Talk:Charles III#rfc 2D130CE

{{Talk header|search=yes|less archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}

{{Article history

| currentstatus = GA

| dykdate= 4 June 2023

| dykentry= ... that in 1984, Charles, Prince of Wales described a proposed extension to the National Gallery as a "monstrous carbuncle"?

| dyknom= Template:Did you know nominations/Charles III

| topic = history

| action1 = PR

| action1date = 18:59, 21 April 2023

| action1link = Wikipedia:Peer review/Charles III/archive1

| action1result = reviewed

| action1oldid = 1151076448

| action2 = GAN

| action2date = 01:32, 11 May 2023

| action2link = Talk:Charles III/GA1

| action2result = not listed

| action2oldid = 1154219978

| action3 = GAN

| action3date = 11:05, 22 May 2023

| action3link = Talk:Charles III/GA2

| action3result = passed

| action3oldid = 1156346126

|otd6date=2024-09-08|otd6oldid=1244093057

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|blp=y|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|listas=Charles III|1=

{{WikiProject Biography|military-work-group=y|military-priority=Top|peerage-work-group=y|peerage-priority=Top|royalty-work-group=y|royalty-priority=Top}}

{{WikiProject British Royalty|importance=top|Operation London Bridge=yes|charles=yes}}

{{WikiProject Military history|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|Biography=y|Maritime=y|British=y|Cold-War=y}}

{{WikiProject Caribbean|importance=mid|Jamaica=y|Bahamas=y|Saint Vincent=y|Saint Vincent-importance=Mid|Saint Lucia=y|Antigua and Barbuda=y|Saint Kitts and Nevis=y|Barbados-importance=Mid|Jamaica-importance=Mid|Bahamas-importance=Mid|Saint Lucia-importance=Mid|Antigua and Barbuda-importance=Mid|Saint Kitts and Nevis-importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Polynesia|importance=mid|Tuvalu=y|Tuvalu-importance=top|Niue=y|Niue-importance=top|CI=y|CI-importance=top}}

}}

{{Press

| subject = article

| author = Jody Serrano

| title = How Wikipedia’s ‘Deaditors’ Sprang Into Action on Queen Elizabeth II’s Page After Her Death

| org = Gizmodo

| url = https://gizmodo.com/queen-elizabeth-ii-died-wikipedia-deaditors-charles-1849516945

| date = 9 September 2022

| quote = And then there was Charles, the Queen’s son who has waited to become King for what seems like an eternity. “What name would he take as King?” the Wikipedia editors wondered. They changed his name in the Queen’s article—from “Charles, Princes of Wales” to “Charles III” to “Charles, King of the United Kingdom”—a number of times. (Charles settled on “Charles III.”)

| subject2 = article

| author2 = Annie Rauwerda

| title2 = Who the hell updated Queen Elizabeth II’s Wikipedia page so quickly?

| org2 = Input

| url2 = https://www.inputmag.com/culture/queen-elizabeth-ii-death-wikipedia-updates

| date2 = 9 September 2022

| quote2 = Over on the article for now-King Charles III, there was a frenzy of title changes as editors waited for his regnal name to be announced. Charles' article changed titles five times while people waited for his official regnal name.

| subject3 = article

| author3 = Jeff Parsons

| title3 = How Wikipedia responded when news of the Queen’s death broke

| org3 = Metro (British newspaper)

| url3 = https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/09/how-wikipedia-responded-when-news-of-the-queens-death-broke-17335549/

| date3 = 9 September 2022

| quote3 = For instance, King Charles’ article changed five times as the internet waited for his official title to be revealed.

}}

{{Old moves

| collapse = false

| list =

RM, Charles III → Charles III of the United Kingdom, Not moved, 8 September 2022, discussion
MRV, Endorsed, 11 September 2022, discussion
RM, Charles III → Charles III of the United Kingdom, Not moved, 23 July 2023, discussion
RM, Charles III → Charles III of the United Kingdom, Procedural close, 14 August 2023, discussion

|oldlist=

RM, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales → Charles, Prince of Wales, Moved, 2 September 2007, discussion
RM, Charles, Prince of Wales → Prince Charles, Not moved, 23 August 2012, discussion

}}

{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes|text=Other talk page banners |1=

{{Top 25 Report|July 21, 2013|December 10, 2017|December 17, 2017|December 24, 2017|May 13, 2018|May 20, 2018|November 17, 2019|December 1, 2019|November 15, 2020|November 22, 2020|November 29, 2020|December 6, 2020|December 13, 2020|March 7, 2021|March 14, 2021|April 4, 2021|until|April 18, 2021|September 4, 2022|until|September 25, 2022|April 30, 2023|May 7, 2023|February 4, 2024}}

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{talkarchive}}

|maxarchivesize = 150K

|counter = 16

|minthreadsleft = 3

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(30d)

|archive = Talk:Charles III/Archive %(counter)d

}}

Lead image

File:His Majesty The King of Canada Charles III.png

Left image for new infobox image? Taken in 2025 in Canada. Rexophile (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:His face doesn't look as washed out and is more natural. Rexophile (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::Another photo, the disadvantage is that part of the front is blocked by the hand

::File:King Charles III April 2025 (2).jpg 1.165.6.114 (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::Although the exposure in the 1st nom is better, the "gritted teeth" look is rather odd - not really suitable as a lead photo for a head of state. - Davidships (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I wouldn't call that exactly gritted. That's Charles' smile. Rexophile (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:I would say it is not a good photo. Nor is the current one. If we look at the infobox photoes of other monarchs such as Elizabeth II or George V we see an official portrait of some type. I argue it is irrational for us to aply a double standart where we use an official portrait for a dead monarch and an unofficial one for a living one. It appears to happen all across Wikipedia, but I do not think that binds us as there is no official guideline. Finfixer (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::And to add clarification to what I would consider sufficiently official. I would say it should contain royal regalia and/or a military uniform of some form. Such would align it with the standart of pomp and pageantry associated with the monarchy in Britain aswell as what we see in articles about other British monarchs. Finfixer (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Those images are all old, and therefore free use. We can't use recent images of Charles if they are still copyrighted. DrKay (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::::It so seems. I wonder why Buckingham Palace wont release a free photo for media and information purposes. It would seem reasonable. It would help out Wikipedia a lot. Finfixer (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::A photo free for media and information purposes doesn't suffice for Wikipedia. The image must be released under a CC license or be in the public domain. And even so the CC license must include commercial purposes, which would be entirely different than for media and information purposes. Rexophile (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::^^ Per the Media Centre page on The Royal Family website: "Please note that we are unable to supply images of members of the Royal Family for commercial reprographic purposes." Rexophile (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2025

I request permission to edit the page about Charles III, i wanna fix some grammar. Bjornkarateboy (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:Qualify as an autoconfirmed editor and you can do so. Or you can tell us what the errors are and we will do it. What are they?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

::Some links on his date of birth Bjornkarateboy (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Per WP:DATELINK we don't do that. Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to restore content on Royal Train decommissioning

I’d like to restore a sourced paragraph about the 2025 decommissioning of the Royal Train. The decision ended over 180 years of royal rail travel, a tradition that began with Queen Victoria in 1842. It was described by the Keeper of the Privy Purse as part of efforts to promote “fiscal discipline” and modernise royal transport.

This seems relevant to the King Charles III article because it reflects a notable decision made during his reign—one that aligns with his broader approach to streamlining royal operations and adapting to modern expectations. ItsShandog (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:This is an article-length biography, not an exhaustive timeline of events. To me, this is due in (say) Royal train and British Royal Train, but I fail to see how it is of similar importance to other events in the section as concerns this article about Charles. Remsense 🌈 论 21:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:I would re-add it. The King's modern role is serving as our head of state and managing the royal family (including its affairs), of which its transport obviously plays a part. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

::Happy to defer if others want to re-add it, of course. Remsense 🌈 论 21:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I think the Royal Train’s decommissioning is relevant for similar reasons to the inclusion of the 2023 decision on offshore windfarm profits. Both were decisions approved by the King during his reign that reflect broader themes of modernisation and adapting the monarchy to public expectations. In this case, the retirement of the Royal Train also brought an end to over 180 years of tradition, which adds historical significance. Since it’s only a brief sentence, and proportionate in tone, I think it fits alongside other symbolic or administrative milestones in the Reign section. ItsShandog (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I wonder how much Charles was actually involved in this decision. Is this similar to HMY Britannia's case, whereby the decommissioning took place entirely due to government's demands? And it's also interesting how that's not even mentioned in Elizabeth II's article. Keivan.f^Talk 03:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::I wanted to include this in Charles’s article because it marks the end of royal rail travel after 180 years—a historically significant shift. The decommissioning of Britannia was also a major moment, and I’m surprised it’s not mentioned on her page. That said, the Royal Family continued travelling by sea on other vessels, so it wasn’t the end of maritime royal journeys altogether. Knowing Charles’s environmental priorities and his vision for a modernised monarchy, I believe he strongly supported this decision. ItsShandog (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)