Talk:Coronation of Charles III and Camilla/Archive 1

Archive 1

Charles and Camilla photo

Currently the article should includes a 2019 photo. Perhaps it would be better to remove it and replace it with a photo from the coronation once it has taken place. Mcljlm (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Or a photo of them together as King & Queen for now. Then their coronation photos later. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

If you take such photos or find them appropriately licensed, and they are of decent quality, sure. Surtsicna (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Why GoodDay and Surtsicna should there be any photo before the coronation? Mcljlm (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Why should there not? They're now King & Queen. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Because the article is about their yet to take place coronation, not them as King and Queen. Mcljlm (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

It's odd to have a photo of them as Prince of Wales & Duchess of Cornwall, which they no longer are. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested removing it. There are photos of them separately and together elsewhere on WP.Mcljlm (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not think such pedantry is helpful to the readers. King Charles and Queen Camilla are the same people they were in 2019. The article is about their upcoming coronation, so a recent photograph of them is relevant and helpful to the readers. Surtsicna (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's hope a more recent (i.e. post-Sept 8, 2022) photo, will become available. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The article is about their coronation. How is any photo shot before it takes place helpful to readers? Mcljlm (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It illustrates the people who are about to be crowned. Surtsicna (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Since the article starts "The coronation of Charles III and his wife, Camilla" anyone who wants to know what they look like can hover over the hyperlinks and see their photos which appear immediately. It's also unnecessary here since the photo of them together appears immediately when hovering over queen in "as king and queen of the United Kingdom" which follows. Mcljlm (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I do not think it helpful to expect our readers to go to other articles to see the people who are in the focus of this article when there is plenty of room for a single photograph of them in this article. Surtsicna (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Speculations

Is it my impression or is this rumor, although endowed with references, is composed almost exclusively of journalistic speculations? There have been no official announcements whatsoever, and the press embroideries on what might or might not be shouldn't have a place here. When there is official material and / or the coronation takes place, we can update the page with the facts. I'm not even sure if any protests should be included. We live in a world where protests and controversies are the norm. It is useless to emphasize every time that someone protests because he does not live in his ideal world and is convinced that his ideal world would be everyone's ideal world. Just to give an example: it was speculated that Charles would have removed the "by the grace of God" from the proclamation and abandoned or changed the title "defender of the Faith". Neither thing happened.Sira Aspera (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I've just found this article, and I 100% agree with you. I've tried to clear up some of the nonsense. EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Plans for Charles's coronation leaked a good while a go, so the information in the article is more than journalistic speculations. Evidently this should be made more clear in the article. Surtsicna (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

"Elizabeth is believed to have approved of Charles changing his coronation vows to include Camilla as queen some years ago during a wider review to bring the service up to date" is wrong and confused. The coronation oath does not refer to the Queen, so doesn't need to be changed. Whether the oath will be changed for other reasons is completely unknown at this point. "Camilla is to be crowned with the Crown of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother" is also speculation, as the custom has been for a new crown to be made for each consort (though cost might rule that out in 2023), so this is unjustified speculation. I agree references to planned protests are inappropriate for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.76.153 (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Bringing consistency

Heads up. I've changed the intro to Coronation of Elizabeth II, to bring it line with the intro to Charles III's coronation. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

After being reverted at Elizabeth II's coronation page, which I restored to match this coronation's page. I believe an RFC might be around the corner for 'both' pages, concerning the intros. GoodDay (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Page title

Referring to her as just "Camilla" is wrong. She is the Queen of the United Kingdom and will be crowned as such. The page should be renamed "Coronation of Charles III and Queen Camilla" or "Coronation of King Charles III and Queen Camilla". Vabadus91 (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is under no obligation to be deferential to anyone. We do not call Joe Biden "Mr Biden" either. Surtsicna (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Nor do we call him "Joe".--Vabadus91 (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I tended to agree with you until I looked at the revision histories of previous coronations of monarchs and their consorts listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Coronations_of_British_monarchs and found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Coronation_of_William_IV_and_Adelaide#Requested_move_19_May_2019. Mcljlm (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The infobox refers to her as Queen Camilla, maybe the title of the article should be amended. I'm not sure why we wouldn't call her Queen Camilla if that's her title. BogLogs (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:HONORIFICS probably applies here. I, for one, would strongly advocate against calling Camilla "Queen Consort Camilla" whenever we reference her. We're the English-language Wikipedia, not a national encyclopedia for England. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 22:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:HONORIFICS doesn't seem to mention anything on the subject of article page titles. I don't think she has to be called Queen Camilla throughout every line of text but having the title as "Coronation of Charles III and Queen Camilla" or "Coronation of King Charles III and Queen Camilla" as Vabadus91 proposes seems fine to me. BogLogs (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

"Charles III and Queen Camilla" is jarring. The titles of coronation articles originally included the words king and queen but these were dropped following a RM discussion for more concise titles. Surtsicna (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Not how it's done for the other British coronation pages. We've got Coronation of William IV and Adelaide, for example. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Why, though? What's the rationale for calling King William "William IV" but Queen Adelaide just "Adelaide"? All coronation articles styled like this are jarring.--Vabadus91 (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

From the first line of WP:CONSORTS "Living or recently deceased royal consorts are referred to by their present name and title, as with Queen Letizia of Spain and Queen Anne of Romania."

I'm not looking to argue about this all day if there are no other editors interested in supporting a change but it seems pretty simple to me to include her title in the, well article title. BogLogs (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Related RFC

An RFC concerning this page's intro, has been opened at WP:ROY. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Wish we could have more input. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

"The first coronation of a consort since that of the Queen Mother"

Is that so? I've see the old films of Elizabeth II's coronation and just after she is crowned, Phillip appears to pull a crown out of his pocket and crown himself.(Working from memory) Romomusicfan (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

What the Duke of Edinburgh donned on his head was not a crown, but a coronet. Every peer of the Realm wears a coronet at coronations. In his case, it was the type that corresponds to princes. 200.123.5.226 (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Philip's coronet: https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/prince-philips-life-celebrated-with-new-idUSKCN2DZ2RT, Philip wearing the coronet: https://www.agefotostock.com/age/en/details-photo/jun-06-1953-coronation-of-queen-elizabeth-ii-duke-of-edinburgh-in-state-robes-during-ceremony-photo-shows-h-r-h-the-duke-of-edinburgh-wearing-his-state/ZUK-19530606-baf-k09-237 Mcljlm (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

"As husband of the Sovereign, The Duke of Edinburgh was not crowned or anointed at the Coronation ceremony in 1953.". https://www.royal.uk/50-facts-about-duke-edinburgh Mcljlm (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Phillip was only a Duke at the time of the coronation, he was created a prince in 1957. WiltedXXVI (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Of course! I've deleted Prince. The Reuters story, which I found first, uses Prince in the heading of its description of the Windsor Castle exhibit. After finding the other photo I used it having forgotten it was anachronistic for 1953. Mcljlm (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not quite that simple. Prince Philip was of course a prince of Greece and Denmark, although he renounced his foreign status on being naturalised. The 1957 change suggests to me that the Palace had actually made a mistake ten years earlier, and thought the Duke of Edinburgh was a prince/ It wouldn't be their first mistake of that sort, nor their last - look at the confusion over the status of HRH Prince Archie of Sussex and HRH Prince Lilibet of Sussex. 203.211.76.153 (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet don't use the title by choice, its not a mistake, and they aren't the only ones, Prince Edward's children don't use their titles as Prince and Princess either, despite them being grandchildren of Elizabeth II WiltedXXVI (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The UK never had King-consorts. Thus the reason Philip was never crowned. Interesting though, that one of the UK predecessor states (England) did have a King consort named Philip. The UK's other predecessor state (Scotland) had a King consort named Henry. GoodDay (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Philip wasn't King consort in the modern sense, he held the title King of Spain (amongst others) and was made King jure uxoris (kind of a co-monarch, like William III and Mary II) by his marriage to Mary I, I imagine that if Philip was just a prince, but still married Mary, he would have kept that title and not be made King because parliament has never liked the idea of a King consort, especially a foreign one WiltedXXVI (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Philip became king of Spain two years after his marriage to Mary. His father made him king of Naples before the marriage to make him equal in rank to her but I cannot think of any historian arguing that this titular kingship had much to do with him being made king of England. Surtsicna (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

See Act for the Marriage of Queen Mary to Philip of Spain: "Under the terms of the marriage treaty, Philip was to enjoy his wife's titles and honours as King of England and Ireland for as long as their marriage should last". Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I wrote that back in the day :) Surtsicna (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization

Why refuse to put a capital in earl of EARHAM?? EARL ,Okkkk it can be "earl" ,but The City is a PLACE NOT A JOB??? 41.249.136.226 (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

What section is this in? I can't see it. Secondly, see Wikipedia:Be bold which says; "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it". A bit blunt, but you get the point. Alansplodge (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Any use of "King", "Queen", "Queen Consort", "Duke", "Earl", "Earl Marshal", etc. is capitalized when referring to an office, title, position or person. "He will become a king" is not and "He will become the King" is. See MOS:OFFICE. I have fixed this through out the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

No. MOS:OFFICE says quite the opposite: Offices, titles, and positions such as ... king, emperor, grand duke ... are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically. The guideline goes on to say that titles preceded by modifiers such as the definite article should not be capitalized. Surtsicna (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but they are not used generically where I capitalized them, but refer to specific people, office, title positions and offices. You are confused what the word "generically" means here. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I read it more carefully and noticed it says They are capitalized only in the following cases: . . . When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II); the Pope, not the pope (referring to Francis). (emphasis added). Showing that the presence of a definite article does not equate to always using lower case. It does seem my example above is wrong. I will address this more later. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Currently says "The coronation of Charles III and his wife, Camilla, as king and queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms is scheduled . . . " I would capitalize "King" and "Queen" in personal writing, but per MOS:JOBTITLES, it seems this should be lower case. This applies as well to "Charles's wife, Camilla, will be crowned alongside him as queen consort." in #Emblem. I concede my error in capitalizing it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

"The King" and "The Queen Consort"

Through out the article these refers to a specific person, Charles and Camilla respectively. Per MOS:JOBTITLES: They are capitalized only in the following cases: . . . When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II); the Pope, not the pope (referring to Francis). (emphasis added). This clearly states that these should be capitalized despite being preceded by a definite article ("the"). Specific uses are"

". . . of the King and the Queen consort's charities as . . ." in the lead and and a similar use in #Public celebrations;

". . . temporarily relaxed with the King and Queen consort's approval in this case . . ." in #Emblem;

". . . allegiance to the King, while other . . ." and ". . . suggested that the King will wear . . ." in #Speculation;

". . . the day of the coronation, the King and the Queen consort will travel . . ." in #Procession;

"The King will also wear . . ." in #Regalia;

"The King personally oversaw the development . . ." and ". . . tribute to the King's father . . ." in #Music

All of these should be capitalized as shown here. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

"Duke" and "Earl Marshal"

In #Planning it currently says "The duke of Norfolk, by tradition, is in charge of organising the coronation as earl marshal, who as of 2023 is the 18th duke, Edward Fitzalan-Howard."

This seems tricky. MOS:JOBTITLES states "Where an office's official or formal title is used to refer to the office rather than the individual, then any capitalizations should accurately reflect the official or formal title e.g. Secretary of State for Justice not secretary of state for Justice or secretary of state for justice. However, informal titles may not be capitalized: i.e. Justice Secretary or justice secretary." In the articles Duke of Norfolk and Earl Marshal, both "Duke" and "Earl Marshal" are almost always capitalized. Earl Marshal is mentioned as an "office", so this part of JOBTITLES perhaps should apply. "Duke" seems like it might not be capitalize the way it is presented as a bit generic in the first use and descriptive in the second. I might reword this so "Duke" is only used as part of his name the way it is used in his article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

"The duke of Norfolk" does not refer to any specific duke and is preceded by a modifier. "The earl marshal" is just an office, also preceded by a modifier. Surtsicna (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, "Earl Marshal" is an office that is titled in all caps so it should be all caps per JOBTITLES quoted above. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Not when preceded by a definite article. I also disagree with rewording the sentence for the worse just to justify having caps. Surtsicna (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the presence of a definite article equates to lower case, but as I said, it all looks wrong to me. I disagree with phrasing the dukes name in such a way just so it can be lower case. The phrasing I used was more concise and leaves out superfluous information. The coronation itself is a tradition and everything connected with it is done by tradition, so why mention anything about tradition? That Fitzalan-Howard is the current Duke of Norfolk does not need to be mentioned as well. My proposed phrasing "Edward Fitzalan-Howard, 18th Duke of Norfolk as Earl Marshal is in charge of organising the coronation." is way more concise. But, either way "Earl Marshal" should still be lower case as it is preceded by "as", in this case a preposition and so a modifier. Would you be okay if I restored my phrasing with "earl marshal" lower case, but "duke" in its correct title position and capitalized? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

2023 Coronation Honours

Hello all, I've also posted this on Template talk:British honours lists, this afternoon I received an email from the Australian Honours Secretariate stating that both they and the UK's Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood have chosen not to issue a Coronations Honours list this year, instead they will go ahead with the Birthday Honours. The following is a copy and paste of the email.

"Thank you for your email concerning the upcoming June 2023 honours list title.

The previous Coronation Honour Lists (gazettal and announcement) were part of the British Imperial System. Since 1975, the Australian Honours System was implemented and has continued with Australia Day and (Sovereign) Birthday honours lists.

The Australian Honours and Awards Secretariat has raised the matter, and sought feedback, from our colleagues at the Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood, London. They have advised that at this stage their intention is to release a King’s Birthday Honours List in 2023.

Following this, the Secretariat will also title the upcoming 2023 honours list as ‘The King’s Birthday Honours List 2023’.

Kind regards

Australian Honours and Awards Secretariat

Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General

Government House, Canberra ACT 2600

T: +61 2 6283 3604

W: www.gg.gov.au"

At least this gives us a clear picture of what to and what not to expect. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• King Charles III and Queen Camilla.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

New discussion notification

Please see the new opened discussion here. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Coronation cross article?

I created a draft for the Coronation cross of King Charles. Does there appear to be enough material out there for a separate article? Thriley (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

There’s actually already an article: Cross of Wales! Thriley (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Fu55y2aWAAArAwF.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Prince Andrew

Prince Andrew was reportedly booed, from the grandstand ([1], [2], etc.). This should be mentioned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Prince Andrew being booed? Doesn't surprise me. Feel free to add it yourself. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems trivial. Perhaps belongs at his biography, if anywhere. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother adding the booing. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Like GoodDay, I wouldn't suggest to add that. BillClinternet (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Charles III and Queen Camilla Balcony.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Charles III and Queen Camilla Balcony (no balcony drape).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Why isn't this on the main page "in the news" ?

Seriously, a winner of the world snooker championship makes "in the news" but not the coronation of King Charles??MisterZed (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

You'd better go discuss that at: WP:ITN/Candidates. Ollieisanerd (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It has now been posted at ITN, thanks to Tariqabjotu. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Preparations 'BOLD' edit: discussion

Hello! I’ve recently made a significant edit to the ‘Preparations’ and ‘Guests’ sections, in line with the other edits I’ve been making lately to keep the article well-structured and as succinct as possible. I’ve had a request to discuss it, so here we are. You can see the full differences here, but here’s an overview:

• Removing the ‘Guests’ section and making it a subsection of ‘Preparations’
• Condensing the ‘Guests’ subsection, especially the discussion of Parliamentary attendees.
• Condensing ‘Vestments’ to focus on the main details, e.g. symbolic embroidery. Also moving the section on peers’ robes here and removing a badly-sourced statement on women’s hats.
• Removing the sentence on auctioning chairs and the colour of the carpet matching the Ukrainian flag — they’re nice bits of trivia, but not essential.
• Some general tweaking to phrases for clarity or to make them shorter.

To give an example of the last, the sentence ‘The posts of Lord High Steward and Lord High Constable of England, the two Great Officers of State that are now only named for coronations, were respectively given to General Sir Gordon Messenger, Constable of the Tower, and Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, Chief of the Defence Staff’ became ‘The posts of Lord High Steward and Lord High Constable of England, which are now only named for coronations, were given to General Sir Gordon Messenger and Admiral Sir Tony Radakin respectively.’ To me those have essentially the same meaning, but the second is not quite as dense to read.

I appreciate that I can be quite a ruthless editor, but I’ve worked on a couple of articles about these sorts of events and know that they can quickly become heavy with intricate detail that isn’t necessary in an encyclopaedic article. I don’t cut things out for the sake of it, but consider what the article should tell the reader and what can be left to the sources and other further reading.

I’m sure there are flaws to my edits, it would be odd if there weren't, but I do believe my overall approach (including its boldness) is sound. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Photo of protests

I have uploaded a photo I took of the demonstrators yesterday outside the National Gallery. I've carefully not included anything that could show a demonstrator's face, but the shot does include an abolish the monarchy placard, the hoardings to block views of Trafalgar Square and the parade, and the back of Nelson's column which pretty thoroughly shows where the demonstration wound up. As I took the photo I leave it to others to decode when and where to use it. File:Abolish the Monarchy photo, coronation of Charles III.jpg cheers ϢereSpielChequers 12:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I've added the image to the Protests section which I think makes the most sense but I wasn't sure about the caption, so if anybody wants to look it over. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

First coronation of the 21st century?

The last sentence of the intro reads, "This will be the first coronation of a British monarch to occur in the 21st century."

Let's not be so pessimistic. 188.210.21.3 (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, am I missing something here? The last British coronation was one of four in the 20th century. Alansplodge (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

You are missing something. First implies there will be more. Which implies he will die before 2100. Hence 188.210.21.3 suggesting its pessimistic. -195.213.41.254 (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"Long live our noble King..." :-) Alansplodge (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey, that Windsor blood does somethin' sometimes. 152 years old at this point doesn't seem that far-fetched. StrawWord298944 (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Or simply that he will be the last. :) :3 F4U (they/it) 04:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems a strange/unnecesary thing to say given it already said his mother's coronation was in 1953. It was also the first coronation of the 2020s, the first coronation of the Internet age, the first coronation since Brexit, the first coronation since the Beatles broke up. But so what? DeCausa (talk) 09:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Better yet, first since the Beatles came to be. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I know there's a good chance Charles could live to 100 years old. But, I don't think he'll make it to 152 years. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

"May the king live forever!" Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Coronation oath

I'm not certain if it's in the coronation oath or not. But at his mother's coronation, I believe she read out the six other realms, after the United Kingdom. Did Charles III read out the 14 other realms, in his oath? or did he just say "other Realms and Territories". GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The latter. Leventio (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

WILL you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, your other Realms and the Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs? Page 24 Alansplodge (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Lead image

Coronation of Charles III and Camilla

From top, left to right: The King and Queen returning from Westminster Abbey to Buckingham Palace after the service; the Gold State Coach; Westminster Abbey, the site of the coronation; The Mall hung with Union Jacks for the procession
Date	6 May 2023
Venue	Westminster Abbey
Location	London, United Kingdom
Participants	King Charles III Queen Camilla Great Officers of State Archbishops and bishops assistant of the Church of England Garter Principal King of Arms Peers of the Realm Faith representatives

What do people think about this arrangement for the infobox until we get good pictures of Charles and Camilla at the coronation? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems fine. Obviously a picture of them on thrones in the cathedral with crowns being placed on their heads is the ultimate goal. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

We only have to wait 100+ years for such images to be pd. No time at all. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The balcony picture that BillClinternet has now added looks pretty good and clearly shows the royals in they're coronation regalia. I'm not sure (now we have such a photo) that a collage is necessary. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Getting this angle was rather... hard, and I'm actually surprised my camera could take it, even though it's not the crispest image (if you see the blur on their crowns and the King and Queen). Unfortunately I couldn't get any good procession pictures. Considering this was a more scaled down coronation, I don't believe a collage is necessary either. Also if you look at the pages for Elizabeth and George VI's coronation, it's also a single photo.

Thanks,

BillClinternet (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. Good shot on your part, Bill. I don't think we need the collage anymore either; it's a similar enough photo to Coronation of Edward VII and Alexandra, Coronation of George V and Mary, Coronation of George VI and Elizabeth, Coronation of Elizabeth II etc. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 Note: A deletion request has been opened on the file (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charles III and Queen Camilla Balcony.jpg) though the nominator has given any specific reasons as yet. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for defending my case, Cakelot,

I'm honestly not sure what that guy is on about. The photo I took has only been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and he should've done his research before nominating my picture for deletion.

He's probably bored.

BillClinternet (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

With new evidence presented at the deletion request it seems this file will be deleted. If the uploader did take it I recommend they follow the request there and upload the original unaltered image from they're camera with EXIF data intact. I think that the single image of them in the couch is now the best image we have for the lead. I don't think a collage is a good idea. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and unfortunately, it was deleted. But since the administrators made that decision that it was copyrighted and the majority of people presume I didn't take it, then so be it. Luckily someone else took a photo and published it to the commons which is now the infobox one.

Thanks for the support Cakelot,

BillClinternet (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Naming convention

Is there any reason why some articles' names include the consorts and some don't? E.g. here we have one (Camilla) and for Coronation of Elizabeth II (and for Elizabeth I too) don't? RajatonRakkaus (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Philip wasn't crowned at Elizabeth's coronation. Elizabeth I never married. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Why wasn't Philip crowned? Excuse me, I have got very little knowledge about those traditions. RajatonRakkaus (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Philip wasn't "king consort". A king is seen as ranking higher than a queen, and the consort can't outrank the monarch; so whilst Camilla is a queen consort (due to the position of queen being lower than that of a king), Philip wasn't a king consort, as Elizabeth was the queen regnant. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much. RajatonRakkaus (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox photo subject to copyright

The current infobox photo is subject to copyright. All images taken by Chris Jackson are copyrighted as said on his website.

Thanks,

BillClinternet (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit and nominated for speedy deletion as it seems pretty obviously copyvio. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 00:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Awarded to all editors who made a positive contribution to the Coronation of Charles III and Camilla article. Mjroots (talk) 05:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

If this applies to you, please feel free to copy the barnstar to you talk page, barnstar page etc. as appropriate. Well done all. Mjroots (talk) 05:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag Celebrating the Coronation of King Charles III in Bexley High Street.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Regards to new coronation portraits

As you may have heard, or seen, new coronation portraits of the King and Queen have been officially released. These photos, in fact, do not belong to the photographer, but rather the Royal Household. Any photos that you would like to use that belong to the royal household, you must get permission from themselves.

In a nutshell: The coronation portraits are copyrighted.

BillClinternet (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

This coronation and the non-UK realms

I was interested to learn that this was the coronation not just for the UK but also for the other Commonwealth realms. From reading the article, it seems the extent of the involvement of each "other realm", beyond that of a non-realm Commonwealth member, was that its governor-general and premier, and a flagbearer of its choosing, got to march in the miscellaneous preliminary section of the "procession into the abbey". Everything else, as regards organisation and participation, seems to have been UK-specific. Perusing the service order, I found one counterclaim: "Orders of Chivalry and Gallantry Award Holders" includes Order of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc, though not from e.g.orders, decorations, and medals of Jamaica. On the other hand, further evidence of the generally UK-centric nature of the ceremony:

• Archbishop Welby...
  • ...said "we are gathered ... to recognise and to give thanks for his life of service to this Nation, the Realms, and the Commonwealth"
  • ...asked Charles "Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, your other Realms and the Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?".
• I don't see the New Zealand Herald Extraordinary or anyone from the Canadian Heraldic Authority in the Kings/Pursuivants/Heralds of Arms sections

Some questions arising, that might generate information worth including in this or some other article:

• Is there any discussion (not necessarily on Wikipedia) of coronation-and-the-other-realms?
  • I think any such discussion will relate to divisible Crown, which is a concept I struggle to understand, and the current Wikipedia discussion of which could do with expansion. A quick Google Scholar check found some articles (most of which I can't access) from the 1953 coronation, which predate acceptance of the idea of a divisible Crown.
  • Matters of the Crown as a metonym for the state are separate from the coronation, and the new monarch succeeds instantly on the death or abdication of the old one, regardless of when or whether there is a coronation. Nevertheless, the symbolisms of the coronation and of "the Crown" are interconnected.
• was there much liaison in 2022–2023 between the earl marshal/Coronation Claims Office and the realms; if so, then via what channels? Did the realms discuss things together (cf. the Perth Agreement) or just bilaterally with the UK? Did they have much of a say, or just get presented with decisions already made, or were they happy to let the people in London make the decisions?
• has anyone ever suggested that, e.g. the King of Canada should be crowned in Ottawa instead of/as well as at Westminster? Perhaps, because there is only one Crown (albeit divisible), there must be only one coronation? As against that, Perth Agreement#Timetable shows, the change to the succession needed separate ratification by each realm, but also by each Australian state. Maybe that's a reason a coronation in Canberra is implausible; would Charles need to continue on to Sydney, Melbourne, et al. for state coronations?

Notes

jnestorius^(talk) 22:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

source 53 has disappeared

it was "music during the coronation" :-( LDV-GS (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Image description

I note the use of the Commons image File:Police Surveillance of The Rascal Multitude (52880437864).jpg in the article. I don't dispute the use of the image, or the discussion surrounding it, but I would like to draw attention to the image description text which is an overt piece of political polemic, complete with inline URLs of campaigning websites. Although not visible in the article body, it is visible when the image is clicked.

I realise this has been uploaded under the terms of Wikimedia Commons, but it seems to me that if this propaganda text is allowed to pass through onto English Wikipedia, it violates Wikipedia:NPOV. Cnbrb (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The image, and it's description, is hosted on commons so isn't subject to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV (Commons is not Wikipedia). It is subject to commons' policies (e.g: COM:NPOV, COM:ADVERT) and I'm sure you could head over there and edit it if you feel it is not in line with those policies. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I read COM:NPOV, and political issues are considered "not appropriate" for complaint, so there's nothing that can be done there. What I am suggesting is that it presents a problem for Wikipedia.Cnbrb (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The description for that image is mined from the original Flickr post. We can edit the description if it is that problematic, as WikiCommon descriptions are not obligated to maintain the description that originally came with said image. Also, the uploader is someone who uploads a wide variety of flickr posts, so I do not think there is any attachment to the original description on their part. Leventio (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I can edit it. I just thought that the tone of the text suggested I might be opening myself up to an edit war with a fanatic.... never mind, I'll sort it out.Cnbrb (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think many people actually read image descriptions on commons, so your probably not in any danger of an edit war. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 16:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Album

I've seen quite a few news articles (and the firm's own website) saying the album would be released for download the same day, but I can't actually find it anywhere. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

https://open.spotify.com/album/3rQRFsInIVzTras9vj1P4i This? 223.16.62.17 (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I've found it as a YouTube playlist, but I don't know if that's supposed to be there.[3]

the Crown used by Queen Camilla

Although the official portrait of the crown is not released, according to the photos of the coronation, we can get the appearance of Queen Mary's crown after adjustment, I think we should add it.

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/queen-camilla-watches-an-raf-flypast-from-the-balcony-of-news-photo/1488341825?adppopup=true KGOO510 (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The image you included in your hasn't been released under a free licence and so can't be used. The image File:Camilla (52877352018) (cropped).jpg is a similar free image, that is already used to illustrate the Crown of Queen Mary article. I don't think this image is good enough (resolution wise) to replace the existing image of the crown in the article. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Coronation Album and Congregation Chairs

It seems that there is no mention of the coronation album and Congregation Chairs.Maybe I missed it, but these two are also important elements of the coronation. 1.https://www.royal.uk/news-and-activity/2023-05-01/historic-chairs-to-be-reused-for-the-coronation 2.https://metro.co.uk/2023/04/28/historic-4-hour-album-of-king-charles-iiis-coronation-to-be-released-18689917/ 223.16.62.17 (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Service Details

The section of this article describing the service is in some places woefully lacking detail and in some places entirely inaccurate. Articles on previous coronations accurately reflect the liturgical proceedings, but this one does not seem to do so. 100.6.61.26 (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

“Arrests” in infobox?

Why on Earth is “arrests” of all things included in the coronation infobox? Seems like a strange item to add for the overall event. AKTC3 (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I've taken it out - it's nonsense. Hard to say why anyone thought adding a parameter with only 'see below' against it could be appropriate for any Infobox. DeCausa (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Crowds watch the Coronation of Charles III in Isle of Man.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality

I've added the POV tag, due the generally adulatory nature of the article. In particular, there is a lack of due weight provided to objections to the coronation, as well as objections to the monarchy sparked by the coronation, and no mention of such objections in the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Also protesters have been unduly arrested, including key figures; Head of UK’s leading anti-monarchy group arrested at coronation protest, What is anti-monarchy group Republic and what other royal events has it protested at?, Coronation: Moment protester arrested near Trafalgar Square, More than 20 anti-monarchy protesters arrested ahead of coronation Abcmaxx (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't look particularly lopsided to me. There is a whole section dedicated to public opinion including protests. I am fine with addin[g a sentence to the lead about the presence of protestors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that objections are limited to that section. For example, the section "Public Celebrations" should be renamed to allow the inclusion of public objections, rather than having sections like Coronation of Charles III and Camilla#Australia having the only hint of objections to the coronation and monarchy being the line The AML opted to not to organize street parties over concerns that they may be disrupted by republican protesters. There also doesn't appear to be a section where topics such as Anthony Albanese's decision to pledge allegiance to the King, and objections to that decision, can be included, as that doesn't appear to fall within "Public Celebrations". BilledMammal (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that the article is adulatory, but bias may well have crept in from the relative weight given to celebrations compared to protests and other dissent.

I don't think that the 'Preparation' and 'Coronation' sections need altering, as they're essentially statements of fact (i.e. 'The King had a crown put on his head), but the rest could need rebalancing. I'll start by adding something to the lead. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• I suggest we remove the tag. The article is neutral, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Concur. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Agree, protests and objections should be given due weight. Due weight is not equal weight. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. The late Queen's death also caused plenty of objections to the monarchy (ie. "Not My King" protests), and there's no mention of that in the lede. There was also during proclamations of the king's accession, no mention in that lede. There's no need for it to be mentioned here, the mention in the body of the article is sufficient and the tag should be removed. Estar8806 (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Since this has devolved into a lot of talking and arguing over whether the POV tag is even needed, I have decided to be WP:BOLD and see what sticks. The changes I have made are:

• Altering the lead to include half a paragraph on the mixed public response in the UK and Commonwealth realms, and the protests in the UK
• Altered the sections so that they now focus on the UK, the Commonwealth realms, and other Commonwealth members
• Restructured these new sections so that they now include both criticisms and celebrations.

The United Kingdom section is the most comprehensive, and now includes:

• Subsections on royal, ecclesiastical, and government/corporate events
• A subsection on public opinion
• A subsection on protests within the UK

This should serve as a rough template for the sections on other states, which I'm not in as good a position to fill out. I have, however, added a section on republican responses in Australia and a section on South Africa which summarises objections to the Cullinan diamonds being used.

The important thing to remember is that there is no need to include either positive or negative events and responses, only significant ones. If South Africa's only response to the coronation was negative then that's what we should report, and if the Isle of Man's was wholly positive we should include that as well. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article as currently written actually gives undue weight to the protests while (from what I can tell) not mentioning those who camped for days to view the processions. The Reactions section should include both positive and negative reactions, but currently only includes negative. 100.6.61.26 (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Should include material on the coronation bringing to the forefront objections to the monarchy with formal independence advancing in a number of current Commonwealth states (source), the objection of having stolen jewels adorning the regalia (source) for example. This article, like most coverage of the British royal family, is a complete whitewash, scrubbed of all but the mildest objections. nableezy - 13:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure you know how WP:BRD works. Include information in the article you believe improves it. I for one won't object to your specific sourced example regarding the jewels. The objections to the UK monarchy itself that you cite may or may not be appropriate in an article regarding the coronation. Jusdafax (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Part of the issue is the structure of the article. It is WP:DUE to include issues raised around the use of the Cullinan diamonds, among others ([4] [5] [6]), but there is no clear place to include these objections - they don't belong in "reactions", and it doesn't seem to belong anywhere else. In general, the article is structured in such a way that supports positive coverage but excludes negative coverage. Maybe Coronation of Charles III and Camilla#Vestments and crowns? BilledMammal (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes I am aware, I have little interest in writing about topics of no importance though. I am remarking on the idea that this article however is "neutral". nableezy - 13:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be wholly factual and written in a fair and balanced way. I think the POV template is unjustified. 86.184.129.47 (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

IMHO, bringing the republican side into monarchy related pages, where the monarchy still exists? would be a messy situation. AFAIK, the monarchy is in no danger of being abolished in the United Kingdom, Canada 'or' anytime soon in Australia & New Zealand. I'm not certain about the other 11 realms, however. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

"Formal independence advancing in a number of current Commonwealth states"? Every country in the Commonwealth is independent. There's so such thing as "informal independence", meaning there's no such thing as "formal independence". No article on Wikipedia should contain disinformation. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Such events naturally attract malcontents and troublemakers but it doesn't appear that they were at all significant on the day and so they should get correspondingly little weight. For example, compare with the weather which was quite a big deal – concerns about rain and lack of sunshine which may have a big effect on crowds and the numerous outdoors events. The article hardly covers the weather currently -- just a brief mention in a sentence about the flypast -- without providing any detail at all. So, we should reduce the attention given to rentamob and increase that given to material aspects. The neutrality tag should be removed forthwith as that's obviously disruptive for an article of this size and prominence. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Absolutely agree. This POV tagging is ridiculous. The article is wholly balanced and reflects factual events. 86.184.129.47 (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  IP, you need to stop removing the tag. The issues raised here have not been resolved and there is not a consensus to remove it. BilledMammal (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  ... "the section "Public Celebrations" should be renamed to allow the inclusion of public objections"... is that a joke? If it's not, why not just try changing it and see if anyone supports you? There was no consensus for slapping on the POV tag in the first place. You should have suggested it here first. 86.184.129.47 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  No, it's not a joke. The article is structured in such a way that encourages bias, and one of those is an entire section on public celebrations. As for removing the tag, see the description; consensus is needed to remove it, not add it. I've restored it, and opened an RfC to see if such consensus exists; I consider an RfC excessive over a tag, but it is not unprecedented and as you are willing to edit war over it necessary. BilledMammal (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

There's a whole section on protests. What are you complaining about? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Andrew, calling those who were arrested for planning a peaceful protest against having an unelected head of state "malcontents and troublemakers" disqualifies one from making a serious comment on bias. BobBadg (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe the NPoV tag should be removed, tbh. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Any discussion on the merits, or otherwise, of the monarchy itself belong on Monarchy of the United Kingdom. This page is about an event, and reflects that adequately. Moons of Io (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC on neutrality tag

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to remove the tag, and the tag was already removed without pushback in the actual article.

---

Should the NPOV tag be removed from the article? 15:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. The article has numerous issues; it excludes WP:DUE content, such as objections over the use of Cullinan diamonds among other jewels ([7] [8] [9]), and it doesn't provide due prominence to other objections over the coronation, such as protests and calls for the abolition of the monarchy, particularly calls for abolition of the monarchy outside the United Kingdom.

In part, this is due to the structure of the article, which encourages only positive coverage. For example, there is an entire section on Public celebration, which precludes mention of public objections and results in sections such as that of Australia only obliquely mentioning such objections in lines like The AML opted to not to organize street parties over concerns that they may be disrupted by republican protesters.

Resolving these issues isn't simple, and the tag should remain until they have been resolved. BilledMammal (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose removing tag, especially since the arrests. This has made the civil liberties aspect a huge issue, inadequately reflected in the article. BobBadg (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support I am not sure we can cover everything, but we do cover protests. Nor should this really be about anything other than the coronation, other issues have their place in other articles. Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support: the article is about the coronation, not the abolition of the monarchy. Protests are mentioned in some detail in the "Reactions" section. Alansplodge (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  The article is about the coronation, and as a consequence of the coronation and as part of the coronation there were calls for the abolition of the monarchy. They are relevant and given the coverage they have received should be included. That also isn't the only NPOV issue with the article. BilledMammal (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  • They are included. Alansplodge (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Per my edit summary. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Best not to put pro-republican PoVs in monarchy-related pages of monarchies still in existence & not good to put pro-monarchist PoVs in republic-related pages of republics still in existence. Why? Because monarchs don't seek election or re-election & republics rarely become monarchies or change back to monarchies. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  If inclusion of pro-republican PoV's is WP:DUE, or the inclusion of pro-monarchist PoV's is DUE, then it certainly should be included; to not do so would be a clear WP:NPOV violation, and the argument Because monarchs don't seek election or re-election & republics rarely become monarchies or change back to monarchies makes no sense. BilledMammal (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support removal - It's balanced in my view. Simple. Jusdafax (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Yep - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support removal - This article is neutral and the objections have their section. Goodday and others have displayed there is no merit to the tag.Halbared (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose removal (Summoned by bot) The question at hand is very obvious - Is there a dispute over NPOV concerns? Rather obviously yes, so the tag should stay. The tag should not be removed till there are clear and non trivial objections still being discussed. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support removal There's an entire section dedicated to the protests. Speculations about what might happen in some of the Commonwealth realms is not entirely related to the coronation. Additionally, every single bit of objection does not need to find its way into the page; the same is true for the celebrations. Keivan.f^Talk 18:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support removal It's a perfectly balanced article which gives significant coverage of the protests etc. No reason to keep the tag. Atchom (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose removal. I thought the article was pretty good on NPOV (and if anything the lead has slightly more on the opposition than needed) until I got to the Public Celebrations section. Firstly, it should be merged with the following Reactions section (and called Reactions) and cover both celebrations and the opposition in each country. Secondly, the amount of coverage on the celebrations is a WP:DUE problem. Although it might sound somewhat POV forky, it might be better hiving much of it off into a Reactions to the Coronation of Charles III and Camilla article. At any rate there's too much of it here for an article on the Coronation itslef. I think that's what gives it the alleged adulatory tone. DeCausa (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Official celebrations in the other Commonwealth realms do not go under "Reaction". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I know. Thats the problem I'm highlighting. DeCausa (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

...Am I misreading your suggestion? "[T]he Public Celebrations section. Firstly, it should be merged with the following Reactions section (and called Reactions)". I took that to mean the official events in the non-UK realms should be put under the header "Reactions", since those events were, at the time, within the "Public celebrations" section. Regardless, I see that section has been renamed to "Events and responses in the other Commonwealth realms", anyway, which seems to work okay. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support removal There is due weight to the fact that some people were indifferent or disapproving of the event, a historical fact that deserves to be in the article. I've added a source that estimated the size of protests, which was "hundreds" in London and 300 in Cardiff (Scotland, I don't know). I don't know how many people watched the procession, but Reuters says "tens of thousands" [10]. Whether that's 10,001 or 99,999, it's far more than who turned up to oppose the event. While we should say that organised opposition (instead of just polling) existed, we shouldn't pretend that it was equal to or greater than the presumably supportive crowd. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think that's the problem. Those of us who are in Britain (and actually I think the same applies to editors in the US) we are seeing it in those terms. However, the news reports are positioning it much more controversially in 6 or 7 of the realms - notably Australia and Jamaica. Although covered, I think this is what is not coming out as clearly as it should be for WP:DUE. DeCausa (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support removal - WP:DUE does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. The opposition gets sufficient coverage and the rest of the article is balanced. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 18:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Removal per above. Any issues at this point are minor and can be resolved through the ordinary processes of editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Removal having read the article I don't see any of the issues which others have raised and have no problem with the neutrality of the article - expanded content could also run the risk of WP:FALSEBALANCE as others have said. Turnagra (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Removal for all the reasons stated.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. Requests for comment are for getting input to solve the underlying dispute, not to determine whether there is a dispute. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support removal - Issues complained of appear to have been dealt with. Protest need to be given due weight, which they have been. FOARP (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• support Remove WTF is this?! Obviously it should never have been added in the first place and this looks like trolling. time to move on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.154.136 (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support removal Article seems to adequately deal with negative reactions and protests. No basis for the tag. --Jayron32 13:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support removal Article seems to adequately deal with negative reactions and protests. No basis for the tag. Opposition and indifference to the event is recorded with DUE WEIGHT. Pincrete (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support removal - Article is now neutral. Although that said I would much rather these sad lot (Anti-Monarchy, Just Oil, Extinction Rebellion) weren't given any spotlight here but I guess we wouldn't be Wikipedia if we didn't include things like this. –Davey2010^Talk 14:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support removal - The article looks overall neutral and includes a section on "Reactions" that allows readers to go straight to critical responses. If there is a dispute over whether specific points of criticism are DUE, that would be a separate RFC. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion

That's 12 attempts to post in the 'survey' section. I'll wait until traffic slows down, later. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal: Please revert your removal of the tag; per Template:POV#When to remove, it should only be removed when there is a consensus that the issues that caused it to be added are resolved. As there is not any such consensus yet, the tag needs to remain on the article. BilledMammal (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality tag should be removed immediately.. There is no reason.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HulkNorris (talk • contribs) 18:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• I would hate to see this article be fully protected, solely due to edit warring on the tag.[11][12][13][14] Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June

While most people understand royal titles, there are always some people, whether on purpose or through ignorance, keep saying that Britain can't have a king and a queen on the same time( see the edit history). No amount of explanation can make them understand, so I suggest protecting this page. KGOO510 (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The IP is already blocked from several pages for the same reason. It might help to contact the admin who blocked him. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)