Talk:Charles III

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)

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)

'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.

His opinions have been criticised by some organisations in the architecture area; correct, but
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;
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;
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)