Talk:Charles III

Hi,

My change to include "Head of the Commonwealth" as a separate section in the infobox was reverted. I think this is a good change as it seems strange for being head of the Commonwealth to be the first thing mentioned in the infobox. It also seems to go against the point of the title field, which is to display the "Principal substantive title(s) in use". I don't think being head of the Commonwealth is the principal title of Charles III.

I also think including it separately may be worth it for Charles and not the other monarchs, as the independence of the role is much greater. I don't think there was any doubt Elizabeth II would be Head of the Commonwealth, but there was such a discussion and a decision at CHOGM 2018 to choose Charles.

If a separate reign section isn't supported, I would still support removing Head of the Commonwealth from the title field and moving it to a separate footnote next to Commonwealth realms, like "King of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realm, and Head of the Commonwealth(footnote=Independently chosen at CHOGM 2018) Safes007 (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

We had a 2021 RFC on British monarch infoboxes & the result was to include "Head of the Commonwealth" in the infobox in the manner that it has been for the last three years at George VI & Elizabeth II & at Charles III since his becoming monarch. GoodDay (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don’t believe that RFC says that. The full closure states that the title should be included, but without a consensus on how it was to be included. I’m simply saying it doesn’t make sense where it’s included currently. Safes007 (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree. It's an 100% clearcut MoS vio for something to have such huge prominence in the IB, when it's not mentioned at all in the lead section. Either it's an important fact or it's not, and putting it first is entirely silly. But the local consensus heart wants what the local consensus heart wants, it seems.

I think it's especially poorly considered given that the article goes out of its way to obfuscate rather than elucidate the distinction between the Commonwealth (that he's (supposedly sorta elective) symbolic head of) and the Commonwealth realms (that he's the hereditary monarch of). But good luck getting anywhere with that, either. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Safes007 that the previous RfC did not decide where to position the "Head of the Commonwealth" in the infobox, just that it should be included in the infobox. Putting it as the first entry under his name always struck me as odd, because that's not the major function of the monarch. I would put it as an "office2" field, as suggested by Safes007, but I wouldn't duplicate the dates, since they are the same as the reign dates, a point made by Celia Homeford and Ivanvector's squirrel in the previous RfC. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

One further comment: just noticed Safes007's suggestion for a footnote in the infobox. My personal preference is to avoid cites in the infobox, for clutter reasons; it's meant to be a quick summary. The proposed footnote could be included in the body of the article, where the "Head of the Commonwealth" function is discussed. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Safes007:If it were up to me? I'd simply delete it from the infobox, for the same reason I don't support including "Supreme Governor of the Church of England", into the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

But, if there's no consensus to exclude "Head of the Commonwealth" from the infobox? Then, I would support putting that title into a footnote, for the infoboxes of George VI, Elizabeth II & Charles III. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've implemented my second preference and moved Head of the Commonwealth to the first reign section, with a footnote explaining that it's non-hereditary. I think this keeps the title in the box per the RFC, but avoids taking too much room if given a separate reign section. Safes007 (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It looks crowded & leaves the impression that Charles III reigns (which he doesn't) as Head of the Commonwealth, though. GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can see that as an issue, but I think this is the least worst option that includes the title in the infobox, without having a whole other section that repeats information in the reigns section. I’ll add that clarification to the footnote though. Safes007 (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

GoodDay's not wrong about that, but it's IMO still an improvement. OTOH I'm not clear that a separate section (with that text only) wouldn't be better still. Or perhaps with:

... and no more? The notes could stand to be better -- I think perhaps a single one -- and something in the lead in still needed. But the longest journey, etc, etc... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, we can sit back & see how it goes, I reckon. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it should be in the IB at all. It isn't in the lead, isn't what he's known for and is only mentioned twice in the article, once tangentially. The prime minister is also First Lord of the Treasury, Minister for the Civil Service and Minister for the Union. Although the Head of the Commonwealth isn't automatically the monarch the reality is that it invariably is. Sunak doesn't have all his other concurrent roles in his IB and neither should Charles. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I won't complain, if "Head of the Commonwealth" is deleted from the infobox here & from the infoboxes at the Elizabeth II & George VI pages. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The current set up is awful and there is no consensus for it. In the event when there is no consensus, we stick to WP:STATUSQUO. You can change the infobox once the consensus is reached here. Keivan.f^Talk 22:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

What precisely is "awful" about it? Just as SQ can be deployed in the cause of WP:ILIKEIT, so can BOLD/BRD. There's a lot of "I get to revert and it's for the little people to discuss" misinterpretation of the latter, unfortunately. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think there's a stronger case for it to be in the lead than for it to be in the IB. (I mean, that statement is almost universally true, and is backed up pretty directly by the MoS.) Given the past RfC, I'd recommend in the first instance as following the path of least resistance 'so add it to the lead in para four'. If that's not satisfactory, given the prevalence of 'revert on sight' editors on this page, it seems likely it'll be necessary to throw some process at the problem, presumably in the form of a second RfC. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

If and when some person other than the monarch of a lot of its members becomes Head of the Commonwealth, we will almost certainly put it in that person's Infobox. Why not Charles"? HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Tim O'Doherty. There's no need to have it at all. We don't put in Supreme Governor of the Church of England, or Lord of Mann. At best, I'd put this and any other titles Charles holds more or less by virtue of being king (and if he weren't heir apparent, he would not have been considered for the position in 2018) into a footnote to the infobox.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

He is not king of all Commonwealth members, so he does not hold the position by virtue of being king. It's a convention, much newer than the monarchy itself, and one that can change much more easily than being Supreme Governor of the Church of England, or Lord of Mann. HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

We seem to be somewhat in the doldrums here -- or perhaps just stonewalled by reversion antics and lacking the spoons to deal with them. Are we going to have to do a formal RfC, or is there an enlightened compromise version available within existing "binding precedent"? I personally think thunderingly obviously "yes", but I'm not yet motivated to log in to actually do it in the face of such. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe it should be in his infobox because it is more of a role than an office. For example, as King of the United Kingdom, he's also King of Canada, King of Australia, etc., etc. But it's not like we'd add all of the places he's king of into his infobox. For that reason, I wouldn't support this. His role as Head of the Commonwealth is merely a role that is ceremonial and not a governing role.
71.184.82.123 (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

What's the difference between a "role" and an "office"? They're both fancy official titles. Neither than any real power. Neither involves working for a living. And actually we would add the list, except that it's too long to be manageable. See previous discussions on this, really not the place to reopen that can of worms. Anyhoo, previous RfC said "include it", so your immediate options are to go along with that, to start another, or to WP:BEBOLD and try changing it yourself and seeing how that works out for you. Well, you'd have to create an account first, so Boldness Delayed at best. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Should the king's role as the honorary and ceremonial -- but not technically hereditary -- Head of the Commonwealth be mentioned in the main "bio" infobox? If so, in what manner? Should it be mentioned in the article's lead section? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete all - IMHO, "Head of the Commonwealth" should not be mentioned in the lead & should be deleted from the infobox. Same with the Elizabeth II & George VI articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Strong something must be done, due to the current clearcut multiple MOS:INFOBOX, MOS:LEAD and WP:UNDUE vios here. Relatively relaxed as to exactly what. My first (but still weak) preference is that we reduce the prominence of it in the infobox (to somewhere, indeed perhaps immediately below the "is king" stuff), and briefly mention the role in the lead section. In the alternative, we might remove it from the IB completely, and again, mention it in the lead. Or, remove it from both, which would at least be consistent, albeit oddly mute on the topic. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Keep in lead, can remove from infobox - I can see the infobox having just "King of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms" as those seem to me to have more precedence and notability, and I'd say the lead should still mention being Head of the Commonwealth partly as that is his other major position and partly as that leads the WP reader on to further information. Any discussion for the Queen Elizabeth II article should be done at that article, thoough I note this topic and such edits have been done there in the past. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Delete Per my comments in the previous section, this is a relatively minor part of Charles's functions and does not need to be prominently mentioned, either in the infobox or the first paragraph of the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Comment the Head of the Commonwealth is distinct to King Charles' role as head of Commonwealth realms such as New Zealand, Australia, etc.? Traumnovelle (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yus. Which why we should really be being clearer on this in-article. He's head of state of the Commonwealth realms. i.e., king of each separately. "Head of the Commonwealth" essentially means he's 'honorary club chairman' of the CoN as a whole, notwithstanding that most of them are now republics, with their own president. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

After reading through the article I'd say it merits inclusion in the infobox even if I had no idea what it is. Especially given it isn't technically linked to the monarchy and in theory could be given to a plebeian. If there is an actual idea of how to include it in the lead I may support inclusion on that but I cannot think of how to insert it into the current lead. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Candidate locations seem like the first paragraph of the lead -- maybe a little undue, but certainly no more so than having in the IB, and it's very light at present -- or the fourth. i.e. either in the summary of the summary, or of the summary of his reign. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not opposed to it being included in the lead I just don't see a way of doing it in an appropriate way. I don't believe it's undue in the infobox unless you mean by the fact it's located right on top? Traumnovelle (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the positioning at the top makes no sense at any speed, IMO. It suggests it's the most salient thing about him, which clearly it is not. But what's clearly unsustainable with respect to "dueness" is to have it in the IB only (implying Very High Weight due to it being a "key fact about the page's subject"), and not also not in the lead (implying a Much Lower Weight due to it not being among the "most important contents"). Presenting it as a "key", but not "important" fact (???) and never explaining in the body text is a trifecta of nonsense of the sort that Wikipedia specialises in arriving at at random, then preserving in the aspic of process and editor surliness. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't really know where you'd put it, it does seem like an important position given even if it's purely symbolic given how many countries it involves. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I say, I'd fit perfectly well in p1 ("is king; also, is HoC") or in p4 ("became king on death of mother; also, as previously agreed, HoC despite that that not being formally hereditary"). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think paragraph 1 might be best. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Delete from lede, but keep in infobox under |succession2= using |reign-type2=In office. Admittedly, this is debatable. Head of the Commonwealth is a purely ceremonial role at an important intergovernmental organization. Given the importance of the organization, I'm inclined to see it as a personal union. For comparison, the only current personal union I know of is Andorra. I see that the lede and infobox for French president Emmanuel Macron includes his title as Co-Prince of Andorra. An alternate perspective would be to regard Head of the Commonwealth as akin to a patron of a charity. which wouldn't merit mention in either the lede or the infobox. However, given the significance of the Commonwealth of Nations, I think even ceremonial roles in major intergovernmental organizations merit inclusion in infoboxes. The decision about its inclusion in the lede should be based on its significance in the article that the lede summarizes. Regardless of what we decide here, this may change in the future based on his actions in this role. Daask (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC) I retract this entire paragraph per my remarks below, but it's useful and hard to read when striked. Daask (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Comment A crucial factor not reflected in the above discussion (including my own remarks) is that Head of the Commonwealth is also a title of the monarch of each of the Commonwealth realms according to the Royal Style and Titles Act. While the bylaws of the Commonwealth of Nations provide for a different selection process of the title according to that organization, the crown will retain the title according to each of the Commonwealth realms by their own laws. While this would be a confusing mess for Wikipedia should the title be split according to these sources, that is speculative WP:CRYSTALBALL. By law, this title is just part of being King. Since this is a ceremonial role in the Commonwealth of Nations, this discussion is really only about titles. Daask (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Comment There was a prior RFC on the infobox issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty/Archive 5#RFC: Head of the Commonwealth, include or exclude at George VI's & Elizabeth II's infoboxes which decided to include the phrase "Head of the Commonwealth" in infoboxes. Other relevant discussion is at Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 42#Head of the Commonwealth.
• Keep all The title Head of the Commonwealth is the only title shared by all the Commonwealth realms (See Royal Style and Titles Act). Accordingly, I think it is the most inclusive way to refer to Charles' role, roughly synonymous with "King of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms". I like the current status of using |succession=King of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms and |title=Head of the Commonwealth, essentially ignoring the role of Head of the Commonwealth in the Commonwealth of Nations organization. Daask (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I might be misunderstanding your comment -- well, epic series of comments, indeed -- but "keep all" seems to imply that it's mentioned in the lead section at present, which (as I keep pointing out, highly illogically and inconsistently) it is not. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  FWIW, the vast majority of the members of the Commonwealth of Nations, are republics. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

We have multiple articles about paintings of Elizabeth II. So far this one by Jonathan Yeo is the first of the new king to receive significant media attention. Does it deserve an article? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can it not be included in this one? An/or does it belong at Cultural depictions of Charles III? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Jonathan Yeo is certainly a notable artist. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC) But perhaps Camilla will put a match to it?Reply

See His Majesty King Charles III (portrait). (I'm not overly keen on that article title; I'd be inclined to standardise it to Portrait of Charles III.) Ham II (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's the title of the work -- hence the italics. Can't get any more "standardised" than that for the article. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh really? HM King Charles III and Portrait of His Majesty King Charles III are both in use on Yeo's website, and I see Portrait of King Charles III on the website of Apollo magazine and King Charles III on Prospect's website. The attachment to a particular choice of words as the "real" title is bogus. Ham II (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, really. That article neither sources nor mentions any supposed ambiguity about the title. If you've any concerns about that, you should be addressing that at that page, not subtweeting about it here. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Recent D-Day commemorations have given us a smattering of new photographs of His Majesty. I suspect we will get a few more at Trooping the Colour and Garter Day later this month. I'm particularly fond of this one of him saluting next to Macron. The colour of the uniform is just different enough from the stone wall that he doesn't blend into the background and, despite a bit of shadow from his hat, the lighting on his face is better than in the photograph currently being used. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are there any other new photos without hats (? 2401:E180:8830:1AF0:7DFB:714D:B468:C5A (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

None from that event, nor from Trooping the Colour. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

There is one from the Portsmouth part of the commemorations, but there would be two other people's heads in the background. You could try to cut him out but that would be very difficult as his suit is almost the same colour as the drapes, uniforms and steps behind him. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, the fact he is looking somewhat downwards at that moment makes it a bit of a problem. Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, in the wide shot it makes sense because you can see he's standing on a stage holding one arm out but as a close-up it just looks like his neck and shoulders are the wrong shape. The Portsmouth shot has much clearer lighting on his face but the Normandy one has him with a better facial expression. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

They are both valid points, but in addition the colouration in the Normandy is really bad - he seems to have become heavily sunburned overnight. Neither of these are better than the present lead photo. - Davidships (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

How do you mean? RicLightning (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

After opening the photos, just compare the more-or-less normal complexion in Portsmouth on 5 June and the beetroot appearance in France the following day. Perhaps something acceptable will emerge from the coverage of the Japanese state visit. - Davidships (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd say his skin looks worse in the Portsmouth one. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I created a section for Health, with a subsection on Diet, to both of which I moved a few paragraphs from other sections. My thinking on this was due to his recent health issues and the fact that the paragraphs I moved to this new section and subsection seemed out of place where they were previously. nycdi (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply