Talk:Charles III

House of Windsor

Unless King Charles III chooses otherwise (and so far he hasn't), I assume the royal house name will remain Windsor. All the more so, now that the succession is no longer male-preference. Thus avoiding the constant name change, every time a king succeeds a queen-regnant, which is likely to happen more frequently in the UK's future. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Sex-neutral succession surely makes no difference because titles continue to pass down in the male line. When Edward VII succeeded Victoria, he did so by virtue of his descent from Victoria; nonetheless, the House of Hanover ceased to reign because Edward belonged to his father's Royal House (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, changed to Windsor). As such, surely Charles III belongs to his father's Royal House?

That's not a straightforward answer itself, though. Prince Philip renounced his Greek and Danish titles, so I'm assuming he no longer belonged to the House of Glücksburg. So what House did he belong to? Perhaps Windsor — not by virtue of his marriage to Elizabeth II but in his own right when he was made a Prince of the United Kingdom ahead of their marriage. (I actually don't know the answer to this.) Vabadus91 (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Unless we have any reliable sources here, this is speculation with no bearing on the current state of the article. WP:NOTFORUM. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Royals demonstrably belong to the Royal House of their father. To suggest that somehow Charles is an exception is itself speculation. What is unclear (to me) is what House Prince Philip actually belonged to. Vabadus91 (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

By birth, Philip belonged to the House of Glücksburg. More specifically the Greek royal family, which was a branch of the house. In 1947, Philip instead adopted the name of the Mountbatten family. Which was his mother's house. Dimadick (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not "speculation" that Charles is of the House of Windsor, it's in all reliable sources, if you care to look. The reason is the Royal Proclamations of 1952 and 1960. The talk page isn't for chit-chat. If you have any sources on this subject then suggest them. Otherwise your speculations are irrelevant. See WP:NOTFORUM DeCausa (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The Royal Proclamations of 1952 and 1960 relate to the surname that members of the family would use, not the name of the Royal House. If they did somehow include the name of the Royal House, that would mean Charles belongs to the "House of Mountbatten-Windsor" as per the 1960 revision.

It is not unreasonable to question how Charles belongs to the House of Windsor when it is a demonstrable fact that royals belong to the dynastic house of their father, not their mother, hence why Victoria was of the House of Hanover but her son, Edward, was of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Vabadus91 (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Until we hear to the contrary? Charles III is a member of the House of Windsor. But yes, this is the first time a British Isles King succeeding a Queen regnant, kept his mother's royal house name, rather then adopt his father's. Had the latter occurred? it most likely would've been Mountbatten. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

But how is he a member of the House of Windsor? Membership of dynastic houses has always been determined by agnatic descent. I cannot find any evidence suggesting that these rules have changed.

Wikipedia's entry of dynasty cites, as an example, the Earl of Snowdon, who is in the line of succession to the British throne through cognatic descent, but is not a member of the House of Windsor because he lacks agnatic descent from it. This situation is identical to that of King Charles, his first cousin.

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh is described on Wikipedia as having belonged to the "House of Mountbatten". Vabadus91 (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Rules? The royal rule is "make the rules up as you go along". The "how" is straightforward: by royal proclamation. We have an adequate, though arguably suspect of being self-serving, primary source for this. Now, if there's criticism of this as being an ad hoc mess that doesn't follow the "correct" rules for traditional European(... ish) houses, we have to source that, and establish whether including such commentary is at all WP:DUE. (My guess would be, "not". It's an over-stuffed article as it is.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Vabadus91: I don't make up the rules. Just pointing out that (AFAIK) the royal house/dynasty 'appears to be continuing to use the name "Windsor". GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

BTW - British royal family website hasn't been updated, since Elizabeth II's passing. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It's right in the 1960 proclamation from Queen Elizabeth II: "I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor [emphasis mine]." Charles is, obviously, one of Elizabeth's children. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

And the 1952 proclamation. The 1960 one only changed the matter of surnames (and doubled down on the House). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The king hasn't revoked either the 1952 or 1960 proclamations, so they're still in force. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough — mystery solved! Vabadus91 (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Except there never was a "mystery". It was just something that you didn't know. DeCausa (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Title in lead

Should we use the title "King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms" in the lead or "King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the 14 other Commonwealth realms"? Personally I think it id unnecessary to use the full name of the UK. Векочел (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it's best to keep it short too. Adding the extra bit makes the sentence less clear in my opinion. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, though it might be useful if we can work a link to the United Kingdom article into the lead of this page for the benefit of any readers who are unclear as to what constitutes the UK. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Best to keep it as is "King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms". We don't need a link to the UK. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Spelling out the full name leads to a strong run-on phrase vibe, and what's worse, as Celia implies, leads the brain to wander off down the ambiguous associativity direction. ((UK of GB and NI) and RoC) or ((UK of GB) and RoC). And [[United Kingdom]] would be text-book WP:OVERLINK, especially in a lead. So of the three there's really only one choice. You'd need a complete restructuring to avoid it (and I'd suggest, not). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2023

I will change `protestant´ to `anglican or Church of England´ EYC5322 (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. No you won't unless you have a source. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Infobox picture

What about this image for a new infobox picture? Taken a few days after his accession as king. Cliffmore (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not too bad, but I do still prefer the current one. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I made a mistake with the images, which are not actually CC compliant.Cliffmore (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate the clarification. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

King of Canada

The exclusivity of this article to England smacks of arrogance. Anyone reading it would have no way to know that he is King of Canada in a real and legal sense without looking for the fine print. This should be included in the introduction and info boxes. 216.19.181.213 (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)