![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article contains a translation of Carlo I d'Austria from it.wikipedia. |
Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was no consensus, leaning on don't move. — Nightst a llion (?) Seen this already? 14:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Karl I of Austria → Charles I of Austria - Rationale: The late Emperor Charles of Austria is one of several monarchs who is commonly referred to by an Anglicised name. Typing "Charles I of Austria" - wikipedia into Google yields more results than "Karl I of Austria" - wikipedia. In the effort for and for the sake of consistency, I feel that this page ought to be moved to the Anglicised form of his name as all other Austrian sovereigns are treated, with the exception of Francis Joseph, whom I shall bring up for a requested move. Charles 19:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Charles was also monarch of Hungary, where his name was officially Karoly. And king in other titular kingdoms, too, and of many nations. As I believe the English wikipedia should not be German-centric, I support the neutral name, that is in english. Shilkanni 20:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed following section: and the last king of The Czech Kingdom. His titles claimed of course that he was king of Bohemia, king of Croatia, duke of Carinthia asf, but he reigned in Cisleithania (which included Bohemia and Carinthia) in his right as emperor of Austria and in Transleithania (which included Croatia) in his right as king of Hungary. Either we add all of his titles or we just restrict ourselves in stating that he was the last emperor of Austria and last king of Hungary (since those were the constitutionally "important" ones). Gugganij 16:51, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
At the bottom of the Mihály Károlyi infobox, it reads that Károlyi was preceded by Karl I of Austria as "Provisional President of Hungary". This thread completely gets lost in this article. Could somebody please add this infobox (completed) to the article?
Thanks, Adam78 00:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
He was not provisional president of Hungary. Karl preceded Karolyi as Hungarian Head of State. Perhaps the succession box on Karolyi's page could be better laid out? john k 00:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you – I could have guessed it. ;-) I was doing this job a bit too automatically... Anyway, I've corrected Mihály Károlyi's infobox. Adam78 02:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
does anyone know why he died so young? and of what the cause of death was?
Shouldn't the article's title be "Charles I of Austria", following the convention to anglisize the names? Karl is his german name, the translation of Charles into german. Alex 12.220.157.93 10:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
In any books, incl. schoolbooks, in which I've read about Billy (1 & 2) of Germany, it's always referred to them with the name "William". -Alex, 12.203.169.186 01:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC).
The article says "He reigned as Emperor Charles I of Austria, King Charles III of Bohemia and King Charles IV of Hungary from 1916 until 1918". Karl was certainly titular King of Bohemia but he did not reign as such as Bohemia was included in Austria. I'll remove the reference. Gerard von Hebel 20:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Move.-- Hús ö nd 01:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Karl I of Austria →
Charles I of Austria — The last Emperor of Austria is commonly referred to by the name "Charles". Not only is this name more prevalent online, it is used by the website for his beatification. The last discussed move request seemingly failed because a misunderstanding in the vote (it was not requested because of WP:UE) and one vote in agreement to another which was later withdrawn. Regardless, the use of Charles is prevalent and has the added effect of bringing the names of the emperors into their anglicized forms.
Charles 01:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Since Charles can either be refered to as Charles of Austria or Charles I of Austria, his grandfather and great-grandfather ought to be refered to the same way.
Since titles are generally not are used, for consistancy's sake, use titles for all entries in the chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cladeal832 ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Summary - I have removed the many un-needed & "space-waisting" info boxes, which are rather silly. I removed the section on the Emperor's issue, which is listed twice in the article. Should one need to see if his issue has issue of their own, one can access that partiocular subject's respective article.
In an affort to improve lay out, I put all images into a gallery - these images really didn't look right where they were placed.
I have always felt that one of the resons that wikipedia gets an occasional bad reputation is due to the complete disregard for layout. Many articles look horrible.
-- Mrlopez2681 ( talk) 10:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Since Charles was heir presumptive did he ever hold the title of Crown Prince-Croix 129
Then why is Empress Zita called crown pincess —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.27.64 ( talk) 21:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Charles's reign as King of Hungary was 1916-18 (due to his abdication). But his reign as Emperor of Austria should be 1916-19 (as he didn't abdicate, but rather the Austrian monarchy was abolished, in 1919). GoodDay ( talk) 16:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I notice in the sectin of Official Grand titles a lot of "etc.", as in King of Jerusalem, etc. Is this for a formal reason or did the author not know what to put? -- Eddylyons ( talk) 23:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Toroko please DO NOT REMOVE titles. Wikipedians want to know ALL titles! And once more remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank You. -- Dvatel ( talk) 21:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Toroko, I don`t like to read you nationalistic poems. wikipedian reader -- 88.64.59.189 ( talk) 16:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
This is pretty ridiculous. In 2006 Charles tries a move from Karl I of Austria to Charles I of Austria. It doesn't get too many votes, but there was obviously no consensus to move at all. A year later, he tries again. This time, nobody notices, he gets one other person to vote in favor of the move, and it gets moved. That just isn't a consensus to move at all. john k ( talk) 05:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Charles I of Austria → Charles of Austria – Is it really necessary to have this page named "Charles I of Austria"? There is no monarchy in Austria now, so it is unlikely for a Charles II to come up. If, however unlikely, that does happen, we can always re-move it. I propose to move this article to Charles of Austria. -- Alexcoldcasefan ( talk) 09:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Charles I of Austria's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Brook-Shepherd":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Most of the assessments have no references. Whereas I can trace Helmut Rumpler's statement back to an article in the British newspaper The Guardian [1], the quotes by Anatole France and Herbert Vivian have no source and are probably taken from the essay Why an Austrian Emperor should be canonized by Br. Nathan Cochran, O.S.B., published on Charles' beatification and canonization site, surely not a neutral source. Why should lengthy quotes by a French novelist and an obscure journalist (?) be pitted against a historian's assessment in the first place? Neither do I understand, what the significance of Paul von Hindenburg's statement from 1920 (!) might be. In short, the whole section is not based on reliable sources, but on primary sources, biased in its selection of quotes and unbalanced in as much critics are hardly represented.-- Assayer ( talk) 16:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
"Charles was born on 17 August 1887 in the Castle of Persenbeug in Lower Austria. His parents were Archduke Otto Franz of Austria and Princess Maria Josepha of Saxony. At the time, his granduncle Franz Joseph reigned as Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, while his uncle Franz Ferdinand was heir presumptive."
The last part of this paragraph is nonsense. When Charles was born in 1887, Franz Josef's son Rudolf ( and not Franz Ferdinand ) was the heir. And after Rudolf would have been Karl Ludwig who was also still alive then. Eregli bob ( talk) 09:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I have a question that hopefully someone can answer. Since Jerusalem was under the control of the Ottoman Empire, how was the monarch of Austria-Hungary the King of Jerusalem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.70.93.116 ( talk) 22:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
See the article King of Jerusalem for details. While the Kingdom fell in 1291, succession to the title and claims to it have continued to the present day. His particular lineage goes as following:
Simple enough? Dimadick ( talk) 00:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
'Charles became heir presumptive after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914...'
If Charles became Heir Presumptive, who was Heir Apparent? Valetude ( talk) 13:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Nobody. If there is an heir presumptive, there is no heir apparent. He was heir presumptive because so long as Franz Josef was alive, it was in theory possible that he would remarry and have a son, who would then have become heir. Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 17:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
1. Why is he Charles I and not just Charles? There has been no Charles II. 2. Is he not much better known in English as Karl? The practice of calling European monarchs by English names has just about died out. Almost no-one refers to Francis Joseph anymore. Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 17:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
What was he called before his succession? Archduke Karl? — Tamfang ( talk) 00:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The phrase "On 9 March 1922 he had caught a cold walking into town..." seems to employ the false notion that one catches a cold by being out in cold weather.
That should be rewritten into something more factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.204.117 ( talk) 02:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Charles I of Austria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Why is he Charles the First? He was the last Austro-Hungarian emperor, there was no Charles II - or rather there was a Charles II of Austria, but in the 16th century. Gymnophoria ( talk) 13:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. The biographers of Charles I of Austria do not mention Gerard II of Metz, or Frederick I of Lorraine, or Anthony of Vaudémont, etc, and neither should Wikipedia. Surtsicna ( talk) 21:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The "Hymn" section does not appear to be notable or relevant to the life, legacy, and cultus of Charles I. An internet search shows the hymn neither to be in common usage nor to be an important part of Charles' cultus. I am happy to be contradicted on these points; however, unless its notability can be proven, I shall think it best to remove the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CPClegg ( talk • contribs) 07:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I found an image of him in an old Turkish magazine, Servet-i-Funun. I wonder if here are higher quality versions of this image https://archives.saltresearch.org/bitstream/123456789/129156/79/PFSIF9170222140.jpg WhisperToMe ( talk) 16:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
To my understanding de-facto is used in cases when there’s not a legal status. Like if the true ruler of a country doesn’t hold the highest office or whatever. To me saying he was “de-facto” king implies he ruled the country even if he wasn’t legally King. Would putting “de-jure” work better? I’m not if he actually was recognized as king or if the throne was considered empty. The same issue exists on Ottos profile.
Quoting Neo-Jacobite Herbert Vivian in the Legacy section smacks to me heavily of WP:FRINGE. It's hardly surprising that an ultra-monarchist would have a positive view of Charles; the Herbert Vivian article explicitly mentions that his praise of Charles is believed to be based on his uncritical admiration of kings. Unless there's good reason to do otherwise, I think this quote should be removed. Jah77 ( talk) 20:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article contains a translation of Carlo I d'Austria from it.wikipedia. |
Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was no consensus, leaning on don't move. — Nightst a llion (?) Seen this already? 14:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Karl I of Austria → Charles I of Austria - Rationale: The late Emperor Charles of Austria is one of several monarchs who is commonly referred to by an Anglicised name. Typing "Charles I of Austria" - wikipedia into Google yields more results than "Karl I of Austria" - wikipedia. In the effort for and for the sake of consistency, I feel that this page ought to be moved to the Anglicised form of his name as all other Austrian sovereigns are treated, with the exception of Francis Joseph, whom I shall bring up for a requested move. Charles 19:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Charles was also monarch of Hungary, where his name was officially Karoly. And king in other titular kingdoms, too, and of many nations. As I believe the English wikipedia should not be German-centric, I support the neutral name, that is in english. Shilkanni 20:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed following section: and the last king of The Czech Kingdom. His titles claimed of course that he was king of Bohemia, king of Croatia, duke of Carinthia asf, but he reigned in Cisleithania (which included Bohemia and Carinthia) in his right as emperor of Austria and in Transleithania (which included Croatia) in his right as king of Hungary. Either we add all of his titles or we just restrict ourselves in stating that he was the last emperor of Austria and last king of Hungary (since those were the constitutionally "important" ones). Gugganij 16:51, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
At the bottom of the Mihály Károlyi infobox, it reads that Károlyi was preceded by Karl I of Austria as "Provisional President of Hungary". This thread completely gets lost in this article. Could somebody please add this infobox (completed) to the article?
Thanks, Adam78 00:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
He was not provisional president of Hungary. Karl preceded Karolyi as Hungarian Head of State. Perhaps the succession box on Karolyi's page could be better laid out? john k 00:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you – I could have guessed it. ;-) I was doing this job a bit too automatically... Anyway, I've corrected Mihály Károlyi's infobox. Adam78 02:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
does anyone know why he died so young? and of what the cause of death was?
Shouldn't the article's title be "Charles I of Austria", following the convention to anglisize the names? Karl is his german name, the translation of Charles into german. Alex 12.220.157.93 10:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
In any books, incl. schoolbooks, in which I've read about Billy (1 & 2) of Germany, it's always referred to them with the name "William". -Alex, 12.203.169.186 01:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC).
The article says "He reigned as Emperor Charles I of Austria, King Charles III of Bohemia and King Charles IV of Hungary from 1916 until 1918". Karl was certainly titular King of Bohemia but he did not reign as such as Bohemia was included in Austria. I'll remove the reference. Gerard von Hebel 20:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Move.-- Hús ö nd 01:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Karl I of Austria →
Charles I of Austria — The last Emperor of Austria is commonly referred to by the name "Charles". Not only is this name more prevalent online, it is used by the website for his beatification. The last discussed move request seemingly failed because a misunderstanding in the vote (it was not requested because of WP:UE) and one vote in agreement to another which was later withdrawn. Regardless, the use of Charles is prevalent and has the added effect of bringing the names of the emperors into their anglicized forms.
Charles 01:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Since Charles can either be refered to as Charles of Austria or Charles I of Austria, his grandfather and great-grandfather ought to be refered to the same way.
Since titles are generally not are used, for consistancy's sake, use titles for all entries in the chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cladeal832 ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Summary - I have removed the many un-needed & "space-waisting" info boxes, which are rather silly. I removed the section on the Emperor's issue, which is listed twice in the article. Should one need to see if his issue has issue of their own, one can access that partiocular subject's respective article.
In an affort to improve lay out, I put all images into a gallery - these images really didn't look right where they were placed.
I have always felt that one of the resons that wikipedia gets an occasional bad reputation is due to the complete disregard for layout. Many articles look horrible.
-- Mrlopez2681 ( talk) 10:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Since Charles was heir presumptive did he ever hold the title of Crown Prince-Croix 129
Then why is Empress Zita called crown pincess —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.27.64 ( talk) 21:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Charles's reign as King of Hungary was 1916-18 (due to his abdication). But his reign as Emperor of Austria should be 1916-19 (as he didn't abdicate, but rather the Austrian monarchy was abolished, in 1919). GoodDay ( talk) 16:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I notice in the sectin of Official Grand titles a lot of "etc.", as in King of Jerusalem, etc. Is this for a formal reason or did the author not know what to put? -- Eddylyons ( talk) 23:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Toroko please DO NOT REMOVE titles. Wikipedians want to know ALL titles! And once more remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank You. -- Dvatel ( talk) 21:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Toroko, I don`t like to read you nationalistic poems. wikipedian reader -- 88.64.59.189 ( talk) 16:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
This is pretty ridiculous. In 2006 Charles tries a move from Karl I of Austria to Charles I of Austria. It doesn't get too many votes, but there was obviously no consensus to move at all. A year later, he tries again. This time, nobody notices, he gets one other person to vote in favor of the move, and it gets moved. That just isn't a consensus to move at all. john k ( talk) 05:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Charles I of Austria → Charles of Austria – Is it really necessary to have this page named "Charles I of Austria"? There is no monarchy in Austria now, so it is unlikely for a Charles II to come up. If, however unlikely, that does happen, we can always re-move it. I propose to move this article to Charles of Austria. -- Alexcoldcasefan ( talk) 09:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Charles I of Austria's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Brook-Shepherd":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Most of the assessments have no references. Whereas I can trace Helmut Rumpler's statement back to an article in the British newspaper The Guardian [1], the quotes by Anatole France and Herbert Vivian have no source and are probably taken from the essay Why an Austrian Emperor should be canonized by Br. Nathan Cochran, O.S.B., published on Charles' beatification and canonization site, surely not a neutral source. Why should lengthy quotes by a French novelist and an obscure journalist (?) be pitted against a historian's assessment in the first place? Neither do I understand, what the significance of Paul von Hindenburg's statement from 1920 (!) might be. In short, the whole section is not based on reliable sources, but on primary sources, biased in its selection of quotes and unbalanced in as much critics are hardly represented.-- Assayer ( talk) 16:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
"Charles was born on 17 August 1887 in the Castle of Persenbeug in Lower Austria. His parents were Archduke Otto Franz of Austria and Princess Maria Josepha of Saxony. At the time, his granduncle Franz Joseph reigned as Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, while his uncle Franz Ferdinand was heir presumptive."
The last part of this paragraph is nonsense. When Charles was born in 1887, Franz Josef's son Rudolf ( and not Franz Ferdinand ) was the heir. And after Rudolf would have been Karl Ludwig who was also still alive then. Eregli bob ( talk) 09:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I have a question that hopefully someone can answer. Since Jerusalem was under the control of the Ottoman Empire, how was the monarch of Austria-Hungary the King of Jerusalem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.70.93.116 ( talk) 22:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
See the article King of Jerusalem for details. While the Kingdom fell in 1291, succession to the title and claims to it have continued to the present day. His particular lineage goes as following:
Simple enough? Dimadick ( talk) 00:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
'Charles became heir presumptive after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914...'
If Charles became Heir Presumptive, who was Heir Apparent? Valetude ( talk) 13:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Nobody. If there is an heir presumptive, there is no heir apparent. He was heir presumptive because so long as Franz Josef was alive, it was in theory possible that he would remarry and have a son, who would then have become heir. Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 17:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
1. Why is he Charles I and not just Charles? There has been no Charles II. 2. Is he not much better known in English as Karl? The practice of calling European monarchs by English names has just about died out. Almost no-one refers to Francis Joseph anymore. Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 17:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
What was he called before his succession? Archduke Karl? — Tamfang ( talk) 00:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The phrase "On 9 March 1922 he had caught a cold walking into town..." seems to employ the false notion that one catches a cold by being out in cold weather.
That should be rewritten into something more factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.204.117 ( talk) 02:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Charles I of Austria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Why is he Charles the First? He was the last Austro-Hungarian emperor, there was no Charles II - or rather there was a Charles II of Austria, but in the 16th century. Gymnophoria ( talk) 13:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. The biographers of Charles I of Austria do not mention Gerard II of Metz, or Frederick I of Lorraine, or Anthony of Vaudémont, etc, and neither should Wikipedia. Surtsicna ( talk) 21:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The "Hymn" section does not appear to be notable or relevant to the life, legacy, and cultus of Charles I. An internet search shows the hymn neither to be in common usage nor to be an important part of Charles' cultus. I am happy to be contradicted on these points; however, unless its notability can be proven, I shall think it best to remove the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CPClegg ( talk • contribs) 07:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I found an image of him in an old Turkish magazine, Servet-i-Funun. I wonder if here are higher quality versions of this image https://archives.saltresearch.org/bitstream/123456789/129156/79/PFSIF9170222140.jpg WhisperToMe ( talk) 16:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
To my understanding de-facto is used in cases when there’s not a legal status. Like if the true ruler of a country doesn’t hold the highest office or whatever. To me saying he was “de-facto” king implies he ruled the country even if he wasn’t legally King. Would putting “de-jure” work better? I’m not if he actually was recognized as king or if the throne was considered empty. The same issue exists on Ottos profile.
Quoting Neo-Jacobite Herbert Vivian in the Legacy section smacks to me heavily of WP:FRINGE. It's hardly surprising that an ultra-monarchist would have a positive view of Charles; the Herbert Vivian article explicitly mentions that his praise of Charles is believed to be based on his uncritical admiration of kings. Unless there's good reason to do otherwise, I think this quote should be removed. Jah77 ( talk) 20:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)