Talk:Charles III/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Use of surname

Surely his surname 'Windsor' should not belong in this page title. He should be described simply as 'Charles, Prince of Wales'. His surname would only come into play if the monarchy was abolished or he was removed from the line of succession. After all, his mother isn't referred to as 'Elizabeth II Windsor' or 'Elizabeth Windsor II' or the Spanish king as 'Juan Carlos Bourbon y Bourbon'. JTD 04:08 Dec 22, 2002 (UTC)

But he isn't a monarch yet. Prince Harry is at "Henry Charles Albert Windsor", although his brother is at Prince William of Wales, so we're being rather inconsistant. -- Zoe

I moved him, and unlinked the original page in Zoe's quote above to avoid creating a double redirect. Harry's now at Prince Harry of Wales. -- Someone else 00:25 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

I agree, Zoe. I've checked other references on Wikipedia and noticed it. I've renamed the page to match the correct title, 'Charles, Prince of Wales'. When I get the chance I'll rename Harry's page as 'Prince Harry of Wales' even though technically his actual formal name is 'Prince Henry of Wales' as 'Harry' is just a parental nickname. (Hell, if we call him 'Harry', maybe Prince William's page should be 'Prince Wills of Wales' to use his nickname. Too much consistency and we will also go mad!!! I think I've been hit by that dreaded bug 'wiki-itis'. ) JTD 06:02 Dec 22, 2002 (UTC)

Although his present title is Prince of Wales, he is not the only Charles to have held this title - Charles I held it officially and Charles II unofficially. If you plan on keeping it here, you need to cross-refer to both of them. --Deb

But as they went on to become king, surely they are entered in Wikipedia as kings, not as princes of wales. (I thought the rule was to apply the most common unambiguous usage name.) Putting on my historian's hat, I don't know of a single person who if you refer to 'Charles, Prince of Wales' would think that refers to anyone other than the current Prince Charles, nor a single person who would describe Charles I as 'Charles, Prince of Wales'. But I will do what you suggest. (The one thing I really like about Wikipedia is how seriously we take it, and in our desire to getting things right. Wikipedia is growing into a treasure-trove of information and analysis, far better than most encyclopedias I've ever encountered!) JTD 18:49 Dec 22, 2002 (UTC)

My point is that, if someone were reading an old work which referred to, say, Charles I at the time he was Prince of Wales, it might well call him, "Charles, Prince of Wales". Someone who then tried to find him in wikipedia would be confused by what they found. (Okay, maybe only an ignoramus would be confused, but we are doing it in order to impart knowledge to others who don't have it, aren't we?) --Deb

Former monarchs and their titles

In the text it says Constantine II kept the title "King of Greece" but if the monarchy was legally abolished how could he?

In general, people refer to former kings by their former titles, though of course some people object to this. What's NOT done is to refer to "claimants" who have never reigned by the titles they claim: this is the difference between Constantine and his son: his son never reigned. FWIW, Constantine maintains a website at both www.kingofgreece.org and www.formerkingofgreece.org <!> -- Someone else 22:19 Dec 24, 2002 (UTC)

How ironic, they are both down ATM. - Lucky13pjn 15:31, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Public acceptability of Camilla as his consort

Also is Diana the reason it is seen as unacceptable for Camilla to have the title "Princess of Wales"?

It is not so much Diana, though there would be an emtional link between the term 'princess of wales' and Diana in most people's minds. It is the fact that Camilla is seen as the person who wrecked Diana'a marriage to Charles. That of course is a debatable point; people who knew both Charles and Diana say that there marriage had little hope even without Camilla because the couple were highly incompatable (Diana indeed was the author of much of that because she 'pretended' to like Charles' interests - hunting, living in the countryside, religion, etc - only to reveal that it was a pretence after the marriage). People have warmed somewhat to Camilla because (a) she was clearly his 'true love' (they had dated in the 1970s, but he was slow to propose, lest he make a mistake and pick someone who wouldn't be approved of by the people. She gave up waiting, met and married someone else, and then found herself in an unhappy marriage, as did he!) (b) she has had the full force of the St. James's Palace spin machine working to improve her image; (c) she clearly is devoted to him; (d) she has been accepted as a form of step-mother (in the absence of a marriage, a step-partner perhaps?) by his sons.

So people are increasingly willing to accept her as Charles's wife, presumably with some title (especially as they are now a couple in the 50s with a long history behind them), but without the beloved Diana's 'princess of wales' tag or wearing the crown as queen consort. To use a parallel, some people might accept (someday) an American president who is gay having a longterm partner but they would not accept that boyfriend having an official state role. It is a case of a pragmatic solution to a relationship, without giving it formal constitutional acceptance.

Re - the issue of a deposed monarch's titles. Ex-monarchs are frequently accepted as being entitled to use their title as a form of courtesy title. This comes from the belief that a person inheriting a throne has been given it by God (and the people), and so either the monarchs themselves (through abdication) or God (through death) can take it away. Most states have no problem with this. Some even give ex-monarchs diplomatic passports, or even use them as roving ambassadors abroad. Occasionally a state, often for personal reasons among its politicians, may kick up a fuss. The relationship between Constantine II and Greek politicians has long been strained. His political meddling in the mid 1960s was widely blamed for causing the coup that produced the regime of the colonels. Former Greek prime minister (under the monarchy) and President of the Republic Constantine Karaminlis called Constantine '(King) Paul's naughty little boy'. Andreas Papandreou blamed Constantine for his treatment of his father, who served for a while as Constantine's Prime Minister before being axed. And Constantine thinks the politicians shafted him by not allowing him to return to Greece in 1974 prior to the referendum on the monarchy. So Constantine is hated by the political elite (and much of the electorate) in the way, say, King Michael I of Roumania, King Simeon of Bulgaria, Crown Prince Alexander of Serbia or the late King Umberto II of Italy never has been. JTD 22:15 Dec 29, 2002 (UTC)

Legal acceptability of Camilla as his consort

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Controversialness' of his opinions on architecture &c.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• architecture.
• organic farming.
• genetically modified organisms
• nanotechnology.

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

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

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

Use of the definite article in certain titles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is 'HRH' enough a part of his title?

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

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

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

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

.. and ...

HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus:

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

... or ...

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

... or ...

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

... or ...

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

... or something else?

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

re revert.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus:

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

... or ...

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

... or ...

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

... or ...

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

... or something else?

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

re revert.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Official Title

Where did the "official title" come from?

Minor decorations (eg the Garter) have been put in before the titles of nobility.

Earldom of Chester: isn't this a special case? Is it awarded at the same time as Prince of Wales, or is it linked with the title. Is he in the hierarchy of the peerage Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall and Earl of Chester or "Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall" garryq 13:52, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Burke's calls him "The Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Chester, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Great Steward of Scotland (Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor [sic], KG, KT, GCB, AK, QSO, PC) [HRH The Prince of Wales KG KT GCB PC]". I would think that if all the titles were given together the knighthoods etc should come after the peerages etc rather than before. Proteus 15:17, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. That would mean that the current text:

The Prince's full title is: His Royal Highness Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, Knight of the Garter, Knight of the Thistle, Knight Grand Commander of the Order of the Bath, Member of the Order of Merit, Knight of the Order of Australia, Member of the Queen's Service Order, Privy Counsellor, Aide-de-Campe to Her Majesty, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Chester, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland.

... be changed to something like:

The Prince's full title is: His Royal Highness Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Chester, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Great Steward of Scotland, Knight of the Garter, Knight of the Thistle, Knight Grand Commander of the Order of the Bath, Member of the Order of Merit, Knight of the Order of Australia, Member of the Queen's Service Order, Privy Counsellor, Aide-de-Campe to Her Majesty.

... though I've removed "Prince [...] of Scotland", as, AFAIAA, he's not (?). Is it Aide-de-Camp or Aide-de-Campe (and should the 'c' be capitalised or not)? Furthermore, Burke's seems to miss out OM....

James F. (talk) 16:57, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

James part of the title is "Prince and Great Steward of Scotland". The Great Steward is the first born prince of the king. And it is "Aide-de-Camp" no e garryq 18:16, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've amended the main article so that the official title follows the one given on http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/about/bio_titles.html.

It seems the Earldom of Chester was a principality by act of parliament. The act was repealed after 8 months but it is still given the higher status by custom.

The knighthoods precede the other titles because he is known day-to-day only as the Prince of Wales, if there is an occasion all his noble titles are used then KG etc follow Prince and Great Steward of Scotland. garryq 18:16, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mountbatten-Windsor vs Windsor only

Today in the newspaper, the smart ID card of HRH is shown, and his surname is only "Windsor" rather than the long "Mountbatten-Windsor". Which one is more official? -- Tomchiukc 10:35, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Which newspaper was this? Was it an official card or just a mock-up made by the paper? Legally, he doesn't have a surname. His full legal name would be "His Royal Highness Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales" or some such. (Regardless of the fact that he's a member of the Royal family, who don't use surnames, even on official legal documents, he's a peer, and no peer legally has a surname, as their title takes its place, with "John James Smith, Esquire" being ennobled as "Earl of Blankshire" and legally becoming "The Right Honourable John James, Earl of Blankshire".) As to which is more official, I'd say the version approved by the Palace, which is "Mountbatten-Windsor", but it's not official as such, merely more so than "Windsor". Proteus 14:34, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The reference to Charles becoming George VII when King is not common knowledge. Are there any references for when this was said?

CoE objections to marriage dropped.

According to The Sun, the Archbishop of Canterbury has dropped his objection to Charles and Camilla marrying -- Jim Regan 21:47, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To be slighltly more accurate, the AoC has noted that, as of a few months (?) ago, the legal problems have somewhat abated, and that he would give his personal, err, blessing (sorry) to such a union.

James F. (talk) 22:39, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Circumcision status

I included some information about Charles' circumcision status. It is copied directly from the article on this site on circumcision. I found it to be very interesting. Hope you do too.

• 209.217.75.162 10:01, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Title

Just out of curiosity: shouldn't it be "Prince Charles of Wales" rather than "Charles, Prince of Wales" ? Sky 13:50, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No. Prince (x) of Wales means son of the Prince of Wales. So technically Prince William is Prince William of Wales. But Charles isn't merely Prince Charles of Wales, he is the Prince of Wales. Charles is simply used in the title here for disambigulation. Ditto the children of the Duke of York are Princess Beatrice of York and Princess Eugenie of York. But their father is not and could never be described as Prince Andrew of York - that would indicate a son called Andrew of the Duke of York. Royal nomenclature is complicated but the form Prince/ss (x) of (title) means son/daughter of a royal prince/ss holding that title, not the title holder itself. FearÉIREANN 19:03, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Painter

I have again tken out bthe category British Painters. A look at the category shows it to be for professional rather than hobbyist painters, no matter how good they are.

I see I am not the first to remove the category or to have pigsonthewing re-revert. Cannot see why my change is POV, I describe Wales as a hobby painter, implying professional public servant/heir apparent/Prince. Does pigsonthewing think his roles reversed? --garryq 09:35, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please explain the difference between "professional" and "hobbyist" painters (with particular refence to the number of paintings sold by van Gough), and show where the definition of the category limits it to the former. Andy Mabbett 22:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Categorization#When_to_use_categories: "If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?" - The category subject is not discussed at all in the article. Also "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." PMcM

Not only have you not answered my question, but your quoting from that page is highly selective. Andy Mabbett 14:26, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You can read the entire page if you want, but I thought it inappropriate to quote it all here. The intent of the page is clear. It wasn't me that you asked the question of; but some may possibly argue that Vincent_Van_Gogh (there is no painter called "van Gough") has been a somewhat more influential artist than Prince Charles. (Apologies for forgetting to sign the last one.) PMcM 14:41, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Somewhat more sensible since you added painting info., but still a bit of a shaky leap if you ask me. Also, if you could include the ISBN info in your references in the proper format (i.e., without the colon), then they're a little more useful. Thanks. PMcM 14:54, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Andy, as pointed out I cannot make any reference to van Gough. However I had assumed the professional/hobbyist difference self evident, to a dedication to the art, Vincent Van Gogh may not have sold much, or even made as much as HRH's books, but he did not regard painting as a leisure interest. --garryq 19:04, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Prince Charles, Prince of Wales"

We use "Prince Andrew, Duke of York," "Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex," etc. Thus, to be consistent, one should use "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales." This form is not incorrect; the Prince of Wales's title would probably be: "HRH The Prince Charles [Philip Arthur George], Prince of Wales, Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay ..." So "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales" is not incorrect. This form has the additional advantage of recognisability for the uninitiated. -- Emsworth 21:05, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As a further note, I will be making the appropriate moves for Princes of Wales since 1714 (this would only apply to The Prince Frederick Louis, Prince of Wales) and for Princesses Royal since 1714. I had tried to discuss this on the naming conventions page, but received no response. -- Emsworth 21:08, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can I suggest you also fix up the disambiguation page as well? Berek 11:14, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually Ems, and I normally have the highest regard for your work, this is a major error. Charles has not been Prince Charles since 1952. I checked that before with Buckingham Palace and his then office in St. James Palace. (The only exception is Scotland, where he is, as his office explained, The Prince Charles, not Prince Charles.) They reckoned that Charles, Prince of Wales though somewhat inaccurate was the least inaccurate way of diffrentating between Princes of Wales. But Prince Charles, Prince of Wales is 100% wrong and has no place in an encyclopaedia. Andrew and the others were written using the Prince reference simply because their titles were less well known and people may not realise that their dukedom or earldom was an royal dukedom or earldom. But no-one on the planet over the age of 7 thinks Prince of Wales is anything other than a royal title. In addition, technically Andrew was Prince Andrew until 1986, Edward Prince Edward until the 1990s. But Charles legally and constitutionally ceased to be Prince Charles fifty-two years ago!

And doing what you did opens up the nightmare prospect of people writing Princess Diana in titles. There never was such a person. There was the Hon. Diana Spencer, Lady Diana Spencer, the Princess of Wales and Diana, Princess of Wales. But there never was a Princess Diana - it was just populist media shorthand and should be explained as such in the article, not appearing in the article title as if a correct title. Moving from necessary inaccuracy to achieve a distinction between office holders to serious inaccuracy with a mythical title risks what happened before on wikipedia, a free-for-all of 'if you can make up a version, so can I' writing. (That's how this page, ludicrously, was once under Charles Windsor!!!)

I think you should change the names back to their accurate, or least inaccurate form from the dubious version here. (As to no response in the debate pages, I haven't been on for a while. If I saw it there I would have challenged it, as would the people who did the initial research that produced the original titles.)

But that doesn't in any way distract from the exceptionally high standard of your other work, which I have long admired. It is work of that usual calibre that makes wikipedia the incredible success it is. :-) FearÉIREANN 16:48, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Whilst I, too, hold the highest opinion of you and your knowledge relating to royalty, I am afraid I must disagree that "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales" is incorrect. I actually looked up the issue on alt.talk.royalty before making the suggestion above. Here is what I found:

• "HRH The Earl of Wessex" is only an abbreviation for "HRH The Prince Edward,Earl of Wessex",just as "HRH The Prince of Wales" is an abbreviation for "HRH The Prince Charles,Prince of Wales,Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay,Earl of Chester and Carrick". -- Louis Epstein (User:12.144.5.2)

But the above may have been slightly erroneous. For example, from what Peter Tilman tells me, the Earldom of Chester is traditionally mentioned before the ducal titles (as it was formerly regarded as a Principality), but the same is not adhered to above. I therefore looked for confirmation in legal documents.

• "His Royal Highness The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, and His Royal Highness The Prince Andrew, Duke of York" -- The Solicitor General's Salary Order 1997
• "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother and His Royal Highness The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales" -- The Saint Vincent Constitution Order 1979

So, as I interpret it, "The Prince of Wales" is a short form for "The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales." This would also be consistent with "HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay."

Now, as to the question of the article title itself: If "HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York" is condensed into "Prince Andrew, Duke of York," then it would be equally appropriate to condense "HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales" to "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales." (It might be more appropriate to include the definite article in each instance.)

-- Emsworth 18:32, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is silly. There's no need to say "Prince" twice. Princes of Wales and Princesses Royal already have prince or princess in the title they were given, so there's no need to use it twice. It just looks bad. john k 23:43, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To add: if we must be (falsely?) consistent, I'd rather move Prince Andrew to Andrew, Duke of York than have Charles here. john k 23:45, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But HRH The Prince of Wales is not "Prince Charles" by virtue of the Principality of Wales. "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales" acknowledges, firstly, that he is a Prince under letters patent I believe to have been issued in 1917, and secondly that he is the Prince of Wales. The same goes for HRH The Duke of York and others. Furthermore, these styles have the advantage of indicating to the uninitiated that "Prince Charles" is the subject of the article; "Charles, Prince of Wales" is not as recognisable. So I don't think that the form "Prince X, [Title] of Y" necessarily looks inappropriate. -- Emsworth 01:02, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. The problem is that it is awkward. Article titles shouldn't be designed primarily to be didactic - they should also try to be as elegant as possible, and two princes in a row is deeply unpleasant to look out, with few corresponding advantages. It has been at "Charles, Prince of Wales" for at least a year now with no notable complaints from the relatively ignorant. john k 03:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Divorcé or widower?

So, is Charles a "widower, not a divorcé"? Lots of different sources have suggested the former... perhaps it is one of those oddities of Church law? Or a significant spreading of misinformation designed to make Mr. Parker-Bowles worried for his life. ;-)
James F. (talk) 16:26, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Charles is a widower. Even when the Church of England was applying its strictest rules against remarriage of divorcees, a divorcee was allowed to remarry after their spouse was dead. There would be nothing in CofE rules to prevent him marrying again if he so chose. Marrying a divorcee might be another matter. DJ Clayworth 16:33, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, he's not a widower. He's allowed to remarry, but he was divorced from his wife when she died. That makes him a divorcé, not a widower. A widower is a man who has lost his wife through death. - Nunh-huh 00:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Those are dictionary definitions and so it is possible (and knowing of British laws, CoE laws especially, probable) that the legal ones are... somewhat different.

Perhaps some references, one way or another, would be beneficial?

James F. (talk) 00:36, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What is the Church of England rule on divorce? Was Charles divorced in accordance with the rules of the Church of England, or just civilly? If he was not divorced in the eyes of the Church of England, then he is now a widower in the eyes of the Church of England, right? I know this can happen with the Catholic Church. (I was writing this at the sametime as Mr. Forrester, and I fully agree with him - someone needs to figure out what the exact CofE status is, here. john k 00:38, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Church of England as an established church is a creature of the state. The Church of England has no choice but to recognize the legality of divorce; the laws of the UK are its laws: the Church cannot marry people except in accord with law. There's no separate ecclesiastical law on marriage in the UK: marriages, divorces and annulments are civil matters: CoE marriages are governed by the 1949 Marriage Act. The impediment to marriage of a person with a living ex-spouse is codified in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965, s.8, which calls that person a "divorcée". Further, any CoE priest is free to either perform or not perform a marriage ceremony for that person: the Church cannot prevent this. That the CoE calls such persons "divorcees" may be seen here. - Nunh-huh 00:55, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

According to Blackstone, a divorce a vinculo matrimonii is a "total" divorce—in modern terms, an annulment—which renders the marriage void ab initio. A divorce a mensa et thoro is referred to as a "partial" divorce by Blackstone; it supposedly only separates the party "from bed and board," but does not completely dissolve the marriage—hence, the prohibition on remarriage. But, in any event, the union must be dissolved upon the death of one party—hence, HRH The Prince of Wales may remarry. -- Emsworth 22:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes. But he's still not a widower, he's a divorcé. - Nunh-huh 02:53, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Curious Reader: I agree , he's not a widower. Charles & Diana were divorced (Aug.28th ,1996) ,at that momment on ,Charles was no longer Diana's husband.

Silly question on surname

It's stated above that Royals have no surname. But if Charles, or someone on his behalf, were filling out a standard form requiring a first and surname what would the name on the form be? I can't see many online sites accepting a first name and titles! Timrollpickering 22:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mountbatten-Windsor, AIUI.

James F. (talk) 23:35, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can't see His Royal Highness having much need for filling out a form, but if necessary he'd probably use "Wales" or "Prince of Wales". Proteus (Talk) 08:08, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but if a lackey feels there should be a surname, he'll fill one in. When Charles's sister Anne was married, she signed only Anne, but a helpful lackey tucked her in the register as Mountbatten-Windsor. Yet there has never been a clear legal statement of any last name for either Charles or Anne.

In 1917 George V proclaimed "that all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor": this of course, applies neither to Charles or Anne as they are not in the male line of Queen Victoria.

In 1952 Queen Elizabeth II proclaimed "that She and Her Children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that Her descendants other than female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Windsor. This would indicate that CHarles and Anne should be surnamed "Windsor"

But Queen Elizabeth II in 1960 ordered: "while I and my children will continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, my descendants, other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attributes of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess, and female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name Mountbatten-Windsor."

But this does not apply to either Charles or Anne, as they both have the style and dignity of RH and Prince or Princess, and thus if one goes by law, they should be surnamed Windsor. However, the actual practice seems to be that they are called "Mountbatten-Windsor" and in things British what is done is often more important than what is written. -- Nunh-huh 08:43, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See: British Royalty FAQs

The horrendously worded warrants of HM The Queen have no bearing on this issue, for legally, peers (one of whom is HRH The Prince of Wales) do not have surnames. The proper form would seem to be "Forename, Rank of Title," as in "Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales." -- Emsworth 01:52, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe that these are letters patent, rather than royal warrants. About this peers having no surnames thing...from where do the peer's children acquire their surnames? If their father does not have a surname, how does this work? Surely this (frequently repeated) statement is not quite right? john k 02:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Their family retains its surname, but the peer (or peers) of that family do not use it, instead using their title name as a surname where convenient. HRH The Prince of Wales used the name 'Charles Wales' during his military days, and the Rt Hon Richard [Bridgeman], Earl of Bradford sometimes uses the name 'Richard Bradford'. Courtesy peers use the same form. Younger children of peers use the family surname, since they are not themselves peers.

The surnames presumably exist somewhere in the ether, hanging around to reappear on the birth of a child, but legally a peer is, for example, "The Most Honourable Alexander George, Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair", with no room for a surname. The surnames are written in square brackets in Cracroft's Peerage, for this reason (so it describes Lord Aberdeen as "Alexander George [Gordon], 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair"). Proteus (Talk) 09:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Diana, Princes of Wales always signed her name as "Wales".

This BBC News story disagrees. Proteus (Talk) 18:48, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The wedding banns form published in several British newspapers today show a box for "first name, surname". PARKER BOWLES is in capitals for Camilla, whilst for Charles the full entry is "His Royal Highness Prince Charles THE PRINCE OF WALES". So that would make "THE PRINCE OF WALES" his "surname" for such purposes. Timrollpickering 21:05, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Marriage by publication of wedding banns is part of one of the four methods of being married within the Church of England. It's not a requirement for civil marriages; for civil marriages one "gives notice" rather than have banns read. Are they trying to make the marriage look like a CoE wedding, or just covering all bases in case the civil thing turns out not to be legal? - Nunh-huh 21:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not really sure as I saw the banns on the front page and the story further in. I suspect "banns" has been used as a general term for formally announcing a wedding. Timrollpickering 22:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I have a feeling we'll see more interesting developments<g>. - Nunh-huh 23:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

About his official residence

I would like to edit it to say: "his partners, his two sons (when they are about) and their extensive.....".

This would be my first edit in Wikipedia. I would appreciate some feedback from someone who has some experience editing this page.

Welcome! I think that perhaps something like "his immediate family" rather than explicitly mentioning CPB and the Princes, though I'm not sure on that, either. "When they are about" seems a bit too informal, though...

If you have any questions, please feel free to bring them to me (via my talk page). And be bold!

James F. (talk) 01:31, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

re proposed move, see bottom of page. FearÉIREANN 01:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

2nd marriage - proposal

"These issues were resolved and allowed the Prince to propose to Mrs Parker Bowles."

How do we know who proposed to whom? Has it been announced? Cal T 20:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

According to this BBC story it was Charles. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1958? A typo for 1968?

Since 1958, he has been known as:

• His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales (outside Scotland)

I wonder if that should have said 1968? Michael Hardy 22:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe so - he became "His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales" the moment his mother became queen, which was in 1958. ugen64 20:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, you're both wrong. Elizabeth II became queen in 1952. Charles then became automatically "HRH The Duke of Cornwall". But it wasn't until he was specifically created Prince of Wales in 1958 that he became Prince of Wales. The 1968 (or 1969?) date is the date he was invested as Prince of Wales, but this ceremony is not necessary to become PoW, and indeed, the only other modern PoW to be invested was the future Edward VIII. john k 20:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was the other way around - he is automatically the Prince of Wales, then he is created Duke of Cornwall... right-o. ugen64 07:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Over a year later) No, that's not right. He became the Duke of Cornwall the moment Elizabeth became queen. That title belongs to the eldest son of the monarch automatically. The title Prince of Wales is not automatic, but is a matter entirely at the discretion of the monarch. The only person upon whom she could bestow the title is her son the Duke of Cornwall, but whether or not she bestows it on him, and if so, when, are entirely up to her. JackofOz 08:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

2nd marriage

" As royals were excluded from the law which legalized civil marriages in England, this particular arrangement is problematic and may need to be altered." Can we have a cite for this? Is it actually a law that they marry in church? Wouldn't they be subject to the same laws (+Royal Marriages Act & Act of Settlement) as everyone else?

No, they are not. As stated, the Royal Family were excluded from the law instituting civil marriages, the Marriage Act of 1836. There has been no law modifying this that would permit a civil marriage in England for a member of the Royal Family. - Nunh-huh 06:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Although I do not have a copy of the Marriage Act 1836 (as revised), I am aware that the right to marry is enshrined in Human Rights legislation, and that if there is any conflict between the two, the Human Rights Act will take precedence. Anyway, you need to provide a verifiable modern source interpreting the Marriage Act 1836 (as revised) in the way you seek to. Without one your comments fail the "no original research" requirement, which means they will be removed. Kind regards, jguk 07:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Um... The reference is the Marriage Act of 1836. Check it. It's not original research, and is certainly less original than your opinion of what you think might be the interaction between (unspecified) human rights legislation and the various marriage acts and other legislation governing marriages of the Royal Family in the UK. - Nunh-huh 07:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are implying that any such "marriage" between Charles and Camillia would have no legal validity. You need more to support that than your reading of a 169 year old bit of legislation. Can you reference a legal opinion by leading counsel on the point? Have you considered all other documents and legislation and customs that may be relevant in determining whether any marriage is legal? Absent a 3P opinion, one person's reading of one Act (or even many Acts), comes down as original research, jguk 08:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are making the implication. I am merely stating the fact that the Royal Family was specifically exempted from the marriage acts which instituted marriage outside the Church of England. The specific theory under which Prince Charles could contract a marriage in England outside of the Church of England has not been specified. By anyone. When that theory is made public, we should certainly add it to the article. - Nunh-huh 08:23, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Making an edit such as yours implies that the point is somehow relevant (if it's irrelevant, it shouldn't be in the article). Since, as far as I am aware, no-one suitably qualified has given a legal opinion that this is in point, I do not see it's relevance. Of course, if you can quote such a source, or that view gets widely reported in the press, then we can re-insert it.

There are other things that have not yet been specified, which may also be relevant here. The timing, 8 April, is right to allow the Prime Minister to announce a general election the following week for 5 May. More speculation, but more relevant to the marriage than what your saying:) jguk 08:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If this was true, then George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews would still be in the Line of succession to the British throne, since he is in the Royal Family and only married a Roman Catholic in a civil ceremony (Leith Register Office, Edinburgh, 9 January 1988); their daughter Lady Amelia Windsor would then be excluded from the succession because in theory her parents were not married. Or is Scotland different? (Similarly with Prince Michael of Kent with a civil ceremony in Austria.) --Henrygb 11:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Scotland is indeed different; the laws I refer to apply in England and Wales. - Nunh-huh 11:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Aitkins on UseNet: The problem about the validity of a civil ceremony seems to me to be genuine, but the reality of the matter is that if they just go ahead there is precious little chance of the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths for Windsor saying "Sorry, you can't do that". The net result might be that this is legally another 'show or effigy of marriage' like those of Charles' many-greats uncles Prinny and Sussex (and their nephew the 2nd Duke of Cambridge). But as the bride is aged 57, it is unlikely that there will be any offspring to test it by a 'Cornwall Peerage Case'." - Nunh-huh 11:37, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As you are aware, I am concerned about making statements not supported by third-party references. I did, however, see this in today's Times [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-1483550,00.html (see the last 3 paragraphs). I am therefore amending the article in line with this source, jguk 20:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See also BBC Panorama. Your concerns that this is not a real issue are misplaced. - Nunh-huh 20:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You mistake the nature of my concern. My concern is about statements being added to articles that are not backed up by reputable sources. This concern is well-founded - see Wikipedia:Signpost for an example where statements not backed up by sources have done Wikipedia some harm. We now have two sources to support the claim, which I welcome. However, if we did not have those sources, the claim would be unjustified. I should be grateful if you would wait until you can cite 3rd party sources before you make such claims in the future. All the best, jguk 21:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As you well know, what I wrote was backed up by the Marriage Act; that you were unfamiliar with this but neverthess sought to expunge it from the article is my concern. - Nunh-huh 21:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nunh-huh, your personal reading of the Marriage Act does not a reliable source make, Bogdanor's and Chetney's does. Therein lies the difference - it is one of proper academic rigour, jguk 06:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not a "personal reading", it's what the things say. Which you would know if you bothered to checked the reference instead of simply removing that-with-which-you-are-unfamiliar. - Nunh-huh 08:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Lord Chancellor seems to think it is all right, apparently based on the different wording of the Marriage Act 1949 saying nothing in that act should affect "any law or custom relating to the marriage of memebrs of the royal family" - a change from the opinion of a previous Lord Chancellor [1]. The English constitution is a wonderful thing, and means whatever you want it mean at the time. --Henrygb 19:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Man if I were Princess Margaret or the Duke of Windsor I'd be pretty pissed off by all these shenanigans. john k 20:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But you would be dead, so it hardly matters. Henry II of England was married to the divorced Eleanor of Aquitaine (officially "annulled" but having produced two legitimate daughters; the grounds of "anullment" should have prevented her marrying Henry). --Henrygb 00:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey, if the Pope annuls it, it's freaking annuled. Are you insulting the Pope? john k 06:22, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If the Pope said it's annulled, does that mean the marriage isn't, or that it never should have been, or that it never was? The first sounds like divorce, the second suggests that Eleanor should not have been allowed to marry Henry, while the third suggests that the daughters of the first marriage should have been illegitimated which they were not. The Pope's problem, not mine, as I don't care. --Henrygb 11:35, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Second engagement

User Henrygb has removed twice the facts on the objections by rev Paul Williamnson and the nervousness this has created amongst the courtiers according to the Times. The sources for these two are : The Times of March 2nd and another article from the Times of March 2nd. - Tom - 217.136.79.44 07:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed I did. Paul Williamson was one of eleven objectors whose objections were rejected. Perhaps if he was the only objector and his objection had been upheld he would be notable, but he was not and it was not. We could name everyone who has ever met the Prince according the Court Circular, but while factually correct it would not add to the article. As for unattributed minor palace gossip reported in a tabloid paper owned by a republican, I see no point at all in mentioning it. They will get married and that is what that bit of the article should say. --Henrygb 21:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Charles III?

When Queen Elizabeth II dies, will this page have to be moved to Charles III of the United Kingdom? — JIP | Talk 06:01, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

God willing, it won't be for a long time yet - but the answer is maybe. It depends what regnal name he chooses. As the article notes, he has suggested he may choose to be George VII instead. We'll have to see, jguk 06:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Changes 31 March/1 April 2005

I changed some of the section titles and moved a few sentences around so that the article reads slightly more chronologically. Specifically, it is the death of the Princess of Wales rather than the formal divorce that marks a significant change in Charles' life. I also hid the bit on the tampon because it is more extensive than is deserving for a comprehensive article on the Prince of Wales and it needs more documentation. Of course, anyone can alter this article further or revert it. -Acjelen 02:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories R Us

Removed the following paragraph, inserted by Noprince on the 31st March:

"I want to be your tampon" - On 18 December 1989, a telephone conversation between Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, recorded two days earlier, was rebroadcast on citizen band wavelength. There has been ample speculation as to who was responsible, with MI5 being named most often. - However, late in 1989, a French consortium of companies was competing with a British consortium for a multi-billion pound military contract with Saudi Arabia. The French believed that if they managed to discredit British Royalty in the eyes of the strictly religious Saudis, their chances to obtain the contract would increase. Thus, the French DST (equivalent of MI5), and not the DGSE (MI6 equivalent) as might be expected, recorded and rebroadcast the Charles-Camilla tampon telephone conversation. They failed, the British obtrained the contract. - When Diana was killed in Paris, these events, never made public by the British, became useful, as it enabled Britain to put pressure on the French regarding their investigation of Diana's death. In particular, the French never made public that Diana had been the subject of full-scale MI5 surveillance from within less than one year of her marriage to Prince Charles in the summer of 1981, the real reason she had always felt observed.

Noprince was asked by Acjelen on the 1st April to cite his/her sources. The only response was for Noprince to delete Acjelen's request. In the absence of a aource, this can only be regarded as unwarranted conspiracy theory, with no place in an Encyclopedia. -- Chris j wood 17:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sections

I don't necessarily prefer my recent levelling of the sections, but I don't think the Prince's marriage to Lady Diana Spencer (a marriage which produced heirs to the throne) is on the same level as some of his earlier romances. More importantly, I hope that we will dicuss here how this article should change following the wedding on Saturday

It's not, that's why they are only mentioned very briefly and Diana has two subsections! violet/riga (t) 19:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Marriage certificate

Is this image of the marriage certificate of interest?

Apart from anything else, it suggests that the full name of the PoW is "His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George The Prince of Wales" - should our article be thus back at "Prince Charles The Prince of Wales", as it was for a while, though with a comma?

Also, does this mean that commas shouldn't be used? Should be? Maybe be be be?

James F. (talk) 01:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

University of Wales

I'm not quite sure what section it should come under, but I think it's worth mentioning that Charles is Chancellor of the University of Wales, replacing his father. He is quite involved with the institution and often visits, for example he opened the library of my own institution, the University of Wales, Lampeter, and also made a visit recently for our 175th anniversary.

George VII

The origin of the "George VII" story seems to be an article in The Sunday Times, 13 February 2000 by Christopher Morgan. It quotes "a royal courtier, who has discussed the matter privately with the prince" as saying that Charles would prefer to "follow in the footsteps of the Georges rather than take on the tarnished name of Charles". No link, sorry - I'm seeing this on a proprietary database. --rbrwr^± 21:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Categories

Why not categorize him as "Charles, Prince of Wales"? He's more commonly known as "Prince Charles" than as "the Prince of Wales". – ugen64 22:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He ceased to be simply Prince Charles in 1952. Charles, Prince of Wales is a disambigulation name created for wikipedia to use to distinguish between princes of Wales. He is actually the Prince of Wales and so is correctly referred to as such. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 29 June 2005 23:08 (UTC)

Aide-de-Camp?

On this article it states that Charles is the Aide-de-Camp to the Queen, yet on Prince Andrew's article it states that he is the Aide-de-Camp (as it does so on the Aide-de-Camp article). Can someone clear this up? David.

The Queen has many ADCs. It is an honorary position conferred on distinguished military officers, royal and otherwise. Almost every senior British general, for example, will have ADCGen (Aide-de-Camp General) after his name. -- Necrothesp 29 June 2005 23:01 (UTC)

Personal Interests

This section is so POV. He's a "passionate man". He "cares deeply..." Try to be more objective, its bad enough we have to say "His Royal Highness".

Why? Is it POV to use his official title? "His Royal Highness" is as official as using "President" with the name of George Bush. -- Necrothesp 17:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I know, the Royal Highness thing was a joke, that's why I didn't change it. But words like "talented" and "passionate" and "cares deeply" are totally POV. The person that wrote them was sucking up to Prince Charles and it sounds really pathetic. I'm changing it back. -- ShadowyCaballero.

we should recognize people are NOT highnesses, hereditary titles are worthless and meaningless. How ridiculous is it to say someone should be head of state SIMPLY BECAUSE he inherited a title? isn't that discrimination of all other people who would like to be head of state but cant because some loser inherited a title?

No, actually, we shouldn't, because that would not only be egregiously POV, but incorrect. It's not an issue of whether it's discriminatory, but whether it's the true state of affairs. I don't think George W Bush belongs in the White House, either (for assorted reasons), but you won't see me trying to change his listing.

Septegram 22:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, IS Princess of Wales

HRH the Duchess of Cornwall, "as she is known", is also Princess of Wales, as the title Princess of Wales belongs to the wife of the Prince of Wales.

Women acquire their titles and status from their husbands. In England, the wife of a king is ALWAYS queen consort. The wife of a prince becomes a princess. The wife of a duke becomes a duchess. Et cetera.

While Camilla and the Royal House are choosing not to use the title Princess of Wales, in order of precedence within the royal household, she is indeed accorded the precedence of the Princess of Wales.

See more about precedence at Burke's Peerage and Gentry online here:

http://www.burkes-peerage.net/Sites/Peerage/SitePages/page62-4.asp

--ScottyFLL 23:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Problems with not reverting deceased consorts to maiden name

Wikipedia's rather clumsy handling of the whole issue of reverting deceased consorts to maiden name is shown clearly in this article. It is wrong to say that his first wife was the late "Diana, Princess of Wales". He married a woman called "Diana Spencer". She became "the Princess of Wales" (never, by the way "Princess Diana" — Diana was never a princess, merely the wife of a prince, as she herself made clear regularly and contrary to what Scotty says. Princess of Wales is not a princess. Earlier princess of Wales were princess because of their own royal status prior to marriage. Diana had no such status because she was not a princess when they married, and so got the title Princess of Wales not the style Princess). "Diana, Princess of Wales" was the name used after their divorce. The reasons why historians use maiden names of deceased consorts is to avoid such faux pas and the complexities of constant name and title changes. Using the maiden name allows the same person to be written about throughout their lives, with a different times, it being made clear that "at this point they became 'x'." "At this point they ceased to be 'y'." Referring to someone by a title they never had in their marriage and which by its very form indicated a non-marital status is a linguistic mess. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 04:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• She was Diana, Princess of Wales when she died, and given she only died 8 years ago, it is perfectly reasonable to still refer to her by this name. Astrotrain 15:23, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Actually the publishing and academic standard is 3-5 years or next hardcopy edition. The BBC has begun using Lady Diana Spencer when speaking about her life. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, a search on the BBC News website shows 1,249 references to Diana, Princess of Wales against 11 to Lady Diana Spencer, all of them referring specifically to her life before her wedding, so I don't think that's entirely accurate. I also think you'll find far more references to Queen Mary and Queen Alexandra than to Mary of Teck and Alexandra of Denmark, and how many references to Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon have you seen? She's still The Queen Mother to everyone. That's a slightly different case, possibly, but it still illustrates that common practice is not to revert to a deceased consort's maiden name and hasn't been for a very long time, if it ever was. If another Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra or Diana, Princess of Wales came along then it might be appropriate, but usage before that time smacks of pedantry. Common usage is common usage. -- Necrothesp 22:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• I think most people still think of Diana as Princess of Wales, rather than Lady Diana Spencer. However, I think that most people would know the maiden name anyway, given her continuing fame (another Diana story in the Daily Express front cover today.....). So I wouldn't be too fussed either way. Astrotrain 20:35, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Duke of Cornwall

I've heard Prince Charles is known as Duke of Cornwall in Cornwall - anyone who lives there confirm this?

Well, as far as I known he's always known as the Prince of Wales, even in Cornwall. As a Cornishman, I've never heard him specifically referred to as Duke of Cornwall except in context. -- Necrothesp 17:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

In the Court Circular, when they want to draw attention to the fact that he is the Duke of Cornwall (when he's doing something in Cornwall or to do with the Duchy of Cornwall), they call him "The Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall". This is in contrast to the situation with his Scottish style, which completely replaces the Principality of Wales in Scottish matters (he's "The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay", not "The Prince of Wales, Duke of Rothesay" or some such). So it's not really on the same level as the Dukedom of Rothesay. Proteus (Talk) 17:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

PRINCE OF SCOTLAND

Whats the title "Prince of Scotland"?? Is it on a par with Prince of Wales? Is he ever titled HRH The Prince of Scotland? Am confused!

No, he's not Prince of Scotland. He's Prince of Wales and a Prince of the United Kingdom. -- Necrothesp 17:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

He is Prince and High Steward of Scotland. It is one of the subsidiary titles associated with the Dukedom of Rothesay. It is not like Prince of Wales, because Wales was a Principality (or, more accurately, part of Wales comprised the Principality of Wales), while Scotland was a Kingdom. john k 17:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I still dont understand though - surely a kingdom is higher than a principality? And surely being a prince is higher than being a duke, earl or baron?? Does it mean he's prince THREE times over - The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, Prince of Scotland? What does Prince of Scotland actually MEAN?

There's some interesting information about it here. In short, it seems it once was used in much the same way as "Prince of Wales" is today, but that it has fallen out of use. Proteus (Talk) 17:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

(through conflict) :It is an old title for the heir to the throne of Scotland, but was not the main title, which was Duke of Rothesay. As to prince being higher than a duke, that is true in a sense, but doesn't change the fact that royal dukes are referred to by their ducal titles, and not by their princely one. As to Prince of Wales vs. Prince of Scotland, the word Prince is being used in two different senses. The Prince of Wales is a Prince in the meaning of a sovereign ruler of a principality (German Fürst), although the Principality of Wales is, of course, no longer a sovereign principality, if it can even be said to exist. The title Prince of Scotland, although held by only one person, is just a generic prince (German Prinz). It is an arcane title, kind of like how the members of Russia's Imperial Family held the title Heir of Norway, or the Wettins all got to be Duke of Saxony. john k 17:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I propose a separate article be made for Prince of Scotland - it's the only one of his titles that doesnt have one. The info Proteus gave is very useful - how on earth did you find it?!

"surely a kingdom is higher than a principality?" Yes, but Scotland is NOT a kingdom. It used to be, but now it is a constituent part of the United Kingdom. The Queen is not Queen of England and Scotland, but Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Wales is still referred to as a Principality (probably incorrectly), but Scotland is not referred to as a Kingdom. -- Necrothesp 22:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes but it was a seperate kingdom until the reign of Queen Anne, which I'm referrng to as well. - ie BEFORE Scotland became iaugragated into the UK, why was Prince of Wales used in preference to Prince of Scotland when Wales was a principality and Scotland a kingdom before it was united? I dont think it is incorrect to refer to Wales as a principality - it still has a prince, although its designation is titular rather than administrative sovereignity.

I have created a separate Prince of Scotland page. Please, anyone feel free to contribute about this little known title! (jayboy2005 30 Aug 2005)

using of styles

I removed the style from the introduction to bring the article in line with the current Wikipedia consensus (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)) Gugganij 21:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Why were the list of all his formal titles removed? I wanted to look them up.

You can find the link List of Titles and Honours of Charles, Prince of Wales in the section Principal title in use. Gugganij 10:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The List of Titles and Honours of Charles, Prince of Wales doesn't mention Charles's following current Honorary Military Ranks in the British Armed Forces: Vice Admiral, Lieutenant General & Air Marshall. Mightberight/wrong 19:30, 29 October 2005. (UTC)

Prince Charles' Reported Conversion to Islam

I put into the article on Prince Charles the following two sentences (and an external link to back it up):

"The Grand Mufti of Cyprus has reportedly revealed that the Prince converted to Islam in Turkey. Ronni L. Gordon and David M. Stillman in 1997 revealed this as part of the results of their investigation."

Someone removed it and called it speculation. It doesn't seem like speculation to me. It sounds like a fact that Prince Charles is hiding because it would mean that he would forfeit his right to ascend to the throne, since one cannot be both a concommittant member of the Church of England and a muslim at the same time.

Here is a quote from the Grand Mufti of Cyprus that I left out of my edit of the article on the Prince:

"This claim was put forward by no less a personage than the grand mufti of Cyprus: 'Did you know that Prince Charles has converted to Islam. Yes, yes. He is a Muslim. I can't say more. But it happened in Turkey. Oh, yes, he converted all right. When you get home check on how often he travels to Turkey. You'll find that your future king is a Muslim.'"

My source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina51103.htm (It links to the original source that Gordon & Stillman wrote).

I think this is highly important information that informs greatly about Prince Charles as much as anything else and ought to be included in this article.

Am I wrong? If so, why am I wrong?

If the Grand Mufti of Cyprus's report is true but Charles is keeping the fact secret, must we wait here at Wikipedia for him to 'fess up before we include the information? I think I couched my wording of the two sentences I added as carefully as possible, but am happy if the wording could be improved. What I'm not happy about is the removal of both sentences and the referral source simply being removed after being judged as speculative. Even if what I wrote is speculative, is this just cause for removal. Are there not equally "speculative" statements in other articles in Wikipedia?

If the Grand Mufti of Cyprus's report is true but Charles is keeping the fact secret, must we wait here at Wikipedia for him to 'fess up before we include the information? Yes, most definitely. Why? Well I for one don't believe the Grand Mufti, and his statement is too extreme for a mainstream encyclopedia like wikipedia. Were it true it would cause a constitutional crisis (if only) but until that day this info is too on the edge and minority to be included in this article, SqueakBox 16:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall and Diana, Princess of Wales

I am quite agitated by the fact that Camilla is referred to on this website as Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall in much the same fashion as Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York. Camilla is HRH The Duchess of Cornwall and can be referred to as Camillia, the Duchess of Cornwall. She is NOT Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall as she is not divorced. In theory you are also suggesting that Diana is still married to the Prince of Wales as she was also theoretically Diana, Duchess of Cornwall because she was the divorced wife of the Duke of Cornwall.

Proposed move

I've removed the proposed move link. This should be discussed centrally at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) so that a Wikipedia-wide policy could be agreed. It would be a mess, and chaotic, to try to discuss the issue individually on a host of single pages, each of which could decide theoretically on a different contradictory policy. FearÉIREANN 01:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone has misspelled

the word "Duchess" as "Dutchess"

• Just go ahead and correct it. The spelling may have been copied from the Washington Post, or a San Francisco paper I forget which, that had this as a caption for one photo. garryq 20:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Father

The PoW's marriage certificate shows his father as HRH The Prince Philip, with the rank or profession of Duke of Edinburgh. Shouldn't his father's name be HRH The Prince Philip, DUKE OF EDINBURGH. with the rank or profession of Prince of the United Kingdom? The certificate is shown in question 26 above. garryq 12:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Almost certainly. It was probably, however, drawn up by someone not familiar with such matters. We should perhaps be grateful it doesn't give his name as "Philip Mountbatten". Proteus (Talk) 15:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Princely titles

If Charles is (a) a prince by virtue of being the son of a monarch (b)created Prince of Wales and (c) Prince of Scotland, does this mean he is a prince three times over? Ive heard he is never "HRH The Prince Charles" - is this true? Or is he legally titled so but just not styled so? And why is he never styled as a Prince of Scotland except in the full string of titles? Why are any of the other titles (Earl of Chester/Carrick, Baron of Renfrew) not used ever?

• He is not a Prince three times over, just a prince (I think, feel free to correct). Technically, he is HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Prince of Scotland. But for a shorthand title (imagine signing that on a check!), he goes by HRH The Prince of Wales. I think that the "Prince of Scotland" is superceded by "Prince of the UK". And the subsidiary titles are not used because they are superceded by "Prince of Wales". Prsgoddess187 13:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Earldoms

I don't understand why the earldoms of Chester and Carrick weren't made dukedoms - why would the highest ranking peer in the realm bother with holding (lesser) earldoms when he could just as easily be a duke five times over (Duke of Cornwall, Chester, Carrick, Rothesay & Renfrew). Also, why is he not styled "HRH The Prince of Wales and Scotland"? And why were there no Irish titles associated with the heir to the throne - he had English, Scottish and Welsh ones? And in the days of the British Empire, why did the Prince not have an Imperial title like "Prince Imperial"? I know the prince is not outranked by anybody, but it does seem a bit strange that other peers hold equal or more dukedoms than him.

To take your points in order: (a) It's just tradition, really. Carrick is an Earldom because the Scots Act of Parliament assigning it to the eldest son and Heir Apparent made it so, and so one has ever thought of changing it, and Chester's an Earldom because "Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester" has been the traditional creation for centuries. Also, the traditions date to a time when double titles weren't really used, so if the Heir Apparent to the Scottish Throne had been Duke of Rothesay and Duke of Carrick, he probably would still have been known simply as the Duke of Rothesay, so there'd be very little point in upgrading the second title. The Royal Family generally regard tradition as very important, and would prefer to hold a traditional but technically "lesser" title than a newer "superior" one. (b) There's no reason why he couldn't be, and some have called for such a style to be used (see the link at the bottom of Prince of Scotland). It's also a possibility that he could be "HRH The Prince of Scotland" in Scotland and "HRH The Prince of Wales" elsewhere, but unless someone decides that the current situation looks like it's here to stay. (c) It would seem that this was an anomalous situation noticed in Victorian times, when (in 1850) Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, was created Earl of Dublin, but this didn't seem to stick, and I suspect the powers that be now consider the matter closed by the departure of most of Ireland from the United Kingdom. (d) In the days of the Empire, Britain was considered more important than the rest of the Empire — note that the letters after the monarch's signature were "RI", not "IR". Thus any kind of "Imperial" title would have been viewed with less honour than the British ones he already held, thus making very little point in a new creation. (e) The Royal Family have always felt quite secure in their importance without huge numbers of peerages to demonstrate it (unlikes certain Scottish Dukes, who seem to collect them). Royal Dukes in recent times, for instance, have always been "Duke of X, Earl of Y, Baron Z", when they could quite easily have one peerage of each rank. The Prince of Wales is just another facet of this — he's Prince of Wales, which obviously puts him above everyone else, and as far as he's concerned that seems to be more than enough. Hope this helps. Proteus (Talk) 12:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg

When Prince Charles becomes king, will he be from the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, or Windsor?

• Probably the House of Windsor. It is however within the Royal Prerogative to decide the royal house name, so he could call it whatever he likes I guess. Astrotrain 16:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The article Mountbatten-Windsor may be of help, whether that will be used as a surname only or also the name of the house, I don't know. NoSeptember ^talk 18:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I think technically he would be of the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, however, it is very very unlikely that he would change the house name to this. It will most likely remain the House of Windsor, although there is a small chance he would change it to House of Mountbatten-Windsor or House of Mountbatten. Mac Domhnaill 22:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure your 'technically' is correct. Prince Philip renounced his status within the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg prior to his marriage to The Princess Elizabeth. Bbombbardier 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No he didn't. Prince Philip allegedly renounced his titles of prince of Greece and prince of Denmark, however, there are no provisions in either of those royal families to renounce such titles. All of Elizabeth II and Philip's agnatic descendants are members of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sønderburg-Glücksburg, a sub-house of the House of Oldenburg. That exists as a fact in that all male-line descendants of a male member of the House of Oldenburg are members of the house themselves, by definition of what such a house is. It is an association by blood. The name they use itself is what differs. Charles 06:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No more "His Royal Highness" at start of article

I've seen His Royal Highness taken out from the start of the article. Is there any reason why is that so? Also, I reverted a user's edit on Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh regarding this issue. --Terence Ong 09:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Got it, after seeing WP:MoS is not to add the royal title into the article itself. --Terence Ong 10:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless the MoS has changed again it doesn't say that at all. It says no to styles in the inline but that they can be mentioned in the article.Alci12 12:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Princely title question

I was just wondering, if Prince Charles was made Prince Regent (as George IV was), does this outrank his title of Prince of Wales? Similarly, if a prince becomes Prince Regent does his wife become Princess Regent or does she stay Princess of Wales? It must be odd styling TRH The Prince Regent & The Princess of Wales, or would it be TRH The Prince Regent, Prince of Wales & The Princess of Wales?

Finally, when Charles accedes the throne, it is intended that Camilla use the title "Princess Consort". But what if she were to outlive him and William succeed? Would she be known as "The Dowager Princess Consort"? Isn't that a bit odd since there would not be any future Princess Consort to succeed her?

Yes, he would be styled "His Royal Highness The Prince Regent" (and George IV was styled that before becoming George IV). As it's an office, however, no new style would attach to his wife, so they would indeed be "The Prince Regent and The Princess of Wales". There isn't really an answer to your second question, as the situation has never arisen before. However, it seems rather unlikely it ever will — this silly "Princess Consort" nonsense will be forgotten long before Charles becomes King. Proteus (Talk) 22:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

POV edits

User:Cardiff has made series of POV edits to a number of prominent articles involving Wales. Ther are a number of anonymous edits that follow the same pattern. These edits typically remove lots of 'Welsh' information. See the history of Prince Harry of Wales, Cardiff, Prince of Wales and Saint David's Day. See als Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Principality of Wales.

I am reverting his edits here (which also removed Welsh references). I will re-integrate subsequent edits. All comments are welcome. Econrad 23:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

More Welsh Nationalist edits by User:Owenthomas2005 on 13 July. Lots of POV language about events in 1283 and 1969. Revert? Stereoroid 19:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Choice of car

How can he be so obsessed with the enviornment when he owns a range rover, hardly a very green car?

I think that if he were to travel in an off-the-shelf Ford Popular it would create an unacceptable security risk. Viewfinder 14:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps...

A general opinion of Prince Charles? Easy for Henry- everyone thinks he's a good-for-nothing, but I'd also like to know about the kind of person the impending monarch is considered to be. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.185.248 (talk • contribs)

Unsourced comments like "everyone thinks (Henry)'s good for nothing" are unkind, in this case POV, and not appropriate. Viewfinder 04:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

.....................................................

Well said! Thinking someone else, Royal or not, to be "a good for nothing" takes only a little more effort than breathing.

I am impressed by this man's many charitable pursuits and interests that seem to reveal a great deal of kind-heartedness.

If people want to judge Prince Charles solely on a failed marriage then we'll have to judge a near majority of the modern world. Although I'm not British, it seems that the carniverous British press has blinded us to this man's many fine qualities in favor of a rather lobotomized fixation on one divorce.

I doubt many journalists would stand up to the same scrutiny in their personal lives.

Phil

Sean7phil 00:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

00:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Royal Succession in the Commonwealth Realms

It has been suugested in the Monarchy in Canada article that, should Prince Charles survive his mother and accede to the British throne, he would not become King of Canada until being proclaimed the new Sovereign by the Canadian Privy Council. Is that interpretation correct ? Along the same line of questioning, could Canada or any other Commonwealth realm appoint anyone other than Charles as their next King following the Queen's demise ? 161.24.19.82 19:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Where and how is such a thing suggested? The Queen's Privy Council for Canada should proclaim Charles as King of Canada, but the proclamation bears no effect on the actual acession, which will take place automatically upon the Queen's death, according to law. The proclamation is simply an announcement of what has already taken place. --gbambino 15:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The Valet Incident

Whoever keeps deleting my post, please stop. Just because the valet incident is a negative press for Prince Charles doesn't mean it needs to be censored.

Your edits are incorrect and unreferenced. Nothing more than allegations were reported in the media. The allegations were by witnesses insufficiently reliable to make the alleged incident sufficiently verifiable to be included in Wikipedia. Viewfinder 04:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am going to repost this for the following reasons:

1) First of all, sex is always a private matter. We cannot expect to find a large number of "reliable" witness. 2) Newspaper all over the world reported this. You just can't censor it because you don't like it. Remember, the goal of Wikipedia is not to cleanse history. 3) I had references and the wordings were clear. (I never said it was proved... see #1)

Contrary to what you have written on Wikipedia, the media did not report that he engaged in a homosexual act. They reported that it had been alleged that he had engaged in a homosexual act. That is not the same. The witnesses do not meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability, so I will delete your untrue statements again and continue to delete them as often as is necessary. See WP:V and in particular the section on biographies of living persons. Viewfinder 06:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewfinder is correct. No way could that edit be left in this article. It stated as fact a universally discredited claim. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 15:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)}

Someone like Charles will always be subject to such claims- I remember one Italian newspaper reporting on the size of his manhood a few years ago- agree with Viewfinder and Jtdirl. Astrotrain 21:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

All very well but why no mention of Burrell anywhere in the article?burrell scandal

Infobox titles

In the Prince of Wales list of titles in the infobox, it does not give his title in Scotland. Is this for reasons of space or some other? -Acjelen 14:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the usage notes for the infobox, it states common titles, as in a list of what he's been referred to (correctly) as throughout his life. Do you think we ought to include Rothesay in (practically) every Price of Wales' box? My thinking was that it is noted later on in the article that that title is used in Scotland... // DBD 10:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The Two Wives of the Prince of Wales

"The Prince is also well known for his high-profile marriages to the late Lady Diana Spencer and, subsequently, to Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall." Why is his first wife called by her maiden name, while his second wife is called by her married name? And surely "high profile" is a piece of shallow journalese - how could the heir to the throne have a "low profile" marriage? (Perhaps there are low-profile marriages we don't know about?) Adam 01:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why this is the case but I'm assuming the reason is because the late Diana, Princess of Wales's posthumous title would be Lady Diana Spencer just as Victoria Mary of Teck (consort of George V) is not referred to as Queen Mary. In the article she would be referred to as Diana, Princess of Wales as that was the title she held immediately prior to her death. Camilla's title I might add is wrong, as she is alive at present she should accorded either the title HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, The Duchess of Cornwall or HRH Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall. HRH The Duchess of Cornwall is not now nor has she ever been Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall just as HRH Sophie, the Countess of Wessex has never been Sophie, Countess of Wessex as they are not divorced. As a result, I'm making the appropriate changes.

As I understand the process of bands and common reference to persons who marry, it is normal to refer to them by their titles and names at the moment before they marry. Thus referring to Lady Diana Spencer would be correct in this case, however I question the requirement of referring to her as "the late". Similarly Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles would be an appropriate way of referring to the Prince's wife in this context. With regard to titles and severance of relations, Lady Spencer lost her title of HRH upon her divorce. However she was unusually permitted to keep the title Princess of Wales due to public scrutiny under the condition that it would eventually be conferred on any future spouse of Prince Charles. With regard to Queen Mary, it is in my understanding that she did not loose her title of Queen upon her husbands death. The difference is that she was not "The" Queen. This is similar to the late HRH Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother prior to her death. Later references to Princess Camilla's styling as Duchess of Cornwall is a matter of interpretation. She would have inherited the precedence and associated titles of her husband Prince Charles upon her marriage. She did not hold any such title prior to this point. The main reason behind her not officially being known as the Princess of Wales is due to the obvious outcry such an action would cause with regard to Princess Diana. Of course there are plenty of opinions as to accession of titles. It is a unique problem which remains to be solved. Stuart Harland 15:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The offer of the Romanian throne

The pertinent fragment in Tom Gallagher's article about this amazing offer reads in English as follows: "And if, utopically speaking, His Royal Highness had decided to give up waiting for his mother to pass away, had learned Romanian, and had accepted the invitation to become the head of a state he had fallen in love with - see his repeated visits and gestures of protection extended to a patrimony oftentimes endangered - perhaps he would have ended up proving himself to be the best sovereign Romania had since Carol I." To paraphrase, Gallagher says that it is an utopia for Prince Charles to accept the offer to become sovereign of Romania, not that the offer is utopic. There is no adjective next to the noun "invitation" such as "presumed" or "hypothetical" to put the offer in doubt. So the offer existed. The "utopical" pertained to "if he had accepted" it. The acceptance of such an amazing invitation is clearly a utopia, for it would be very unlikely for Charles to desert his duties towards the British Kingdom, albeit a beautiful utopia as the author further explains. Who made the offer is, indeed, not clear from the article. However, we can safely presume republicans cannot support such an offer. Therefore, logically, it could have come only from the Romanian monarchists, the only ones interested in preserving the ideal of a Romanian Monarchy alive. This report is extremely credible, even beyond doubt, as Tom Gallagher is an avowed monarchist who has written in support of the Monarchy and of King Michael of Romania, and an extremely well-reputed expert in Romanian politics and history (see, for instance, the Encyclopaedia Britannica entries on Romania signed by him). MihutM 22:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahem,I read Romanian,and I maintain that this "AMAZING" shock! Horror!offer TO TAKE UP THE INVITATION TO BECOME HEAD OF STATE OF A LAND HE LOVES!!! is purely hypothetical / speculation, written by Professor Gallagher in a totally different context than the one you are trying to force into the article. It is not a "report" as you would wish it to be. The offer for PoW to take up the Romanian throne did not exist, does not exist. Search for it anywhere you like, you will not find it.

Next: Why should anyone be content with your attempt to paraphrase Prof. Gallagher in order to prove your point? That is not good enough. Provide another source if you are so sure. Then your claim will be stronger, and may be considered good enough for inclusion in an Encyclopedia. For now what you wish to insert is your construction, not reality. In this case I too can speculate: one possibility could be: Gallagher was writing rapidly to deadline and was not careful enough to use his normally precise prose and an ambiguity resulted. Another:bad translation. Etc, Etc.

Similarly, we cannot "safely" presume anything from what Gallagher has written in this article. What sort of rigorous criteria are you using? You invoke logic. Very well, it may also be logical that, "logically", King Michael (rather than some nameless monarchists) may been the one to have proffered this "invitation" to his cousin Charles to accept the Romanian Throne and asked him to become the sovereign of Romania upon his(Michael's) death. The permutations are endless. That is why this speculation has no place in this encyclopedia. Stick to reliable, verifiable etc, sources as per Wikipedia source policies.

Lovellester 21:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's just stick with Gallagher's text. According to it, "utopically speaking" "if he [Prince Charles] had accepted the invitation" to take the Romanian throne, he would have perhaps become the best king since Carol I. The utopia pertains to the acceptance, not the invitation. There is no doubt about the existance of an invitation for somebody who understands basic grammar. I agree, though, that the rest of my edit about who made the offer and for what reasons, is speculative in nature. I have therefore taken it out, although the use of logic would not warrant such an action. MihutM 03:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is absurd. The whole affair should only be mentioned if we can find a source that actually describes it, rather than one which simply refers to it indirectly, as though it is something well known. john k 11:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

For this matter, also see Talk:Michael I of Romania. -- Jao 12:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not absurd at all. According to Wikipedia editing rules Wikipedia:Reliable sources, an edit requires a "reliable published source," not that the edit itself be the absolute truth. We will never know for sure the absolute reality about such an offer, but the fact that somebody so reputable and such an expert in Romanian politics and history mentions the invitation in a "reliable published source" as the third largest Romanian daily, certainly passes Wikipedia's standards for acceptable editing. MihutM 16:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you deliberately missing the point that Lovellester, john k, Iapethus and I are making? Nobody has questioned the reliability of the source. If the article said that Charles had been offered the Romanian throne, there would be no dispute. The problem is that the article, according to your own translation, says no such thing. "[If he] had accepted the invitation ..." does simply not imply "[if he] had accepted the invitation, which has been offered ...", it can just as well refer to a hypothetical invitation. The mere fact that it is not marked as hypothetical means nothing and cannot be made a premise of a logical argument. I would say that you might have mistranslated the text if it weren't for the fact that Lovellester and Iapethus both claim to have investigated the original and found that your translation is correct, which can only mean that your conclusion is incorrect. That, of course, does not necessarily mean that Charles was not offered the throne, but you will have to find another source to say that he was (and by whom). -- Jao 19:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe MihutM is correct in his/her claims. "If he had accepted the invitation" doesn't mean at all there was no invitation. In fact, the definite article "the" makes the invitation quite concrete, a fact, unlike the indefinite article "a/an", which makes the noun less clear, more doubtful. Had the material talked about "an invitation," then yes, I would have agreed with you that it is more likely a hypothetical one. The Google results for "if he had accepted an invitation" are only two out of the billions of materials on the web, both of which speak only of hypothetical invitations. By contrast, the Google results for "if he had accepted the invitation" speak only of actual existing invitations, not of hypothetical ones. Carbunar 21:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The wish to"Stick with Gallagher's text" is not so simple. Do we have this original Gallagher text? No we do not . We have a translation. "Sticking to Gallagher's text" means using the original text in English, not RL's translation subsequently back-translated into English from the Romanian. MihutM and Carbunar must obtain the original English text first. Then we can see what interpretations are possible.

I maintain that the context in which Gallagher's sentence is placed is totally different from the one that Carbunar and MihutM are trying to force into the article. Gallagher's text is not a "report". The so-called "offer" for the PoW to take up the Romanian throne DOES NOT EXIST. There is no firm, verifiable, reliable, existing, proof/article/text/anywhere. Keep searching for it everywhere, it is not to be found. Perfhaps Prof Gallagher was having fun,trying to prove a point or just trying to make a theoretical point, or tired or in a hurry, anyway it is sure that he was he was speculating not "reporting".

Provide another source, reinforce your claim. Write to Professor Gallagher. Then your speculations may be considered good enough for inclusion in an Encyclopedia. For now what you wish to insert is just an interpretation, not reality, not verifiable, reliable or anything like acceptable by Wikipedia. Lovellester 22:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no need for an "original" English version of Gallagher's article as he writes and speaks fluently in Romanian. Secondly, Wikipedia does not require multiple sources for an edit. A single "verifiable, reliable, published source" is enough. If you wish to include your POV about how there was no such offer, please, quote a source. Thirdly, you are clearly a native Romanian since you claim you read in Romanian and since your English has some subtle idiosyncracies of a non-native speaker. Therefore, you should pay more attention to the rules of the English grammar above mentioned, which you do not seem to grasp. You will then perhaps have the decency to stop forcing your erroneous understanding of English (and Romanian, for that matter) onto what is clearly "the invitation to become the head of state" of Romania made to Prince Charles. Carbunar 22:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If there was an invitation, you all should be able to find a source which refers to it directly rather than obliquely. If you can source the thing, I don't think anybody would have a problem. Although I will note that there is no Romanian throne to be offered to anybody. There is a Romanian pretendership, and this is all that "Romanian monarchists" (specifically: whatever percentage of Romanian monarchists acting in opposition to the current head of the Royal House) have to offer. john k 22:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's unreasonable to expect to find a direct refference to such a highly sensitive offer, for a number of reasons. The offer could not have been but unofficial, since Romania is a Republic and to speak openly about the restoration of Monarchy would have offended a number of political actors, first and foremost the current president of Romania Traian Basescu, who is an avowed Republican. Secondly, the current Royal House of Romania would have also been offended. Princess Margarita continues to entertain hopes fueled by her overly ambitious husband, of one day becoming the first reigning Queen of Romania. Since Prince Charles is a very good childhood friend of hers, he would never ever allow such an insult to Margarita's sensitivities to happen through a direct open statement on the issue "leaked" to the press. Thirdly, the British Monarchy would be negatively impacted by any hint of Charles' even remotely considering deserting his duties towards his nation as heir to the Crown. So there are multiple and very serious reasons why such a highly sensitive offer cannot be talked about in a direct manner. The indirect way Gallagher so wisely chose to use does not, however, cast any doubt at all over the offer itself -- "utopical" pertains only to its acceptance, while the grammar, as Carbunar well pointed out, strengthens the definite concrete character of the invitation. MihutM 01:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not need to possess a perfect grasp of the english language in order to see a politically motivated edit. The Gallagher text says "the invitation". Just leave it at that. There is no mention of WHO made the offer, WHY is was made, WHEN it was made and certainly nothing about any Romanians' reaction, disillusioned or hopeful or otherwise.Lovellester 07:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. If this is to be mentioned, someone needs to find an actual, direct reference to it, not some kind of oblique obscurity. I agree that Gallagher's grammar suggests that he is saying that some sort of offer occurred. But, sorry, that just isn't sufficient. We need an actual source that says it directly. It is a very strange story, and very strange stories need real sources. john k 11:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Everybody is entitled to a POV, but no POV can be edited into an article without sources. I, Sir, beg to differ with your POV: no, it is not "ridiculous." Your saying this proves you are unfamiliar with the role of royals and of the Monarchy as an institution. I can add another reason to the above list as to why you are unreasonable to expect more direct references: the royals never interfere in issues of domestic politics, as they must always stay above it. It is then even more stringent that royals should not publicly interfere in the politics of a foreign country, hence the lack of a more direct statement on the offer. Also, you already have a source about the offer that meets Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia does not require such explicitness as you demand, nor multiple sources for an edit: a single "verifiable, reliable, published source" suffices and you already have it. If you want to redefine Wikipedia rules, I would suggest you write to its moderators/administrators. Carbunar 18:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, slowly: we need a source that actually describes the supposed offer, and explains it in context. It needs to say when it happened, who made the offer, and what the result was. If we cannot do that, this material cannot go into the article, because your interpretation of Mr. Gallagher's syntax does not comprise a reliable source. Even if your interpretation of Mr. Gallagher's syntax is correct, that is still not a reliable source, because he is only referring to the supposed offer in passing, and is not describing it. If this happened, you should be able to find a real source. Please do so, or it's not going in. john k 19:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

For all those who understand basic English grammar, there is no doubt that the offer existed. You yourself incline in this direction. Plus, there is a source proving this offer, which meets the Wikipedia standards for acceptable editing. You are confused as to what "reliable" pertains to: it pertains only to the source (newspaper, book, etc.) of the edit, not to the contents of the edit. The edit must come from a reliable source, but the contents do not have to be exact or the absolute truth itself: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." (Wikipedia:Verifiability) So your own POV regarding the exactness standards for an edit (who, when, where, why, etc.) are not mandated at all by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Therefore, any future edit based on this POV of yours will be immediately reported as vandalism. Just FYI: this is not the first time such an offer was made, which supports the credibility of the claim (although I don't have to prove this by Wikipedia rules). The Czech monarchists have made a similar offer to Prince Charles in the past (sources 1 (in French), 2 and 3 (in Romanian)). Have a good day! MihutM 20:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I am having a lovely day, thank you MihutM.

The offer may well have existed, so Gallagher's precise text can stay in,thus readers can make up there own minds. But OUT goes the assertion that the offer was made by "Romanian monarchists" (not in Gallagher's text) ,and that the POW "reportedly turned down" the offer. No mention of that in Gallagher's piece, nor any other reports anywhere.Lovellester 17:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If we can't substantiate the very hypothetical wording of the Gallagher article, the material should not be included, as it is not notable or (really) confirmed. Carbunar, however, has added a reference to a Romanian newspaper. Could someone who reads Romanian provide some kind of rough translation, or at least a paraphrase, of what this article says? john k 17:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Gladly. Here is a translation of the second source -- the largest Romanian daily: "It is said that Prince Charles had been offered the Romanian Crown unofficially by the Romanian monarchists, an offer which was turned down, affirms between the lines of a controversial article Tom Gallagher, an expert in the politics and history of Romania. Tom Gallagher is known for his monarchist views and his respect for King Michael." Carbunar 17:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Libertatea is the best sold Romanian tabloid.

I come to a similar translation as Carbunar, but I would like you, Carbunar, to translate very precisely the conditional " i-ar fi fost oferita" (the romanian throne) for us. I can check tomorrow with an expert translator, but this sentence could also read :"It is said that Prince Charles may have been offered,unofficially, the Romanian throne by romanian monarchists......".

Secondly, I need help with the sentence" unui articol controversat analistul britanic Tom Gallagher": is it the article that is controversial, or is Gallagher? No need to give grammar lessons, just a straight answer, thanks. Lovellester 17:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...so Libertatea is not actually making the claim independently of Gallagher. I'm still feeling this is a bit odd. Gallagher writes about this offer as though it is something well known. But yet the only sources we can find on the subject are his own oblique reference, and a discussion of that oblique reference by a Romanian newspaper which seems to feel that Gallagher's remark is the first time anyone's heard of the business. This is still a very indirectly sourced material. I would suggest saying something along these lines, if the information must be included: "The writer Tom Gallagher has even suggested that Prince Charles has been offered the Romanian crown unofficially by Romanian monarchists, but turned it down." Or, anyway, something like that. john k 18:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Libertatea is just using Gallagher's sentence. It is indeed very odd and certainly not a well known/notorious incident. I have made an edit-slightly tortuous- yours would be ok without the reference to "romanian monarchists". WHO made the offer, WHEN? WHERE? and WHAT did it consist of. Those are the reports we need. Following the logic of those who want to extrapolate from the sentence, we could say that Romanian gypsies offered the throne to Prince Charles (making a case out of the Libertatea article that POW has bought a house in a village with a majority of RRoma inhabitants and that they are happy with this). Or that King Michael offered him the throne as POW and Michael are close, Prince Charles likes Romania and Princess Margareta is a woman and cannot inherit the throne as the 1923 former royal constitution upholds salic law,so Michael is trying to ensure a chance for the monarchy's return etc, etc. Absurd indeed. We should eliminate all speculation and stick to what was actually said. Lovellester 19:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi , I sent first a message to Stefanp's user page to say that , I had some correspondence with Professor Gallagher since end August, and I got the text of the article in english meantime. I was quite amazed he answered me (2 times). He is a great guy -superior intellect obvously, but a bit vague through decency i think and refuses to be drawn in. He said no offer that he knows of was made to prince Charles to accept the Romanian throne, Prof was just talking "hypothetically" in the article he published, which was about quite another subject. I was sort of disappointed as the idea was really interesting.

Here are Professor gallaghers words, from his first email to me of 23 august:

Sujet Re: Romania - King and Prince Charles Afficher l'en-tête

Expéditeur T.G.Gallagher@.........uk

Date Mer, 23 Août 2006, 10:11

Dear Mr Perlier,

I'm glad that you've been having rewarding times during your visit to Romania. it is a multi-layered country and it is only rarely that some of its finer aspects get the treatment they deserve in the world's media.(...)

I had a look at wikipedia and couldn't find the reference to my recent article in which i alluded to an invitation to Prince Charles to come and fill any monarchical vacancy in Romania. (...) maybe I didn't look at the particular sentence with the reference to Prince Charles closely enough. It was a detour from the main point in the article and I was just saying that if there was a vacancy and a call came, he might want to consider accepting it.

all good wishes,

Yours Sincerely,

Tom Gallagher

Second email 3 days ago:

Sujet Re: Romania - King and Prince Charles Afficher l'en-tête

Expéditeur:T.G.Gallagher@........uk Date : Sam, 28 Octobre 2006, 18:38 Priorité: Normale

Dear Ian Perlier,

Thank you for your absorbing message. (....) As for the main point of your letter: sorry to disappoint you, but I am reluctant to get further involved.As you know, I didn't call for Prince Charles to become a contender for the Romanian throne, I just floated it as a hypothesis. Perhaps it was inevitable that royal bloggers from different camps in Romania would choose to argue that I had done the first. But my words stand for themselves in the newspaper and you have managed to find the translation, due to your tenacity.

What I say or don't say from now on about the subject will make little difference to how it is treated and I am reluctant to plunge into wikipedia armed with a denial. It was a very rare intervention by me on the royal question and I don't have strong views on the matter, except perhaps that in certain specific circumstances a royal restoration could end an injustice and prove beneficial for the future development of Romania.

Best wishes,

Tom Gallagher

So there was no offer, Prof G would have confirmed it. i guess this counts as a primary source ? So not valid on wikipedia? Interesting for us all anyway, and so editors can remove speculation and stick to the published text only.It has been a cool experience for me in any case.Iapethus 19:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

While we shouldn't source his comments and include them in the article, as that would be OR, there is not rule saying we can't use Gallagher's words as a basis to remove the claim, apparently disproved, that Gallagher was writing that the Prince of Wales had been offered the Romanian throne. I would suggest that we remove the whole business. john k 01:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oka i agree with you, it is not serious to keep in that stuff, it is irresponsible to try and twist out of Prof's words that this thing happened.Iapethus 13:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Private emails do not meet at all the Wikipedia standards for Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:Reliable sources. And understandably so: anybody can forge such emails to further his/her agenda. Therefore, all edits based on these so-called emails will be reverted. Any such further edits will then be immediately reported as vandalisms. MihutM 19:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That's rich! Your edits do not meet Wikipedia standards or policy on verifiability either. Extrapolation and speculation are not allowed.

You know perfectly well that what you are trying to force into the article is bollocks. So Iapethus got some primary source info which illuminates the issue for those editors who have no political agenda in this case - I am personally now quite clear on the matter - why should anyone "forge" emails here. We do not care, we want a good encyclopedia article and no more than that. There was no offer of the Romanian throne to POW, there is NOTHING. Zilch - capisci? You can only go round and round and on and on with all sorts of speculations,but no facts apart from the word "THE" sunk in a hypothetical context in an article about something quite different than sterile debates about a non-existant throne. No other sources apart from Libertatea, which entry looks like it was taken from your own edit of Wikipedia - self-fulfilling prophecy, methinks. However, I have made an edit sticking to the facts - perhaps Iapethus should have waited until removing the whole lot.Lovellester 21:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comments and speculations are completely beside the point: no private emails can be used to edit any Wikipedia article. MihutM's sources, on the other hand, do meet the Wikipedia standards for editing. Now, we can debate as to how to better paraphrase them in the respective edits, but there is no question whatsoever that Mihutm's sources are reliable, verifiable, and published. Carbunar 21:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Carbunar, glad you are here as now you can answer an earlier query of mine: I asked you above to translate very precisely the conditional " i-ar fi fost oferita" (the romanian throne) for us. Secondly, I need help with the sentence" unui articol controversat analistul britanic Tom Gallagher": is it the article that is controversial, or is Gallagher? No need to give grammar lessons, just a straight answer, thanks. Lovellester 22:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Lovellester. Please, see my earlier translation. I stand by it 100%. Carbunar 22:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Carbunar, I am really sorry, but there is so much on this issue, or possibly I have a problem, but it is relly difficult to identify which earlier translation you refer to. Can you just paste it here. ThanksLovellester 23:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Gladly. "It is said that Prince Charles had been offered the Romanian Crown unofficially by the Romanian monarchists, an offer which was turned down, affirms between the lines of a controversial article Tom Gallagher, an expert in the politics and history of Romania. Tom Gallagher is known for his monarchist views and his respect for King Michael." Carbunar 23:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Fiona Watson?

The "Romantic interests" category lists Fiona Watson, a Penthouse model, and has a link. However, the link is to a slain UN worker who appears to be a different person. (Her external biography lists no hint of modelling or Charles, which is understandable, but she also was born in 1968 which would seem to make her too young for His Royal Highness.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.255.55.40 (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

I saw that and thought the same thing. A quick Google search showed that he was at least rumored to be with a Fiona Watson who modeled for Penthouse, and that there is also Fiona Watson who worked for the UN. I think the easiest solution would be to delete the link to the UN-worker article, no? I'm doing it. Vter4life 06:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Interests" should include gardening

The list of topics under "Interests" should include gardening and specifically, organic gardening. rich 10:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Source? – DBD does... 11:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The Prince of Wales is the quite knowledgeable co-author (with Charles Clover, environment editor of The Daily Telegraph) of Highgrove: An Experiment in Organic Gardening and Farming, published in 1993 by Simon & Schuster, ISBN 0-671-79177-X.

I added it to the article in mid-October 2006 (diff here). A recent registrant at the time, I did not know about watchlists, and learned only today that it had subsequently been removed by someone else. The article would benefit from a Publications section as well, as the Highgrove book is not his only authorship or coauthorship. Athænara ✉ 09:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

'Due to the insistence of the royal family'

This section just sounds dumb, it sounds like someone is shouting HOW DARE THEY INSIST THEY CHOOSE TO BE CALLED SOMETHING THEY ARE NOT!!!!1111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.30.220 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The way ancestry is handled in Prince William's article is much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.30.220 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)