Surely he should have been created Prince of Wales just after his grandfather died on 6 February 1952? ( HaroldLockwood ( talk) 16:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC))
Why? ( 92.12.40.174 ( talk) 19:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC))
Charles will be the longest-serving Heir to the Throne in 2011. ( 92.13.64.160 ( talk) 17:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC))
Like that's a title a guy reall wants -- just sitting around, twiddling thumbs, waiting for the phone call reporting that Mum has kicked the bucket so that he can pick up luggage and move into the big bedroom. One must be patient with these things, of course. Sixty years or so of waiting, hum-dum-dum. Gee, that wall on the clock certainly ticks slowly...
Actually Prince Charles is very active, and has tremendous work for various charities and humanitarian organisations etc He most certainly does not "Sit around twiddling thumbs".
I dunno, but does anyone have any details about this assasination attempt? Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF5wrFJp9Jo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borninbronx10 ( talk • contribs) 11:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
this attempted assassination. 23-year-old David Kang fires a starting pistol at the Prince of Wales during an Australia Day speech in Sydney Australia, on January 26, 1994. David Kang's attemp was regarded withe the protest of boat people. David Kang has become a lawyer now.(XJG) 19: 09, 13 June 2010
what i dont understand is why is there not a subsection in the article devoted to all unusual incidents and threats?-- 70.162.171.210 ( talk) 01:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
It is surely true that PoW has been criticised by top architects for his perceived interference in architectural projects. I think this needs to be balanced by a statement that his involvement is generally popular and applauded by most people. But it needs a reliable source. Any thoughts? Kittybrewster ☎ 21:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
As a public figure he's certainly generated a lot of controversy, with many thinking he should not succeed his mother on some of the various thrones. Is a perception section wikipedia like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.169.106 ( talk) 18:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
File:HRH The Prince of Wales Allan Warren.jpg is a very nice formal portrait of the Prince but I am not sure where to put it. It should certainly be included in the article. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold ( talk) 22:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
There are far too many images of him with Camilla. There should be at least one with Diana, apart from the commemoration medal.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 09:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
All the footnote links after 23 link to the wrong number and there's a footnote N 2 in the middle. I won't mess with it, because I don't know why it's there, but it looks wrong. -Loyal Subject of the Queen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.20.94 ( talk) 20:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} Please change at 'Built environment': and Saxon villages of Transylvania,[43][44][45] where he purchased a house.[46] to: and Saxon and Szekler villages of Transylvania,[43][44][45] where he purchased 2 houses. source: www.transylvaniancastle.com 89.149.63.82 ( talk) 11:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The article says "Charles assisted with the establishment of a National Trust for the built environment in Canada, after lamenting, in 1996, the unbridled destruction of many of the country's historic urban cores. He offered his assistance to the Department of Canadian Heritage in the creation of a trust modelled on the British variant, and, with the passing of the 2007 federal budget by his mother's representative in Canada, a Canadian national trust was finally fully implemented."
I cannot find any evidence of this Trust. Could someone please provide a source, or perhaps point out what part of the budget act contains a provision for this trust? -- Munchkinguy ( talk) 08:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
This page needs to be updated as he is now married to Camilla Bowls Parker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.52.98 ( talk) 12:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The article as written implies that they separated due to Charles having an affair with Camilla. However he has stated that he did not consort with Camilla until after the separation, and Diana has admitted to seven or eight lovers - several before the separation. The article should be more balanced, and less hostile to Charles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 ( talk) 04:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible to include that there have been rumors that Charles would simply step aside and allow William to reign? Or should they just be dismissed as only rumors? There are plenty of sources that mention the idea, and apparently polling in the UK shows some support for the idea [5] [6] [7] [8]. Hot Stop ( talk) 15:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Under heading 12, "Issue," both on the page and in the right sidebar, it would be quite helpful and should be briefly noted (in parentheses) that, Henry is most widely known as "Harry." In the main article (and exclusively virtually everywhere in the press) he is mostly referred to as "Harry." It should be noted in the "quick facts" sections as well, so that one doesn't have to read the whole article (or do an internet search) to figure out who "Henry" is. Priscilla-jesus ( talk) 21:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Charles holds the title of Personal Aide-de-Camp in the United Kingdom, and that article lists his military rank as "Admiral". If this is correct, it should have some mention here. SeanNovack ( talk) 17:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
How is he a practicing member of the Church of England and the Church of Scotland? (Not saying he isn't, I know he is, as is the Queen, I just want to know how it is possible). One is Anglican and the other is Presbyterian, and they have conflicting theological beliefs. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 17:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
As a Master of Arts, he should also have the suffix "MA" after his name. Is there a reason why he doesn't or has it just been missed off? 87.194.214.89 ( talk) 11:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not certain but the last section on ancestry it says: "In the United Kingdom, in the absence of any future decrees to the contrary, Charles will use the name Windsor as a monarch." Does this mean, as king, he will continue to be part of the House of Windsor? SDSpivey ( talk) 23:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, he will use the name Windsor and that will be the name he is refereed by officially. However, he also a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (A cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg) in the male line through his father Prince Philip. It really has no meaning, but it is a technicality. Andrew0921 ( talk) 07:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
An Order-in-Council issued in 1960, which is the legally controlling document concerning the name of the British dynasty and its members' surnames. It says, in relevant part, "...Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor." (London Gazette, issue 41948, Feb. 8, 1960, p. 1/1003. See also the Times Feb 9, 1960 p. 10E.) Andrew0921 ( talk) 07:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
(UTC)
The article on Prince Philip can be used as a citation if needed. Prince Charles is indeed a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (itself an extension of the House of Oldenburg) in addition to being a member of the House of Windsor, Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg in the paternal-line and Windsor in the maternal-line. This fact was mentioned in article because it is relevant and has encyclopedic value, and to not mention it almost seems to deny the refutable fact that the children of Prince Philip and Elizabeth II belong to both houses through the male and female lines respectively. Andrew0921 ( talk) 15:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The article on the House of Glücksburg even mentions that Charles is a member of that house. Nobody is denying that he is a Windsor, or that Windsor is his official surname. It is, however, an encyclopedic fact that he is also a member of the House of Glücksburg. and the fact is mentioned because of it's relevance to the article. Precedence is given to his being a member of the House of Windsor first and foremost by listing it above Glücksburg, but the fact remains that the mention of Glücksburg has encyclopedic value. Andrew0921 ( talk) 15:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I second what Andrew0921 says above. A source for Charles being a member of the House of Glücksburg/Oldenburg is Michel Huberty, L'Allemagne dynastique, Volume 7, Giraud, 1994, ISBN 2901138071, ISBN 9782901138075. This is in its nature a genealogical question, the issue of which name he is using a different issue altogether, using the name Windsor changes nothing (the British royal family has actually not settled on one name, but are using several, including Windsor, Mountbatten-Windsor or sometimes only "Wales" (for some of them)). I find it puzzling how some British nationalist editors are seemingly trying to remove his ancestry from the article. Fact is that he is both a patrilineal member of the House of Glücksburg the way the traditional system of genealogy works, and using a different name in the UK under a new system created there in 1952/1960 (which has nothing to do with genealogy/ancestry). In Europe except the UK and the field of royal genealogy internationally, "house" means family in the sense of agnatic lineage ( patrilineality), this has been the system since Roman times. It is a system used by genealogists, and not necessarily a "name" actively used by those considered to be part of the house. This system, and the post-1952/1960 practice in the UK, are obviously not compatible, so the neutral and sensible solution is to list both house names, the house name per the traditional system used by European genealogists (such as Huberty), and the UK-specific system/name. (The House of Windsor is categorized as a cadet branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Charles is obviously not a member of any branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, so if he were to be a member of a house called Windsor, it would be a different house than the House of Windsor that is a cadet branch of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha).
An encyclopedia should not push one point of view only when this can be viewed differently. If a living person (Elizabeth) claims something completely at odds with the way things have worked for thousands of years, we should at the very least mention both positions on the matter. Garn Svend ( talk) 14:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
As Charles was born in 1948, he must, even in Britain, have been considered a member of the House of Glücksburg at the time of his birth. It was only in 1952 and 1960 that his mother issued her Windsor statements. It's only appropriate for this article to have the house he was born into, even by the then British system, listed first. The two Windsor statements actually refer to the name only. Even if the family of Charles is using a new name, it will still be a cadet branch of the parent house of Glücksburg. The 1952 and 1960 Windsor statements say nothing on this issue, so it's reasonable to follow standard, agreed on practice in the field of royal genealogy.
In 1917, George V declared that: "all descendants in the male line of Queen Victoria [i.e., male line descendants of Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha], who are subjects of these realms, other than female descendants who marry or who have married, shall bear the name of Windsor". This did not change until 1952, so Charles was not considered a member of a house of Windsor from 1948 to 1952. Even his mother was not a member of such a house by the provisions of George V's declaration following her 1947 marriage until starting using the name in 1952, she was by marriage a member of the house of Glücksburg, and possibly with her husband's newly adopted surname of Mountbatten. Patrilineality was the system used for house membership everywhere in Europe including the UK until 1952, well into the marriage of Elizabeth and Philip as well as the life of Charles. Garn Svend ( talk) 14:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I came to the article curious about what his actual name is. It seems like the article might discuss this issue a bit. It sounds like it is Charles Mountbatten-Windsor for personal purposes and Charles Windsor for the purposes of his official King/Prince actions based on some of the above posts. I saw in a documentary that he entered the name Mountbatten-Windsor in the official documents of his marriage to Camilla which is consistent with this idea. So now I'm curious what the actual names of William and Harry are. -- Davefoc ( talk) 06:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
If you by name mean surname, it is officially Windsor for some members of that family and Mountbatten-Windsor for other members. But even the ones who are theoretically called Windsor, in practice always use Mountbatten-Windsor. The topic of genealogical-historical house membership and ancestry, of course, is a separate issue. Garn Svend ( talk) 10:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "ancestry" section at the bottom of this page, add the following suffixes to 4 of Prince Charles ancestors:
67.162.11.74 ( talk) 18:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The move of the Prince Charles' new Canadian royal standard into the coat of arms template has drawn my attention to what seems to be an inconsistent and confusing arrangement. The template highlights the Prince of Wales' arms for the United Kingdom and, thus, also contains banners that derive from or are directly related to those arms; namely, the banners for the United Kingdom and Cornwall and the defaced Royal Standard of Scotland. However, the banner of the Duke of Rothsay, and those for Wales and, especially, Canada are completely unrelated to the coat of arms. Why, then, are they included within the template? My feeling is the latter three, at least, should be separated out. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Post-Nominal letters OM
46.246.177.230 ( talk) 13:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Why isn't there anything about this in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.14.251.213 ( talk) 23:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article be titled "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales," instead of "Charles, Prince of Wales." Though it may be implicit with his title, being a Prince, in the sense of territorial nobility (i.e., "Prince of Wales," or "Prince of Monaco," etc.) is different from being the Royal son of a monarch and being styled as a "prince" (i.e., "Prince Charles," or "Prince William"). So, Prince Charles is both; he holds the title, or rank of "Prince of Wales," AND is also a son of the monarch, and thus a "prince" and hence, the article should be "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales." This is the case for all the other members of the Royal Family on wikipedia: Prince William is "Prince William, Duke of Cambridge," or "Prince Andrew, Duke of York," or even "Princess Anne, Princess Royal." It should also be noted that this does not apply for the wives of the married princes. So, the wife of Prince Charles is "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" and not "Princess Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall." Even if the wife of Prince Charles was referred to as the "Princess of Wales," like Diana, Princess of Wales, she would still be "Diana, Princess of Wales" and not "Princess Diana, Princess of Wales." This is due to the fact that they are married into the Royal Family and not the son (or daughter) of the monarch. A good way of looking at this is the German use of "Prince." In German, "Furst" is used as a title of nobility; in the sense like "Prince of Wales," whereas "Prinz" is used for the family members of the monarchy, like "Prince William." Thus, the article should be about "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales," not the simple "Charles, Prince of Wales." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.190.10 ( talk) 06:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could the clause Prince Charles was three years old at his mother's ascension in the first paragraph be changed to Prince Charles was three years old at his mother's accession W4rd3n ( talk) 12:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article be titled "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales," instead of "Charles, Prince of Wales." Though it may be implicit with his title, being a Prince, in the sense of territorial nobility (i.e., "Prince of Wales," or "Prince of Monaco," etc.) is different from being the Royal son of a monarch and being styled as a "prince" (i.e., "Prince Charles," or "Prince William"). So, Prince Charles is both; he holds the title, or rank of "Prince of Wales," AND is also a son of the monarch, and thus a "prince" and hence, the article should be "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales." This is the case for all the other members of the Royal Family on wikipedia: Prince William is "Prince William, Duke of Cambridge," or "Prince Andrew, Duke of York," or even "Princess Anne, Princess Royal." It should also be noted that this does not apply for the wives of the married princes. So, the wife of Prince Charles is "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" and not "Princess Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall." Even if the wife of Prince Charles was referred to as the "Princess of Wales," like Diana, Princess of Wales, she would still be "Diana, Princess of Wales" and not "Princess Diana, Princess of Wales." This is due to the fact that they are married into the Royal Family and not the son (or daughter) of the monarch. A good way of looking at this is the German use of "Prince." In German, "Furst" is used as a title of nobility; in the sense like "Prince of Wales," whereas "Prinz" is used for the family members of the monarchy, like "Prince William." Thus, the article should be about "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales," not the simple "Charles, Prince of Wales." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.190.10 ( talk) 06:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could the clause Prince Charles was three years old at his mother's ascension in the first paragraph be changed to Prince Charles was three years old at his mother's accession W4rd3n ( talk) 12:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} Under the headline "Philosophies and religious beliefs" at the end of the section saying
"Sir Laurens van der Post became a friend of Charles in 1977, a relationship which led him to be dubbed the "guru to Prince Charles", and made godfather to Charles' son, Prince William. From him, the Prince of Wales developed a focus on philosophy, especially that of Asian and Middle Eastern nations, and New Age theology, praising Kabbalistic artworks,[70] and penning a memorial for Kathleen Raine, the Neoplatonist poet, who died in 2003.[71]
The following information should be added:
"In connection to this his interest in the thoughts of René Guénon and other exponents of the Traditionalist School of thought and Perennial philosophy should be mentioned. In 2006, for instance, he gave an introductory speech for a Sacred Web conference.
Source: Video: http://www.sacredweb.com/conference06/conference_introduction_video.html Text: http://www.sacredweb.com/conference06/conference_introduction.html
Commentator1983 ( talk) 22:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Why is it not a reliable source? This is a quote from his speech:
"Temenos Academy and Sacred Web are also, of course, dedicated to an exploration of the role of Tradition in the modern world, the subject of this Conference, and, indeed, to a critique of the false premises of Modernity – a critique set out in one of the seminal texts of the traditionalists, René Guénon’s The Reign of Quantity.
Many find this teaching difficult, not least because it asks us to question our very mode of being; and perhaps because it asks us to question an ideology, in the form of Modernism, that has become so set in our minds that any other way of being seems in some sense fanciful and 'unrealistic'."
And you can verify that he actually said so just listening to his speech following the link to the video I gave in my first contribution on the subject.
I am arguing that the short form of a British royal prince or princess in the opening of the article should include the "The" where applicable, as in "The Prince Charles." I argue that this is distinctive and meaningful as indicated on the British Monarchy's website. I would not, however, include HRH in the opening as this would be like using "Mr" which is not consistent with Wikipedia style as that is purely an honorific. The use of "The" indicates that the prince is a child of the monarch.
The use of "The" is not simply an honorific.
The Royal website does indeed use it, though not consistently, and this is standard practice. I think it's important to remember that the use of "The" is not required, but is meaningful to the title and does exist as part of it.
True, it is not incorrect to say "Prince Charles." However, it is more correct, or formal, to say "The Prince Charles," as this indicates that the individual is a child of the monarch. This is integral to the full princely title and I believe that the name used in the opening should be informative on this point. To the contrary, Charles' son, Prince William, is not The Prince WIlliam. I think it's useful to indicate this distinction where it does exist.
"...one of the Prince's Transylvanian ancestors": any sources about this? Kreuzkümmel ( talk) 14:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
" .......through his great-grandmother Queen Mary, the blood of many Magyar noble families, including several of the Bathory voivodes of Translyvania, flows in his veins. In Romania, by way of Queen Mary's ancestry, he descends from Vlad Dracul, Voivode of Wallachia (father of the original Dracula) and thus from the Bassarab dynasty who were very possibly derived from Genghis Khan himself".
I know that Philip is his father's name and that George is his maternal grandfather's name, but is there any significance to the name Arthur? It is not his paternal grandfather's name. Axeman ( talk) 03:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The source you mention (which I assume you overlooked) denies the fact. It's unfounded, untrue and unsustained thus it serves no purpose or enrichment to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HansRoht ( talk • contribs) 05:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
"The Prince's Charties" and the "The Prince's Charities Canada" are two separate organisations; one is not under or within the other, as DrKiernan's recent edits imply.
If having information about both together in one article is causing confusion, the article The Prince's Charities Canada can be made. I have never been certain the article The Prince's Charities was the right place to put information about The Prince's Charities Canada. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Should the article mention that Charles gave up smoking when he was eleven? ( 92.7.26.60 ( talk) 14:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC))
Would it not be better to place all the criticism the Prince attacks into a more coherent section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.93.239 ( talk) 21:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Hyloscirtus Princecharles. This is the latin name of the new frog species, which scientists have discovered in Ecuador. Got its name from Prince Charles because he occupies years for the conservation of tropical forests and animals, and for this purpose established a special fund for helping. Fairy tale says that the princess kissed the frog, and she turned into a beautiful prince. But this time the opposite happened. Allow me to be funny, the prince became a frog. 78.2.83.247 ( talk) 13:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
sur
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)