Talk:Charles III/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Is British a dirty word, concerning the succession to the throne?

Just curious. Are we going to have it in the lead of this article & related bio articles (see Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Prince George of Cambridge etc etc) that members of the royal family are in the line of succession for the British throne? orr are we going to hide this fact & avoid using British, due to the other 15 Commonwealth realms? @DrKay: & @Surtsicna:, I'm pinging you both, as recent reverts involved your edits. GoodDay (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You're once again stirring up WP:DRAMA. If Surtsicna has a problem with the edit, he can say so himself.

Your argument about a word being "dirty" is a straw man. The issues were brevity and neutrality and were discussed and settled at Talk:Prince William, Duke of Cambridge/Archive 2#In the lead: countries in which William is heir and Talk:Prince George of Cambridge/Archive 3#Reference to succession in lead. The phrasing became standard across the bios of members of the House of Windsor (the senior ones, anyway). It was "the eldest child and heir apparent of Queen Elizabeth II" at this article from 4 December 2010; "he is second in line to succeed his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II" at Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, from 24 July 2013; "His great-grandmother is Queen Elizabeth II, and he is third in line to succeed her" at Prince George of Cambridge from 23 July 2013; "he was second in the line of succession to succeed his mother" at Prince Andrew, Duke of York, from 23 July 2013; etc. That sufficed for between four and six years. What's the reason to change it now? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

In laymen terms, you're just trying to hide anything about the British monarchy, because you don't want it to get the spotlight at the expense of the Canadian monarchy. Like it or not, Elizabeth II & her family are primarily associated with the British monarchy/throne. PS: You weren't even consistent in your so-called restoring edits, per Prince Harry, Peter Phillips, Zara Tindall, David Armstrong-Jones, 2nd Earl of Snowdon & all other bios of people in line of succession to the British throne. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

By your own "logic", I'm actually trying to hide everything about all monarchies, since DrKay's long-standing sentence I restored mentions every other monarchy on earth as infrequently as it mentions the British one. Your conclusion is inaccurate and non-observant. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

We're not here to right what we might consider wrongs on Wikipedia, that would be a breach of WP:NOTADVOCATE. We reflect what's common usage & the international community highlights (usually at the exclusion of the 15 non-UK realms) this royal family as British. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

That tired retort is yet another straw man. Royal families are not the subject of discussion here. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

How can he be heir to a British thri

This is an old argument between you & I, which will never be resolved. Anyways, we'll (of course) let the others weigh in further. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It was resolved here and on other bios of senior royal family members for years. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, it's being challenged now. Anyways, we'll (of course) let the others weigh in further. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I honestly do not care if it says "heir apparent to the thrones of 16 Commonwealth realms" or "first in line to the British throne". I do feel very strongly, however, that he should be defined more clearly per MOS:OPENPARA. He is expected to become a monarch of 16 countries, including the one in which he resides. Ignoring all of them is a lazy solution to a silly issue and a huge disservice to the readers. Surtsicna (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd recommend heir-apparent to the British throne and thrones of 15 other Commonwealth realms, as a compromise. Why highlight the UK? it's the realm that is primarily associated with the royal family. They reside in the UK, the only realm which 'thus' doesn't have or require a governor general. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disapprove of any construction that says "thrones" or uses "Commonwealth realms": these are terms that are rarely used and it (1) does a disservice to readers to introduce strange or unfamiliar terms so early in an article and (2) does not represent the overwhelming majority of sources, which do not use such terms of art. DrKay (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I see your point. I do believe that overwhelming majority of sources use the British monarchy/throne. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• "The eldest child and heir apparent of Queen Elizabeth II, as monarch of 16 Commonwealth countries."
• "The eldest child and heir apparent of Queen Elizabeth II, the current monarch of 16 Commonwealth countries."
• "The eldest child of Queen Elizabeth II and heir apparent to her in 16 Commonwealth countries."
• "The eldest child of Queen Elizabeth II and her heir apparent in 16 Commonwealth countries."

I'm taking it that the Commonwealth is more widely recognized than the Commonwealth realms. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The United Kingdom/British monarchy/British throne is more widely recognized in association to Elizabeth II & those in the line of succession. I must therefore, oppose all of your proposed options. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. Now, if anyone has constructive comments or criticisms in pursuit of a consensus, they are most welcome. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

An opinion of mine, overwhelming backed by sources to be sure. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You haven't provided one single source that states "The United Kingdom/British monarchy/British throne is more widely recognized in association to Elizabeth II & those in the line of succession". The entire argument about degrees of association of thrones to the Royal Family is a red herring, as the subject of the sentence isn't degrees of associations of thrones to the Royal Family. It's Charles' relationship to his mother, both biologically and legally. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Wait a sec. You actually want verification that Elizabeth II, Charles & the rest of the family are primarily associated with the British monarchy? Seriously? GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• "The eldest child and heir apparent of Elizabeth II, the reining monarch of 16 Commonwealth countries."

(Yes, GoodDay, we're all already well aware of your opinion.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Have to disagree with this proposed version, as well. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

He's known as British, so it should say that. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Your comment is unclear. Do you mean the sentence should read "the eldest British child and heir apparent of Elizabeth II, the reigning monarch of 16 Commonwealth countries"? That is odd, oversimplified, and implies inaccuracies. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You know very well what I mean. You complained earlier about GoodDay setting up a straw man, but you've just done that yourself by asking a question about something I never said and that no-one has ever suggested. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

In fact, I don't. You clearly said the sentence should say Charles is British. But, we're not discussing Charles' nationalities. We're talking about his inheritance, which is the thrones of multiple countries. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You said that my 'comment is unclear' and now you say that I 'clearly said'. Hmmn. So, the same comment is both 'unclear' and 'clear'. How extraordinary! Celia Homeford (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, dear. The connection you made between Charles (you used the personal pronoun "he") and the nationality "British" was clear; meaning you (whether you intended to or not) asserted the sentence in the article should say Charles is British. What was entirely unclear was why a sentence about his being son of and heir to his mother should mention one of his nationalities. Do you understand now?

Regardless, Charles' nationalities are irrelevant to the subject of the sentence. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

My meaning was always clear. Everyone here understood it. You're just pretending it was unclear because you want to argue. You won't even be able to resist posting another argumentative comment below this one. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I explained how you haven't been clear. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Vote #1 "The eldest child and heir apparent of Queen Elizabeth II, as monarch of 16 Commonwealth countries." Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• I vote that this stupid discussion is laid to rest now as it is getting into serious WP:NOTAFORUM territory. @GoodDay: seems to be trying to make a political point. Famous_dog (c) 12:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The international community views him first & foremost as heir-apparent to the British throne. Besides, he's rarely if ever, called heir-apparent to the 16 Commonwealth realms. Anyways, see compromise proposal below. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The sentence used to say he is the "eldest child and heir apparent to Queen Elizabeth II"; it said nothing about Commonwealth realms. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

That sentence also appears odd, as it doesn't mention any country, at all. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The truth and clarity of the sentence is not affected by the absence of a country's name. Ergo, it is not odd. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, we're in disagreement on that point. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I actually have a second option.

• "...heir-apparent to the thrones of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc etc."
  

IF we're going to push to have the other 15 realms into the lead of this article. Then it should be done, as it is at Elizabeth II. If not "Heir-apparent to the British throne", it should be "Heir-apparent to the thrones of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc etc." After all, when Charles ascends the throne (or is that thrones), I assume these countries will be added to his intro anyway. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You're the only person pushing for a long list, so I don't think that has much support yet. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I just put that in as a 'second option'. Anything is better then "...16 Commonwealth realms", which appears odd :) GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

No one is proposing a sentence containing the phrase "Commonwealth realm", per DrKay's remarks. Please stop distracting and bogging this discussion down with straw man arguments and irrelevancies. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

"...16 Commonwealth countries", is also a non-starter. PS: What is your views on my 'second option'? GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Another reason why "...16 Commonwealth countries" is a non-starter, is that it's inaccurate. By saying Commonwealth countries, you're also including 31 Commonwealth republics. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

That being a non-starter is an unfounded opinion, not fact.

There are better options in this context. But, It's fine. If you really wanted to emulate the lede of Elizabeth II, though, you'd want here something along the lines of "he is the eldest child of Elizabeth II and her heir apparent since 6 February 1952, when she acceded as Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand." Now, it could be left like that. Or, you could add "He is now heir also in the 12 countries that have become independent since his mother's accession: Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis." --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

My primary choice remains "...heir-apparent to the British throne...", per common usage. My secondary choice would be to emulate the lead at Elizabeth II, per compromise. I think we can both agree, "heir-apparent to the British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealander thrones, etc" would read quite odd. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Clarify. You didn't suggest what? GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

What you said reads quite odd. It doesn't matter if it reads odd or not, no one suggested it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I was mentioning the "...heir-apparent to the British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealander etc, etc thrones..." (initially mentioned by me) version, would never be adopted by virtually anyone. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support "heir-apparent to the British throne" only, as per common usage. No one talks about commonwealth realms having heirs-apparent or thrones, outside of the imaginations of the most rabid armchair monarchists. "Heir-apparent of Antigua and Barbuda"? "The Tuvaluan throne"? Absurd nonsense. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

That is misleading by omission. Your view that a number of sovereign countries pretend to have a head of state and, thus, don't really have a mechanism for choosing one rather disqualifies your opinion here. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Er, what? Where exactly did I make either of those arguments? If you feel my "opinion" is invalid try actually refuting it. Google is generally a good place to start, but I didn't have much luck there – in fact the only references to a Tuvaluan throne that I could find are from Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors, which kind of proves my point. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You didn't make arguments. You made claims. And you claimed an heir to the Tuvaluan and Antiguan headships of state is imaginary and "absurd nonsense". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support British in some form, such as 'heir to the British throne' or 'member of the British royal family'. The introduction should provide 'context', which is defined at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context as including the country of residence. Including the word 'British' is not 'misleading by omission'. It provides context since that is where he lives. Including Papua New Guinea is at least misleading by over-statement and at worst misleading by misrepresentation. He isn't actually Papuan. Contortionist attempts to include novelties like the Tuvaluan throne and the Antiguan heir apparent are misleading by over-representation of minority or even previously unheard of viewpoints for which there are no references. The suggested phraseology to force their inclusion is imbalanced, unclear, uncited, and unrepresentative. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

How can he be heir to a "British throne" when no such throne exists. It is nowhere listed in the current monarch's titles. A significant minority of her subjects in Northern Ireland would self identify as Irish, not British. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I'll play along. The demonyms for the United Kingdom are British and Briton. At least that's what our article about the United Kingdom says. Quite a few online dictionaries, including the Collins English Dictionary, define "British" as "of or relating to the United Kingdom" and also as "of or relating to the Commonwealth" (!). Surtsicna (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

How about "…eldest child and heir-apparent of Queen Elizabeth II, the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom and of 15 other Commonwealth countries"? Avoids mention of throne(s), acknowledges primary association with UK, mentions the fact that the Queen is head of state of other sovereign countries as well. Opera hat (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

How about "...heir-apparent to the throne of the United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth realms..."? Note: "Commonwealth countries" would be inaccurate, as that would include the 31 Commonwealth republics.

GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah the tyranny of demonyms, allowing inconvenient facts to be blurred and swept under the carpet. Move along, nothing to see here. To answer the lead question of this thread, in certain parts of Northern Ireland, the answer is "yes" - British is a dirty word. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

To be quite blunt: why should Wikipedia care about what's dirty in "certain parts of Norther Ireland"? "British" is the demonym for the United Kingdom. Indeed, nothing to see here. Similarly, "Antiguan" normally corresponds to Antigua and Barbuda, "Bosnian" to Bosnia and Herzegovina, "Vincentian" to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, "São Toméan" to São Tomé and Príncipe, etc. One may wish to fight the windmills on this issue, but a biography is hardly the place for that. Surtsicna (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Encyclopædia Britannica defines Charles, prince of Wales as "heir apparent to the British throne, eldest child of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, duke of Edinburgh." Surtsicna (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

And that is as the article presently is: misleading by omission. Charles isn't heir to just the British throne.

"United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth realms" is, as always, biased. He is not heir to the UK throne more than he is heir to the rest. It also introduces terms like "Commonwealth realm" into the lede, which DrKay objected to. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

We're quite aware of your feelings on this matter. However, the international community recognizes Charles first/foremost as heir-apparent to the British throne. I didn't make the world view Charles that way, the world simply does view him that way. What you're suggesting, is that we use Wikipedia in this situation, to 'right' the 'wrongs'. That's admirable of you, however, it's breaching WP:NOTADVOCATE, which Wikipedia frowns on. Now, if you could provide an equal volume of sources/publications that describe Charles as heir apparent to the Grenadian throne, an equal volume of sources/publications that describe Charles as heir apparent to the Canadian throne, an equal volume of sources/publications that describe Charles as heir apparent to the Tuvaluan throne, etc etc compared to the volume of sources/publications that describe Charles as heir apparent to the British throne? you might have an argument. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have a re-read of WP:AGF and also consider how it appears when a Canadian republican tendentiously pushes for emphasis on the UK at every article related to the Commonwealth realms. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You're suggesting that the reason I prefer "Heir-apparent to the British throne", is because I'm a Canadian republican? I think you should re-read WP:AGF. Does this mean, Celia Homeford, Surtsicna, DrKay, Ivar the Boneful and Opera hat are also Canadian republicans? BTW: It's very telling how weak your arguments have been, that you would bring up something personal about me, in hopes that it would give you an edge. Anyways, that's your choice of how to argue. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting reaction. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Nice try. Now, where's all those sources/publications for "heir apparent to the Australian throne" or "heir apparent to the Antiguan and Barbados throne" or "heir apparent to the Saint Vincentian throne" etc, etc? GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not misleading to regard or define a prince who resides in the UK and whose source of income is in the UK as being first and foremost a British prince. There should be nothing controversial about defining Charles the way reputable publications (such as, say, the Britannica) normally define him. Wikipedia is not supposed to correct what some of its editors might view as bias in sources but to be neutral in reporting reputable sources. If we cannot find a significant number of reliable sources which define Charles as being equally prince or heir apparent of sixteen monarchies, we should not pretend that there is a WP:NPOV problem with defining him as "heir apparent to the British throne". Surtsicna (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Charles' own nationalities is a red herring. The sentence in question does not in any way mention his nationalities. The sentence focuses solely on Charles' relationship to his mother, biologically (he is her son) and legally (he is her heir).

It's already verified Charles is equally heir in all Commonwealth realms. I don't feel it's necessary to point you to all the sources found for material at Perth Agreement, Commonwealth realm#Royal succession and regency, Monarchy of Canada#Succession and regency, Succession to the British throne, and elsewhere that affirms that fact.

Certainly Charles is heir to the British throne. But, saying so while omitting he is heir to the other realms' thrones misleads readers into believing something other than the factual truth. That should not be our goal here.

GoodDay suggested emulating the lede of Elizabeth II. So, why not use something like: "He is the eldest child and heir apparent of Elizabeth II, who has been Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand since 6 February 1952 and 12 countries that have become independent since her accession"? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Surtsicna. What we currently have ("heir apparent to the British throne"), easily suffices per sources/publications & WP:WEIGHT. My secondary choice would be "heir apparent to the thrones of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc etc", based on that when he succeeds to the throne (or is that thrones) he'll (I assume) have a similar intro as his mother's. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Revert

What's the problem now? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You don't have a consensus for the change you made, so please stop messing with the intro. Meanwhile, I'm going to present my 'secondary choice proposal' here. Be patient. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

None of the other involved parties, including yourself, expressed any objection to my proposal made four days ago. Waiting four days to see if anyone else involved has an objection is being patient.

What I implemented is your "secondary" choice. You don't get to shift the goalposts, as you're now trying to do.

If you keep this obstructionism up, we'll be at AN/I very quickly. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You're are the one who's being disruptive. You don't have a consensus for what you want in the intro. You can't FORCE what you want. Furthermoe, threatening an editor with ANI report, is not spot on & merely hurts your argument. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You're being disruptive by WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You don't have a consensus for what you want in the intro. Threatening ANI reports is a non-starter & weakens your position. If you're not satisfied with the intro or the discussion? then either open up an RFC or go to Dispute resolution. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

By all means, GoodDay: keep proving my point. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as you've complained today, that I was the only editor to revert your change to the intro. Will you here & now declare that you will drop the stick & walk away from this topic, if another editor in future reverts your 'changes' and or 'deletion' of "heir apparent to the British throne"? GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

NPOV Tag?

Why is a NPOV tag being placed in this article? GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

To call attention to a dispute. That's the whole point of the tags. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You're virtually the only editor who's disputing. Being butt-hurt over an intro, isn't a good enough reason to tag it. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Be careful with that attitude; it reflects especially bad on you in combination with the hypocrisy stemming from a total lack of self-awareness.

Take a break from the near-24/7 you spend on this site and, when you come back, address what I actually wrote, not some straw man you erected. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing to address. Per WP:WEIGHT, sources/publications overwhelming show Charles being described as "heir-apparent to the British throne". AGAIN, it's not Wikipedia job to right perceived wrongs. This isn't a NPoV issue, accept only in your eyes. Perhaps you need to take a break. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

PS: I'm going to let @Surtsicna: respond, as he was the first to 'revert' your tag addition. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is a big, fat, smelly red herring and remains so, no matter how many times you bring it up. By omitting information, the sentence misleads readers to believe something other than the full truth. Deliberately keeping the missing information out of the introduction is therefore purposefully misleading readers to believe only part of the truth; giving them a malformed perception. That is POV pushing; plain and simple. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

See WP:Village Pump about getting WP:WEIGHT overturned, if you feel that it's a big fat red herring. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You're in over your head here. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Doubt it, I'm over 6 feet tall. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

See Tag concerns, here. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Would anyone object, if the lead was changed to "...heir apparent to the thrones of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc"? We can work out the details for the younger realms of course. PS: My first choice is British throne, but I see that there's continued dispute over that version. What do we do here? GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I already asked this very same question four days ago and nobody replied. There is one editor here deliberately prolonging a dispute: you. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Both myself, @Surtsicna:, @Celia Homeford: reverted you, when you attempted to remove British throne. Clearly, you don't have consensus for what you want. If you want to kick the ball down the road further? then please open up an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. I proposed "he is the eldest child and heir apparent of Elizabeth II, who has been Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand since 6 February 1952 and 12 countries that have become independent since her accession." That was your--YOUR--"secondary" choice. In the four days since, neither Surtsicna, Celia, DrKay, or you objected. Ergo, I implemented the edit. Now you have reverted and given zero credible defence for doing so. That is the definition of disruptive. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I've already pinged the two other editors, who previously reverted you. If they say they 'support' this proposal? then fine, discussion over with & proposal get implemented. If they don't support it or continue to revert? then there's no consensus & again the discussion ends. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

PS: Since you mentioned him, I'm also pinging @DrKay: here. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

They didn't express objection to my proposal nor reverted when I inserted it today. Enough with the irrelevancies. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Starting today, if any of them 'also' revert your deletion of British throne (as they have before), will you threaten them with an ANI report too? GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You continue to miss all the points.

If I ever put today's edit back, will you leave it for others to decide for themselves if they want to amend or revert it, instead of taking it upon yourself to act for them? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Fine, I'll let somebody else revert you, if they so choose. PS: It doesn't make sense however to delete British throne now, as the compromise is already offered. Take note: Another editor has already raised objections to your changes. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I did say already that I would object to any formulation containing "thrones". I think the other new suggestion: "Elizabeth II, who has been Queen of the United Kingdom, etc." defines the subject of the article in terms of someone else's notability rather than the article subject's and lengthens the first sentence in a suboptimal way. DrKay (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

My proposal deliberately avoided the word "thrones" to address your earlier expressed concern.

Does Charles' notability not derive, at least in large part, from his being his mother's son and heir? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and the old lead did so, but it didn't define his mother. DrKay (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm of the opinion the old lede sufficed. However, others evidently feel differently, which pushes us to look for compromise. Compromise, of course, doesn't always produce the optimal result. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I can suggest: "[he] is the eldest son of Elizabeth II and her heir apparent since 6 February 1952, when she became Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, and Ceylon. As the latter two have since become republics and other states have gained independence under Elizabeth's reign, Charles is now heir in 16 countries. He is the longest-serving heir apparent in British history, as well as the oldest person to be first in the line of succession since Sophia of Hanover (the heir presumptive to Queen Anne), who died in 1714 at the age of 83. Charles is additionally the longest-acting Prince of Wales, a title he received in 1958. He is known alternatively in the south-west of England as Duke of Cornwall and in Scotland as Duke of Rothesay."

That reorganizes the lede to keep heir-related information together and then segues into his titles. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I also accepted the old lead. Your new draft suffers from much the same problems as the other one. Of the two, I prefer the earlier one because the list of countries and the explanation of context is shorter. DrKay (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I see your point, DrKay. It is wordier. I was merely trying to put more emphasis on Charles' status as heir. This reduces the length a bit: "[He] is the eldest son of Elizabeth II and, as such, her heir apparent in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand since she became queen of those countries on 6 February 1952. He is also heir in 12 additional countries that remained under Elizabeth's reign after independence. He is the longest-serving heir apparent in British history, as well as the oldest person to be first in the line of succession since Sophia of Hanover (the heir presumptive to Queen Anne), who died in 1714 at the age of 83. Charles is the longest-acting Prince of Wales, a title he received in 1958. He is known alternatively in the south-west of England as Duke of Cornwall and in Scotland as Duke of Rothesay." --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I really don't seek the panic in all of this, TBH. "Heir-apparent to the British throne" follows common usage & WP:WEIGHT - in other words, it is overwhelming backed by sources/publications. Thus the reason it's my first choice. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I have a simple question for you: Is Charles heir apparent only in the United Kingdom? Yes or no. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

No, but it's the throne that he's most recognized as heir-apparent of. Still think you should open an Rfc, as this topic includes all people in the line of succession to the British throne. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

"No" is correct. You should not, therefore, be wanting to mislead readers into believing the answer is "yes". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

You should not go against WP:WEIGHT & common usage. Charles isn't known as the "heir-apparent to the Vincentian throne", or the "heir-apparent to the Tuvaluan throne". Again you can't use Wikipedia to right the wrongs of the world, as that would be a breach of WP:NOTADVOCATE. Those are the pedia's rules. GoodDay (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Red herring. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

In your opinion, of course. GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

By definition. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I think we need an Rfc, to settle this disagreement. GoodDay (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

On whether or not you constantly offer up red herrings? No, I don't think so. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has been ongoing for 2-weeks & I don't see any sign from you, that you're going to accept you don't have a consensus for the changes you want, to date. An Rfc is best, more input never hurts. GoodDay (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The only person continuing to put up an argument is you, despite the fact all my proposals have used your suggested "secondary" preference of emulating the lede to Elizabeth II. None of us are getting our primary choices. That's compromise. If you think an RfC is for getting your number one choice (which is to mislead readers), you don't understand the point of RfCs. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Have a little faith in your position. An Rfc's result is never certain, until it's held. PS- You know I'll abide by its result. GoodDay (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

An RfC is unnecessary at this point. We're close to a resolution here. If DrKay feels my first proposal is still better than the last one I put forward, I'll implement the first proposal. You should have no issue with any of them, since they all take into account your second choice of emulating the lede at Elizabeth II. Further, you already said you would not revert again. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

If we don't hear from @Surtsicna: & @Celia Homeford: in the next 24-hrs that they are on Wikipedia or if we do hear from them & they've changed their position on this matter? then we'll iron out how the 'compromise' will be implemented (this will be for all the bio articles of those in the succession for the British throne). However, if either of them or anybody else objects to the compromise? then its to an Rfc we go. Keep in mind - "heir apparent to the British throne" is my first option, for the reasons I've already stated. GoodDay (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the reason other people have stopped commenting is simply because they are bored or just don't have as much time as you two to devote to this issue.

I would strongly object to the "etc, etc" option as too informal for an encyclopaedia. "Heir apparent to the British throne" only would also be wrong: although he is primarily associated with the UK you can't deny he is heir apparent in the other Commonwealth realms as well. Given that Miesianiacal was so anxious to emphasise that HRH is equally heir in all Commonwealth realms I was rather surprised by his suggestion of "eldest child and heir apparent of Elizabeth II, who has been Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand since 6 February 1952 and 12 countries that have become independent since her accession". If they are all equal, surely this gives undue weight to the former Dominions at the expense of the newer countries? My preferred option would be "eldest child and heir apparent of Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and of 15 other Commonwealth realms", which recognises his primary association with the British throne while at least mentioning the fact that there are others, but G2bambino is clearly never going to rest as long as the UK is mentioned but Canada is not.

In the circumstances, then, "eldest child and heir apparent of Elizabeth II, who has been Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand since 6 February 1952 and 12 countries that have become independent since her accession" is probably the least bad option for this article. But going into such detail in the lead section over the development of the Commonwealth and the retreat from Empire would be ridiculous for those further down the line of succession. Opera hat (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I've got 2 more options, which cover the other Commonwealth realms, one of which involves usage of a footnote. Will see though how things look later tonight, before presenting them. GoodDay (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

My view hasn't changed from when I gave it last time. It should say British in some form: 'is heir apparent to the British throne', 'is a member of the British royal family', 'is a British prince', 'is the eldest son and heir apparent of Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom'. These are all OK to me. Giving Pakistan and 'Ceylon' equal billing to the UK in the first sentence of the introduction (and the article) is disproportionate. It is also clumsy to give a long list of countries in the first sentence. Like Opera hat, I guess I could stomach a shorthand version like 'Commonwealth realms' but I still think we're going to get problems with that statement, because the natural urge is to start extending it with a list of former countries (like 'Ceylon'), and with a list of the territories and dependencies. I'd put up with sticking the long list into a footnote. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Go to rfc Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Paradise papers

@IndianBio and Celia Homeford: IndianBio the source is a UK WP:RS which is known to have access to the original. I have personal experience of libel threats and I know the effort the Guardian will have gone to in order to ensure the story is correct. The UK used to have -& probably still has the strictest libel rules in the world but the requirement is always "balance of probability" -far lower than the absolute proof you require or even "beyond reasonable doubt" required for criminal court convictions. UK WP:Suggested sources#Current news i.e.Guardian, Times and Telegraph always give a subject the right of reply and I think it is imperative that we do the same. I'll update shortly albeit with a longer snippet. Feel free to discuss further or take to the BLP page. Regards JRPG (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that it's a BLP issue. But, it certainly seems trivial. Charles has investments. .......And? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Trivial? That is one of the most dismissive statements I have ever seen. Ignoring the more general points regarding the dubious morality of offshore investing and tax avoidance, other investors do not have direct access to government at the highest level. Other investors aren't protected from Freedom of Information requests. Other investors don't avoid tax in the very country that they will one day rule. But for the moment, let's play your game. Trump has investments. ......And? Putin has investments. ......And? Mugabe has investments. ......And? These aren't "trivial" questions. They are highly pertinent, but WP:NOTAFORUM so I'll shut up now. Famous_dog (c) 14:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. You think that this showed dubious morality. However the allegations are not that the Duchy invested money in Sustainable Forestry Management Ltd offshore, which was probably the only way to invest in it, but that it was a conflict of interest for him to subsequently express his opinions about the dangers of climate change. However, Charles may have been unaware of the investment, which accounted for 1/100th of 1% of the Duchy's investments. It may be that this will become a major issue, although I doubt it, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I suggest that now the issue has dropped out of the 24 hour news cycle, we delete the reference until it has been shown to have gained traction. TFD (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles, Prince of Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120713090359/http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1055062002 to http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1055062002
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/who/celebrity-interviews/article/-/5922811/bro-town-goes-global/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Charles's uniquely UK attributes, moved down from end of RfC section

Charles has a formal status in the UK, as Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, as mentioned in the top paragraph. But as heir apparent to the UK monarchy he has no formal status of that kind in any of the Queen's other realms or terrritories, and there is no good and sufficient reason for naming all or any of those countries in the top. The links (in current version to Monarchy of the UK and line of succession, see proposal above) should suffice for providing readers with the information that prospectively, on succeeding the Queen, he (or whoever is then next in line) will reign in the same way in respect of the same realms and territories. The section on "Official duties" states "As Prince of Wales, Charles undertakes official duties on behalf of the Queen and the Commonwealth realms." Does he not carry out these duties by reason of being first in line of succession, just as certain other members of the royal family, especially those in the line of succession, carry out such duties? Note that the "Early life" section mentions that, as the Queen's heir apparent and eldest son "he automatically took the titles Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay..." (1952), and later was created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester (1958) and took his seat in the House of Lords in 1970. These are exclusively within the UK system of government and nobility, and do not affect his status in the other realms and territories. Qexigator (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC) m edit update 12:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

+ His absence is conspicuous in the Order of precedence of Australia or Canada or Jamaica or New Zealand. Qexigator (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

+ The current version now has a subsection on "Precedence in UK".[1] Qexigator (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed it because it was unsourced and incorrect. I also think the succession box at the end is sufficient to cover this. A new section, even if it could be sourced, is unnecessary. DrKay (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree that, given unsourced, endbox may suffice. But this, like other articles, has other matter that could be regarded as "unnecessary", and here it would informatively show that such of his attributes as come to him as heir apparent to the UK monarchy do not extend beyond UK, and so contribute to settling what has been a confused point of contention here (if not, maybe, in the real world outside Wikipedia). Qexigator (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The Queen isn't officially listed in the Australian order of precedence and other royals are given precedence "appropriate to the occasion" in New Zealand. Since all royals hold orders and decorations, in the absence of other considerations, they would gain precedence from being holders of these awards. DrKay (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

But what has that to do with your removal of "Precedence in UK: Charles has a top position in the order of precedence of the United Kingdom, but no such position in the other realms or territories of the Queen, such as Australia, Canada, Jamaica or New Zealand."? Qexigator (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, Charles 'was not' Duke of Cornwall & Duke of Rothesay from birth. He only assumed those titles in 1952, when he became heir-apparent to the British throne. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, of course, that was an error on my part. Qexigator (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles, Prince of Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110233046/http://jewelry.about.com/od/engagementrings/a/camilla_ring.htm to http://jewelry.about.com/od/engagementrings/a/camilla_ring.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

RFC: What should be in the article lead, concerning the royal succession

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.

There seems to be support for either A, C or E. The strong consensus of editors participating in this RfC is that this line of the lede should be kept brief. If editors can not agree on one of those three options, I would recommend a second RfC Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

---

How should Charles be defined in the lead? Here's the options.

• A) ...heir apparent to the British throne...
  
• B) ...heir apparent to the British and 15 other Commonwealth realms thrones...
  
• C) ...heir apparent to the British throne [footnote= for other Commonwealth realms]...
  
• D) ...heir apparent of Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis...
• E) ...heir apparent of Queen Elizabeth II
• F) ...heir apparent to the British and 15 other Commonwealth realms thrones [footnote=realm names]
• G)...heir apparent to the British and 15 other Commonwealth realms thrones (Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, The Bahamas, and Tuvalu)
• H) ...eldest son of Elizabeth II and, as such, her heir apparent in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand since she became queen of those countries on 6 February 1952. He is also heir in 12 additional countries that remained under Elizabeth's reign after independence.

GoodDay (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Edited: Thinker78 (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Edited: --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• A, C, B, F are my primary choices. GoodDay (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

PS - Absolutely oppose E, per its lack of info for our readers. At least 'one' country in some form, must be shown. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support E, followed by A and C as secondary choices. Oppose B, D, F and G. Weakly oppose H.: E, A, and C are the simplest and cleanest options. The first sentence should be short, succinct and factual, and not contain any concepts that can be argued over or that are not covered later on in the article. B, F and G introduce rare and unusual terms ("Commonwealth realms' thrones" is not found in any reliable sources) that are also opinionated (whether there is one throne or many thrones is in dispute: there are shared aspects of the monarchy/monarchies as well as separate aspects). D, G and H are too long for the first sentence and introduce material that is not found in the article body. DrKay (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Amended 17:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

  I agree with you that "Commonwealth realms thrones" is not a phrase used in reliable sources very much or at all, but whether there is one throne or many thrones -pointing out that I am not knowledgeable on the subject- my opinion is that probably such issue is defined in the laws of the affected countries, and maybe is not a matter of opinion, but I may be wrong. (Someone more knowledgeable than me, please clarify the issue). Thinker78 (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support C, followed by A or E as secondary choices. Oppose B and D. I agree with DrKay's reasoning but prefer C to E because it doesn't presume knowledge of who Queen Elizabeth is. I prefer C to A because I think the footnote is a good compromise regarding informing readers about the Commonwealth issues without making the lead unwieldy. Dbrote (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose F and G Unnecessarily wordy and, as others have noted, using nonstandard terminology. Dbrote (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Option A misleads by not presenting all the facts; Charles is not heir only to the UK's throne.

What nonstandard terminology is used in option H? It was created specifically so as to not use terms like "Commonwealth realm" or "thrones" (which other editors objected to, though I don't, personally). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Should have stated "F and G" not "G and H", as option "H" had yet to appear when I made my comment. This has been corrected. I also Oppose H as being way, way too long. I stand by my thinking that "A" is an acceptable second choice. The rest of the information is present elsewhere in the article, is less important, and doesn't need to be in the lead sentence. Dbrote (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I see. This RfC has been... confusing.

Option H is the same length as D. As I explain below, H is a compromise that takes into account the expressed concerns of the original parties to this dispute and was the second choice of GoodDay, who opened this RfC. Compromise, of course, means no one gets exactly what they want. I agree it's a tad wordy. But, wordiness is secondary to accuracy and saying Charles is heir solely to the British throne is inaccurate. I don't see where else in the article it's outlined he's heir to more than the British throne. If it were in the article, it should be summarized in the lede, even if indirectly by simply saying Charles is the heir of Elizabeth II. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support E with her maj wikilinked. Tells it as it is without verbosity. Moriori (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support E. Simplest expression of the situation, and a wikilink will obviate the minimal risk that his mother's moniker means nothing to the reader. William Avery (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support F, then B - not necessarily obvious to everyone that the other thrones are also thrown in... the Commonwealth should be mentioned, but D and G are too long-winded. ;-) Batternut (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support primarily E, and secondarily F and G I think E is best choice because then the reader probably assumes that the offices of the Queen are inherited by the Prince, including the thrones. The other two options I support because they specify which thrones the Prince inherits without highlighting one and not mentioning the others like option A, which would be missing information, because the reader will think the Prince is only heir to the British throne. Thinker78 (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• I think that the contents of the survey are dynamic not static, because this is an ongoing discussion, so I wonder if the rfc should be restarted every time there is a change in the survey. WP:POLL provides some guidance regarding the use of polls.@GoodDay: Thinker78 (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

  Just removed the feel free to add more options tag. I think what we've got, covers what was discussed before this Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

  To restart an RfC, you essentially need to close the ongoing RfC and start afresh, which can annoy the participants of the one that you're closing. To close an ongoing RfC, replace the {{rfc}} template with {{closed rfc top|result=Closed early because of some explanation ~~~~}}, and put a {{closed rfc bottom}} after all of the survey/discussion. Such a close-and-restart is acceptable if done once and where the original RfC was vague or poorly presented; doing it several times is tedious and annoying, particularly if the only change from one RfC to the next is an additional option to the original question. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any need to restart it. GoodDay (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support A, then C. These options provide context concisely. E is OK with an amendment, like 'of the United Kingdom'. Otherwise, it provides no context as defined at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context. Strongly oppose B, F and G. 'Commonwealth realms thrones' is never found outside wikipedia, facebook and other self-published rubbish (and it's ungrammatical [missing an apostrophe]). Oppose D and G. These options are too long. There were other options in the discussion before the RfC, but now that this RfC has started, I think it should carry on in the usual way. Closing it prematurely will lead to acrimony and accusations of interference. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC) Strongly oppose H as written: H is too long and wordy and may contain original research. There is a misconception that wikipedia's guidelines require us to give equal prominence to each country because the Statute of Westminster says that the countries are equal, but that is a misreading or misrepresentation of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. The policy is that the countries should be covered in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. The vast majority of sources say 'British' or give much, much greater prominence to the United Kingdom. This is understandable because the UK is the country which Charles has most to do with. Countries like Tuvalu or Niue get no to virtually no coverage anywhere. And besides the argument for equality doesn't work when you include New Zealand but exclude Papua New Guinea or Jamaica. For me to support an option like H, it would need to be much shorter and in tune with the policy: like, '...eldest son of Elizabeth II and, as such, her heir apparent in the United Kingdom and the other countries of which she is head of state.' That is simple and concise and fair to all the countries. It also uses the word 'countries' rather than 'realms'; it doesn't give a number, so includes territories and dependencies and all the other former countries of which the queen is or was head of state; and it doesn't say how many thrones there are. Something like that, I could support. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support A, then C. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context as well as biographies. Charles is most often defined and understood as heir apparent to the British throne (including Britannica's entry). Defining him simply as heir apparent of Queen Elizabeth II downplays this constitutional position. When a person's notability stems from the fact that he or she is expected to ascend a throne or otherwise become head of state(s), it is unreasonable not to mention which throne or which state(s). It is a disservice to the readers. Surtsicna (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • With the additional options proposed, I feel H is good too. Generally, I am in favor of any option that identifies the country/countries of which Charles will be king, as that is precisely what makes him notable. Surtsicna (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not he's "more often defined" as heir apparent to the British throne, he is not only heir to the British throne. Omitting information about his place as heir in the other realms misleads. Relegating that information to a footnote is no different. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• D or E Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: This RfC is a farce as it did not fairly present all the options and now many have "voted" without all the options having been available to them. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I've contacted those who've chimed in & advised them to keep this page on their watchlists :) GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• H, then E Option H is a compromise composed by taking into account the concerns of the editors originally involved in this dispute: have mention of the United Kingdom, don't mislead by implying Charles is heir to only one throne, avoid the terms "Commonwealth realm(s)" and "thrones", etc. It takes into account the RfC initiator's secondary choice of emulating the lede of Elizabeth II.

Option E is what stood here for a long time. While I can understand it leaves a question of who Elizabeth II is (ie. why does it matter he's her heir), claims it denies Charles' "Britishness" are false, as his link to the UK is adequately covered in the rest of the lede.

Option A misleads readers into falsely believing Charles is heir to only one throne. Options B, C, and F are violations of WP:NPOV, as they place the UK in a separate class to the "other Commonwealth realms" without factual grounds; the realms have been recognized since the concept of them was hatched as equal in status to each other. This is well documented in various sources, including constitutional law. Options B, F, and G also use the word "thrones", which DrKay objected to, and introduces the term "Commonwealth realm" into the lede, which it has been pointed out is a concept many people will be unfamiliar with. Same for options F and G. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• A, then C, then E, per my comments above. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support E with a wikilink to his Mum, Mrs. Windsor, and possibly the addition of "...of the United Kingdom" as suggested above in case anybody has been living under a rock since 1952. We cannot make any assumptions about what Charles will actually inherit, since the death of Liz will probably (read: should) trigger a constitutional debate in the UK and other commomwealth nations regarding whether they actually want this jumped-up enemy of progress as their head of state. Famous_dog (c) 10:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• A, then E - Be concise. NickCT (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• C, A, B, F , definitely not E since what is notable is not that he is HER heir, but that he is heir to the Kingdom. The 'eldest son of and ... " form works but definitely not a long list of countries in the lead, it will make it unreadable and sounds more like coronation rhetoric than a WP article. I presume the missing apostrophe will be fixed or rephrased (the thrones of commonwealth realms?) … … ps you forgot to mention heir to Lord of Mann and a few dozen other titles he will inherit!Pincrete (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• None of the above I support alternative proposed by Celia Homeford above and below, namely: "eldest son of Elizabeth II and, as such, her heir apparent in the United Kingdom and the other/commonwealth countries of which she is head of state" probably with footnote to indicate which countries. This imparts personal information (eldest son), indicates WHY he is heir (primogeniture) and is clear without being esoteric about distinctions between realms/kingdoms/other constitutional arrangements. It avoids "King OF UK", as opposed to "King IN UK". Any other brief suggestion is acceptable, although as others point out above, there is technically no such thing as a "British throne", or a "UK throne", the Queen simultaneously holds a number of thrones, principally those of England and Scotland, she is Queen IN Britain, not OF Britain, which is two kingdoms, both 'ruled' by the same person. Pincrete (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Aside from imposing a class division of sorts through the realms, Celia's proposal will be challenged by the first editor who feels the monarch is not head of state in their country. See Australian head of state dispute and Monarchy of Canada#Head of state. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• A the current article is acceptable for the context of this article. If you want the full and proper title you may refer to https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/ Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

A implies he is heir to only one throne. Titles are not an issue here. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

For most intents and purposes, he is only heir to one throne. Sometimes we state larger general truths in a concise way to avoid overly drawn out explanations of what is a technical truth that only matters to a very small subset of individuals. NickCT (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support A or C if that means retain present version: Charles, Prince of Wales ... is the heir apparent to the British throne as the eldest child of Queen Elizabeth II, plus (for C) explanatory fn for other Commonwealth realms. But, in view of comments above and in discussions below, preferably let the position about Commonwealth realms be sufficiently explained in the main body, as part of "Official duties", relating to Queen's position in respect of Commonwealth realms, where Charles visits as Prince of Wales and heir apparent.Qexigator (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

...and oppose B, C, D, F, G, H for reason stated in section "Charles's uniquely UK attributes, moved down from end of RfC section" below. Qexigator (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Noting that, in the current version, "British throne" links by longstanding redirect[2] to "Monarchy of the United Kingdom" which begins by stating that the monarchy of the UK is "commonly referred to as the British monarchy", in the context of this RfC, it may be that this is good and sufficient reason to see "British throne" as preferable. Qexigator (talk) 08:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Support A, C, or E for being concise though E could do with a wikilink for clarification. Oppose D, G, and H - too long for a first sentence. Oppose B and F since neither "Commonwealth realms thrones" nor with the apostrophe "Commonwealth realms' thrones" appear to be used anywhere outside Wikipedia. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 11:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support A or C; Oppose F, G, and especially H as needlessly verbose. The dates when his mother became Queen of various realms is irrelevant. Nixon Now (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support A, C, or E because reliable sources generally do not give prominence to his future reign over the other realms. Also, it's not clear he is heir in them, since most of them do not have succession laws and there is no evidence that the role as sovereign of each realm is legally the same as the position in the UK. If you wish to reply to my vote, please do so in the discussion threads below. TFD (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support D it reads best AmYisroelChai (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support A The salient point is his succession to the throne of Britain, and concision is to be admired in a lede where so much information must be conveyed with a minimum of unnecessary detail. Nice details concerning Commonwealth countries and the incumbent monarch are secondary, for the reason that these are fully implied by reference to 'the British throne'. The encyclopedic reader who does not already understand the implications of 'the British throne' for the Commonwealth would be no more enlightened by reference to it here; indeed, would likely be confused by the excessive detail. And for the rest of us, we do not need it to be clarified in an introductory sentence.Cpaaoi (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• A, though E would serve as well. Precision is a worthy goal, but many of the other options here are simply unwiedly to the point of being unworkable. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I request that the RfC be re-started, since more options were introduced by an editor not involved with starting it after users had contributed to the 'survey'. PS: I know that the OP invited additions. –Sb2001 23:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Just notify the 2 editors who've already posted to the survey 'before' the additions, that new options have been added. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm one of those editors. I'll add an amend my answer to include the two new additions. Dbrote (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The RfC should be restarted, as it is (unsurprisingly) missing the proposal already accepted (except maybe for tweaks) by the original parties to the dispute.

The RfC is a disingenuous action on GoodDay's part to prolongue dispute and drama after his secondary choice for the sentence in question was incorporated into the aforementioned proposal. He has now evidently and unfairly shifted the goalposts. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Which proposal are you speaking of, that was accepted before this Rfc? GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I will not be engaging directly with you unless absolutely necessary. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

So be it. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

FWIW: The concerns in the preceding discussion (before this Rfc was opened), was that at least one country be presented. A situation that is present in the bios of all the heirs-apparent of other countries outside the Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that present the information in this way? I see a few problems with the reference to the Commonwealth realms. First, it's needless jargon and circular. They are Commonwealth Realms because the British monarch is sovereign in them. Second, in most cases Charles would become king of each realm because it is automatic that the British sovereign is also sovereign there. Third, it leaves out UK dependent territories, crown dependencies and various titles and offices that the Queen also holds. TFD (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

According to sources/publications per WP:WEIGHT, Charles is first & foremost known as the "heir apparent to the British throne". GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: No source has yet been presented that affirms Charles is "first and foremost known as the 'heir apparent to the British throne'."

As to your comment about Commonwealth realms: it misunderstands Commonwealth realms. The British monarch is not sovereign in them; they are independent, sovereign states with their own monarchy. One person is monarch in each. The British monarch is also not always automatically the monarch in a non-British Commonwealth realm. Australia and New Zealand, for example, have their own succession laws. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Which is why I said in most cases. In all the realms except the UK, Australia and NZ the law has always been that the King or Queen of the United Kingdom or their successor is their sovereign. That of course does not mean they are not independent. And do you have any sources that say Charles is best known as the future king of Canada? TFD (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Fine. Except the jury's still out (mind the pun) on Canada.

Your last question sets up a straw man argument. I never made the claim you're asking me to substantiate. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

You wrote, "As to your comment about Commonwealth realms: it misunderstands Commonwealth realms....The British monarch is also not always automatically the monarch in a non-British Commonwealth realm." In fact that is a straw man argument since I had said "in most cases." In most cases does not mean "always." I also did not say that Canada was not an exception. TFD (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Do we have any sources that says for example "Charles is heir to the Canadian throne?" Is that a legally correct statement or just a poetic one? TFD (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Here's a Canadian site - [3]. But it describes Charles as Canada's British prince. GoodDay (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

In a related situation, the CBC describes Charles' next grandchild as going to be "fifth in line to the British throne" after its grandfather, father, elder brother & elder sister. GoodDay (talk) 06:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any official recognition is required that he is "heir apparent" in Canada etc. The term "apparent" means "expected to inherit" (by precedent). Official confirmation will eventually be needed by the various countries that he actually inherits (according to their own constitutions), but, I suspect "apparent" has no formal legal status, beyond the general description of recognised as "first in line". Pincrete (talk) 10:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

GoodDay, your first link is to an article that says Canada has no royal succession laws because its sovereign is whoever is king or queen of the UK, and the heir apparent has no official recognition in Canadian law. Mike Pence stands in the same position to the U.S. presidency as Charles does to the Canadian Crown. And while the VP is referred to as "first in line to the presidency," it would be strange to refer to him as an heir of any kind. I don't know if Charles is strictly speaking heir to the Canadian throne, but we should not use the term unless it is widely used. I think it is better to say that he would become the king of 15 other sovereign states within the British Commonwealth. If people want to know the intricate legal details and debates, there are other places than the lead of this article.

Pincrete, we don't know if he is heir apparent in Canada because he will inherit the Crown of the UK under its laws, while he will become King of Canada under Canadian law if and only if he inherits the Crown of the UK.

TFD (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I did some more searching over these hours & what I've found is that Charles is described as heir to the British throne. But, haven't found much of anything that has him described as heir to the Canadian throne, or for that matter the Australian throne, New Zealand throne, Saint Vincentian throne, Jamaican throne; etc. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that if Charles is indeed expected to be the monarch of many countries in addition to the UK, that should be put in one way or another in the article, otherwise readers that doesn't know will think he is expected to be just the monarch of the UK. Thinker78 (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Option C, would likely be the best fit. The footnote added onto to the British throne, shows the other countries & keeps the intro concise/compact & respects WP:WEIGHT. -- GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

With no intention of disturbing this quite extraordinarily drawn-out discussion about how to phrase the collective throne/s of the Sovereign; and in spite of my being a rather infrequent contributor as of recent years, I do feel a need to voice my opinion as well: Wouldn't it stand to reason that, in line with Her Majesty's style in her principal realm, Charles would accurately be the "heir apparent to Queen Elizabeth II, and as such to the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, her other Realms and Territories, and as Head of the Commonwealth" or somesuch? It seems to me that, for all intents and purposes, this is a politically-motivated discussion between affirmation for all territories, republicanism opposite monarchism, and British nationalism - rather than finding a both practical and accurate approach to this matter. Omitting the Commonwealth might be misleading by omission (although arguably the phrase "British" could be considered enough as to apply to the Commonwealth as well), while excessive attempts to find just the right phrasing that doesn't miss any nuance end up being overly long for a lead. --93.104.95.101 (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

He is heir apparent to Queen Elizabeth II, and as such to the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and her other Realms and Territories but not to Head of the Commonwealth. Qexigator (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

While Charles is heir to the realm of the United Kingdom, it is not clear that he is heir to most of the other realms. Upon accession to the (British throne), the other realms will recognize him as king. But there is nothing in the succession law that says that. The other issue is that sources do not typically use your phrasing. There's also the problem that de facto Charles will not become the owner of Canada. BTW agree with Qexigator: "Head of the Commonwealth" is a title created for the Queen and is not hereditary. TFD (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

'...Charles will not become the owner of Canada... ' When the Queen succeeded her father George VI it was not normally considered that she became the "owner" of the U.K., nor is it normally considered that her heir will become the "owner" of the U.K. The link to "British throne" redirects to Monarchy of the United Kingdom. Given that, roughly speaking, "heir" normally means successor in title to corporeal and incorporeal property, etc., in the case of successor to "the British throne" this is usually understood to apply to the "Sovereign's public estate" and any other property held in right of the reigning monarch in the U.K. that passes to the successor (including the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, but excluding other property such as Sandringham), then it seems to follow that the succession applies equally to property in any Commonwealth realm also held, at the time of the demise, in right of the Queen as that realm's reigning monarch: but there is no reason to propose that he will become "owner" of any of those realms, any more than is the Queen whose heir apparent he is. Qexigator (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

You mean not normally phrased that way. However, see Elizabeth's proflie in the Royal Reports, p. 2: "The kingdom that Queen Elizabeth II inherited from her father..."[4] This type of phrasing is more typically used when writing about the Middle Ages. For example, "Edward...inherited the kingdom of England in 1154."[5] The historical reality is that William I came to own the kingdom, and over time his powers came to be exercised by the King-in-Council and King-in-Parliament, etc. Hence although it is not treated as a private estate, it retains the legal form so that it makes sense to say that the king has an heir. The question is whether it makes sense to use medieval terminology which no longer represents reality in the UK when describing Canada. TFD (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

TFD: None of the points you are making, even to the extent that they could have some validity in another context (a discussion of constitutional history affecting present day custom, law, practice and usage in Canada, maybe) have a bearing on this RfC or the article content. Why persist with this here? First, the link to "Elizabeth's proflie" ("Contents copyright 1999-2001. The Royal Report, a labour of love by David Ross, "an avid historian". NOTE: The Royal Report is sadly no longer online") makes no mention of BOTs, but comments "...Elizabeth ... had ensured that none of her children was sheltered from the realities of public life, and realised that Charles had to act according to what he believed was best for himself, his wife, his children, and the Monarchy. It cannot have been easy for a mother to look on, knowing that she could not intervene, but the Queen knew that sooner or later, Charles would assume the weight of sovereignty and that he would not then thank her for shielding him." Secondly, your unattributed remarks on "writing about the Middle Ages" noted, but if you are not sufficiently knowledgable about the distinction between property passing on a demise of the Crown from the deceasd monarch to the next in succession, and property held in a private capacity such as the Sandringham estate in England, nor about the English/UK legal system and its history, including the system of appeals before and after the change from Appellate Committee to Supreme Court, please do not expect me to do further research for you. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

We seem to be speaking at cross purposes. Indeed there is a distinction between the private and public property of the Queen but this distinction arose in the late 1600s while the language used to describe Charles' inheritance precedes that. Bear in mind that the office of the monarch has changed considerably from what it was in the Middle Ages. Hence it is not necessarily applicable and since it is rarely used, I suggest we not use it. TFD (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

TFD: Please clarify, what is the it in "...it is rarely used, I suggest we not use it", and pinpoint where this occurs in the article, and how the current version could be improved to meet your point. Qexigator (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarify: What does any of this have to do with the Rfc options? GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not Charles can be referred to as heir apparent to the other Commonwealth realms thrones. Some editors argue that his legal relationship to them is the same as to the UK. Medieval kings left their kingdoms to their heirs and the terminology has survived in the UK. But there is no evidence that the legal form in the other realms is the same. TFD (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Why realms & not countries

Note: The reason Commonwealth realms is used in options B, G & F, instead of Commonwealth countries (which was mentioned in the discussion 'before' this Rfc) is because 31 of the Commonwealth countries are republics. Also, Swaziland is a Commonwealth country & monarchy, but not a Commonwealth realm. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

In other words, the king is only king in the Commonwealth countries where he is the king, rather than those countries where he is not the king. Using the term Commonwealth Realms rather than countries clarifies that for readers who otherwise might be confused. TFD (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it clarifies. If anything, it's more confusing. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I also think use of 'realms' is confusing (and I'm UK). Could not a form of words be used which is clearer to those of us who get confused by the difference between a kingdom and a realm? eg "of those X commonwealth countries that retain the monarchy/that retain a monarch as head of state"? The esoteric constitutional and historic arrangements of innumerable states need to be respected, but don't need to be explained HERE. Pincrete (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I had a similar idea with 'eldest son of Elizabeth II and, as such, her heir apparent in the United Kingdom and the other countries of which she is head of state.'[6] Celia Homeford (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that form of words excellent, clear and informative without being verbose. Only change I would suggest is adding 'commonwealth' before 'countries', and possibly a footnote to name those countries. It is probably too late to add to the RfC unfortunately. Pincrete (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

We do have an article called Commonwealth realm, so the terminology isn't original research. Of course, if any of the options that 'don't' have 'Commonwealth realms' written in them, are adopted? then the concern becomes moot. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

You will find opposition from those in Australia (and some in Canada) who feel the monarch is not head of state. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

There are antimonarchists in the UK too. Doesn't mean that it's not a realm. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I was responding to Celia's proposal that uses the term "head of state" to refer to Elizabeth II. There are debates in at least two realms over whether the monarch or the governor general (or both) are the head of state; more so in Australia than in Canada. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh geez. Let's not go down that Australian road ;) GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we thought 'realms' was OR, more that the distinction between a 'realm', a 'kingdom' and some other monarchial category is unclear and a needless distinction in this article. What is OR, and factually lazy is implying that the UK/Britain is a single kingdom, rather than two kingdoms with the same monarch. I like Celia Homeford's wording because it avoids inaccuracy, whilst remaining simple. Pincrete (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually the UK is a single kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Is N. Ireland part of that single kingdom? Wales is a principality owing allegiance to the crown, does that make it part of the Kingdom? I checked my facts after leaving that post, Sc+Eng are now a single kingdom called GB (I wrongly thought they were still 'parallel', I'm about 200+ years out of date!). Regardless, I think that a form of words that is not inaccurate, but which avoids complexities is preferable. He is due to get everything his mum has! Pincrete (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland make up a single kingdom, called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The UK is one kingdom. It's termed "United" because it's the merger of two former kingdoms: the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland. Each of these was itself created by merger. Go back in time far enough, and you find kingdoms no larger than a modern-day county (Kingdom of Essex; Kingdom of Fife; Kingdom of Kent, etc.). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I know :) GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no difference between a realm and a kingdom in this context. All the Commonwealth realms (which includes the UK) are kingdoms. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

It's questionable whether any of the CRs outside the UK are kingdoms. Their monarch is called a king or queen because they are the sovereign of the UK. I prefer the expression "independent states within the Commonwealth." TFD (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I also prefer the term "head of state" Pincrete (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

No, their monarch is called 'king' or 'queen' because that's the title accorded to them in domestic law. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It was also their title before the UK allowed them to choose their own titles. For example, in 19th century Canada, the queen was referred to as "Queen Victoria," although there was not domestic law. TFD (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The point may be regarded as settled in view of the fact that the UK and some other 1952 proclamations of the Queen's accession used "Queen of [this .... Realm] and of all Her other Realms and Territories", and today "in each of her realms she has a distinct title that follows a similar formula". Qexigator (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

By that logic, the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (population nil) is a kingdom because it is one of the other realms and territories of which the Queen is sovereign. TFD (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The constitutional status of that territory as one of the British Overseas Territories does not affect the RfC question under discussion. "Leo terram propriam protegat". Sovereignty is asserted by and under acts of the UK parliament, enacted in the usual way including royal assent given by the reigning monarch on the advice of the UK government as ministers of the crown. Qexigator (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The point is that having a king does not make a country a kingdom. Note too that when UK ministers advise the Queen they are not doing so as advisers to the Queen of the UK, but to the Queen in right of the SGSSI. The degree of dependence (in this case 100%) is wholly irrelevant. TFD (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

when UK ministers advise the Queen they are not doing so as advisers to the Queen of the UK, but to the Queen in right of the SGSSI an unsupported assertion: the Queen's advisers in respect of such territories are government ministers (of the Privy Council) responsible to UK parliament, both in respect of acts of parliament (The British Settlements Acts 1887[7] and 1945, [8]) and statutory instruments such as The South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands Order 1985,[9] The South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands (Appeals to Privy Council) Order 1985.[10] Qexigator (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

See the 2005 House of Lords judgment written by the Lord Chief Justice at para. 10: "While instructions may be transmitted to the Commissioner by the Secretary of State he does so, in constitutional theory, as [the Queen's] mouthpiece or medium. He is passing on her instructions as Queen of SGSSI, not acting as Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom."[11] The judgment discusses the relevance of the settlement acts and 1985 order. I don't understand the relevance of the appeals to the privy counci order, since appeals are heard by judges (the judicial committee) not UK ministers (the executive committee). TFD (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

TFD: Please let me clarify. The jurisdiction of the JCPC is not in question here, nor the status of the SoS, nor of any commissioner or instructions, nor the status of British Overseas Territories under the UK monarch. The simple facts are that none of the British Overseas Territories under the UK monarch is normally, if ever, regarded as a kingdom, and that the assertion of sovereignty on the part of UK monarchs past and present is demonstrated by acts of the UK parliament and orders in council such as those cited in one of my above comments, and by executive acts pursuant thereto. Qexigator (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

As pointed out in the judgment, actions by the UK executive or legislature are undertaken on the authority of the Queen in right of the BOT not of the Queen in right of the UK. And no BOTs are not normally referred to as kingdoms, which is my point. The fact that the Queen is Queen of a BOT or a realm does not mean that the BOT or realm is a kingdom. Incidentally Gibraltar issued a coin that said "Queen of Gibraltar."[12] Charles I was declared king of Barbados. TFD (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

TFD: Since you chose to mention it, let it be noted, first, that none of the members of the Appellate Committee was acting in right of the Lord Chief Justice but all were acting as members of the House of Lords' Committee; and secondly, that Lord Bingham's opinion (para. 2) was that "SGSSI was acquired by the Crown by settlement. Its government was established under the British Settlements Acts 1887 and 1945. From 1908 until 18 April 1985 it was a British Dependent Territory and a Dependency of the Falkland Islands. But on the latter date, when the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands Order 1985 (SI 1985/449) came into effect, it ceased to be a Dependency. It is now a British Overseas Territory as defined in the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, and its constitution is governed by the 1985 Order as amended", thus confirming that the UK monarch's sovererignty is asserted by and pursuant to acts of the UK parliament, and by exercise of the customary royal prerogative pursuant to English common law and the laws of the UK, and nothing in Bingham's paragraph 10 is to the contrary. This has no bearing on the content of the current version of the article, nor the present RfC. Qexigator (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The Court was the House of Lords which was the highest court in the UK now replaced by the Supreme Court. Indeed they refer to UK acts of parliament and orders in council but they say that parliament and council are acting as parliament and council for the territory, advising the Queen of the territory not the Queen of the UK. Instead of skimming the judgment looking for quotes that support your opinions, read the judgment, take time to comprehend it, and read what secondary sources say about it. The bearing it has on the article is that you claim that if the queen is a queen of a country or territory that makes it a kingdom and therefore we can refer to the future monarch in the same terms as we can for the UK. But that is just original research. As the judgment says, the Queen is the queen of Alberta, the UK, the SSGI and every other territory within her dominions. It does not mean that she has dozens of kingdoms. Wouldn't it be bizarre if both Canada and Ontario were kingdoms? TFD (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

BTW, what do you mean, "none of the members of the Appellate Committee was acting in right of the Lord Chief Justice but all were acting as members of the House of Lords' Committee?" The House of Lords committee is higher than the Lord Chief Justice who headed the appeal court of England. Lord Bingham had been Lord Chief Justice before his promotion. Why would they be acting "in right of" a judge of a lower court? TFD (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

FWIW: This sub-discussion has gone off track & has little to nothing do to with the Rfc question. I was merely pointing out how Commonwealth countries would be an inaccurate description for the realms. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The sub-issue is whether or not they could be called kingdoms. They are not and sources don't use the term. TFD (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

None of the Rfc options propose using kingdoms, though. So why the concern? GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The subdiscussion began "All the Commonwealth realms (which includes the UK) are kingdoms." Hence we can use the term heir for a realm because we can use the term heir for a kingdom. I believe that we can make no such assumption since the other realms are not kingdoms. TFD (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Which option do you support in the survey? GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Now posted. TFD (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Noted that some options above extend "heir apparent" expressly to the 15 "other" Commonwealth realms listed in the Perth Agreement article, which is as factually correct under their respective constitutions as Wikipedia can be, given that those constitutions derive from and apply the laws of England/UK in this respect except to the extent of an alteration any one of them makes and retains. Option H incorrectly extends the concept to "12 additional countries that remained under Elizabeth's reign after independence", which makes no sense. It was an addition to the RfC (inexplicably) made as of 16:35, 21 November 2017.[13] It has little support and some strong opposition. Qexigator (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Except that he would not acquire the thrones through inheritance (which is what the term "heir" implies), but will become king because he would be king of the UK. TFD (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

TFD: That could be at least arguably a good point. He, as well as certain others in the line of succession, is a prince of the UK from birth (of course, not by inheritance), but not a prince of any other realm, although a prince is usually addressed as such wherever he is, in the same way as a titled royalty or nobleman of one country may be addressed by his title elsewhere. As far as I can see (admittedly I may be wrong here) the current version of the article does not make any such assertion. As I understand it, Wikipedia would reject an assertion either way as OR/SYN, unless there is a reliable source on the point. Qexigator (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

He will not become King of Australia or of New Zealand, and it's yet to be determined for Canada, because he will become King of the UK. You are aware of that fact, but still repeat falsehoods. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion 2: rmv a redirect and unpipe one of the links?

Is there another way to resolve the concerns so far discussed in this RfC section? The question under RfC discussion stems from a revision of 11 October 2017[14],

• 1_Charles ...is first in the line of succession to the British throne as the eldest child and heir apparent of Queen Elizabeth II.

and after a series of edits the current version[15] stands at

• 2_Charles ...is the heir apparent to the British throne as the eldest child of Queen Elizabeth II... and the oldest person to be first in the line of succession since Sophia of Hanover (the heir presumptive to Queen Anne).

Both versions are factually correct, but as mentioned above (Qexigator, 23:42, 25 November), "British throne" in the current version links to Monarchy of the United Kingdom, and perhaps we would do well to consider now, in the context of the lead section and the article as a whole, whether to remove that redirect and unpipe another link

• first, the British throne link, given that in plain terms, "as eldest child of Queen Elizabeth II" he is heir to the UK monarchy and what goes with it as described in the linked article, and
• secondly, the line of succession link, given that he is the first in "line of succession to the British throne", and what goes with it as described in the linked article.

Qexigator (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The current version is "...heir apparent to the British throne as the eldest child of Queen Elizabeth II". GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

?? Please note that what is here in question is whether or not to remove redirect/unpipe two links, for the reason above stated. The current version of the article is: (Charles...) "...is the heir apparent to the British throne as the eldest child of Queen Elizabeth II." My above proposal is to rmv redirect/unpipe two links in the lead so that the revised version would be:

• (Charles...) "... is the heir apparent to the Monarchy of the United Kingdom as the eldest child of Queen Elizabeth II" ...(retain intervening text)..."...and the oldest person to be first in the line of succession to the British throne since Sophia of Hanover (the heir presumptive to Queen Anne)..." Qexigator (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC) edited for rmv redirect of one of the two links. Qexigator (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, misunderstood the topic. I've no problem with keeping all the pipe-links. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Line of succession unpipe now done. Qexigator (talk) 09:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion 3 withdrawn: British throne or Monarchy of the United Kingdom?

Moving on, would it be acceptable to remove the redirect via British throne in the article's "defintion" in the first sentence, to read: (Charles) "...is the heir apparent to the monarchy of the United Kingdom as the eldest child of Queen Elizabeth II". Qexigator (talk) 10:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I would leave as it is, British throne re-directed to the Monarchy of the United Kingdom article. GoodDay (talk) 12:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

OK. Qexigator (talk) 08:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Winding down

Options A, then C, seem to be the favorites. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I haven't bothered to count. But, a count is unnecessary since it's not a vote. The main issue remains: to state only that he is heir to the British throne is misleading by omission. An additional problem that's been revealed in the above is that there is a statement in the lede about his being heir, but nothing in the article body itself, which is contrary to WP:LEDE. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I've no problems with implementing Option C, which merely requires the addition of a footnote mentioning the other 15 realms. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

If you want to bring up personal problems, I do have a problem with C because dismissing 15 countries to a footnote is the same in essence as leaving them out altogether; at best, they become an afterthought instead of an omission. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

If you wish to open up 'another' RFC, with the leading 3 options from this recently closed Rfc? then that would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The RfC is not closed. An RfC is a request for comment, not a vote. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

It's certainly has expired. The message from it was clear, editors don't want the lead bloated with multiple countries. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is how an RfC is closed. It is not a vote tally. Nor does it consider false dilemmas. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll be happy to ping all the editors who've participated in the recent Rfc & allow them to give their opinons on the next move. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

That could be construed as needlessly prolonging a dispute by re-igniting drama. You're likely better to post a single request at WP:ANRFC. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You contact ANRFC & I'll ping the 20 participants. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

We'd like your opinon on the Rfc results: @DrKay:, @Dbrote:, @Moriori:, @William Avery:, @Batternut:, @Thinker78:, @Celia Homeford:, @Surtsicna:, @Laurel Lodged:, @Famousdog:, @NickCT:, @Pincrete:, @Markbassett:, @Qexigator:, @KN2731:, @Nixon Now:, @The Four Deuces:, @Cpaaoi:, @Snow Rise:. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

These pings weren't sent. Pings are only sent if they are signed in the same edit. I am happy to wait for an uninvolved editor to come in response to the request for closure[16]. DrKay (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2017 (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.

Coat of Arms in Scotland

Is it worth adding a second coat-of-arms infobox below the first, showing the arms of the Duke of Rothesay? They're just as official as the arms used outside Scotland, after all. I'd do it myself, except I can't find the blazon anywhere reliable, and I doubt I could do it myself. Thoughts?

This now has some prominence near the top of the page after removals to Archive. It was from A.D.Hope at 23:19, 24 July 2017.[17]. It has remained dangling unanswered. Perhaps because, given the link to Rothesay's article in the second sentence of the current version (first sentence at 24 July 2017[18]), where the arms are immediately visible, the question could be seen to answer itself. Qexigator (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)