Talk:Charles III

Lead section revisited

I remain of the view that the lead section is... terrible. The wonder that it ever passed GAN in this state -- without detracting from the sterling efforts editors made considerably improving it in other respects, all kudos to those -- merely increases over time as his reign lengthens, and the "reign" paragraph fails to reflect that.

Specifically, p1 and p4 are absurdly undersized and uninformative, while p2 and p3 are long and trivia-packed. We learn that he spent six months in an Australian school six years ago, but not that he's currently head of state of that country. Nothing at all is said therein about his ongoing break from public duties on health grounds. We should significantly expand the former, and somewhat trim the latter. Or am I a lone voice in the wilderness on that? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the lead. Please drop the stick. -- GoodDay (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@109 - How's this for p4?:

Charles became king upon his mother's death in 2022. At the age of 73 he was the oldest person to accede to the British throne, after having been the longest-serving heir apparent and Prince of Wales in British history. Significant events in his reign have included his coronation in 2023, as well as his diagnosis of cancer in 2024, the latter of which temporarily suspended planned public engagements.

That's all we could really have summarising the current body, though. Elizabeth's article has a summary of what she reigned through. Obviously, Charles's reign is about 45 times shorter than hers, but some things have happened: only one that sticks out to me is the rapid rise of AI, but that's not really related to Charles (except for this speech at the AI Safety Summit, which we might mention). Any ideas? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Much better! That certainly corrects the most glaring of the omissions, so I'm happy not to let "doesn't go far enough" be the enemy of "bank!" 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Here's what a friendly (?) robot suggests for his reign in a para, based on our own section:-

Charles III ascended to the British throne following the death of his mother on September 8, 2022, becoming the oldest person to do so at the age of 73. His accession marked the end of his record-breaking 59-year tenure as the longest-serving British heir apparent. In his inaugural speech, Charles paid homage to his mother and announced the appointment of his elder son, William, as the Prince of Wales. The Accession Council publicly proclaimed him as king the next day, with the ceremony televised for the first time, attended by Queen Camilla, Prince William, and various political figures. His coronation, held at Westminster Abbey on May 6, 2023, under the code name Operation Golden Orb, was a significant event marked by its adherence to Church of England rites. During his reign, Charles and Camilla engaged in multiple state visits and received dignitaries, including hosting South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and undertaking state visits to Germany and France. However, his reign was not without health challenges, as he underwent a corrective procedure for benign prostate enlargement in January 2024, revealing the discovery of cancer during treatment, albeit not prostate cancer. Despite health setbacks, Charles remained committed to fulfilling his constitutional duties, with Camilla deputizing for him during his recovery period at various public engagements, underscoring the resilience of the monarchy under his reign.

Maybe a little too much detail, but definitely a case where the artificial neurons have outdone the alleged wisdom of crowds... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

What? No more endless arguments over semi-colons?? Kill it with fire, I say! Oh dear, hard to improve. Time to retire, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I was especially impressed that when re-prompted with "shorter summary?" and then "shorter still please?" it obliged similarly convincingly. Can't write its own though, as it's convinced it's still 2022. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, yes 2022! Those were the days. Charles was still in short trousers, was still at school with Harry... and still had that pet spider! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm now slightly more concerned with your Knowledge Base than I was about OpenAI's! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyone have any additional thoughts on this? I still think these are badly under-summarising (and conversely that p2 and p3 really need a trim). Here's another AI summary of the "reign" section... Charles III became king of the United Kingdom upon the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, in September 2022, marking the end of his record-breaking tenure as the longest-serving heir apparent. His accession was followed by a televised proclamation ceremony and his coronation at Westminster Abbey in May 2023. Throughout his reign, Charles and Queen Camilla engaged in state visits and received dignitaries, showcasing the monarchy's diplomatic role. However, health challenges arose in early 2024 when Charles underwent a procedure for benign prostate enlargement, revealing the presence of non-prostate cancer. Despite this setback, Charles remained committed to his duties, with Queen Camilla deputizing for him at public events during his recovery. Thoughts? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Clarify. Which bits are you recommending be added or deleted? GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Last sentence

I read "Significant events in his reign have included his coronation in 2023, and his cancer diagnosis the following year, the latter of which temporarily suspended planned public engagements." I suggest to (factually) say hat he and his wife were crowned, then what he did, then that he was diagnosed and not participating in public functions. To claim that the two "significant events" were two where he was passive seems unfair ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

As you can see from the above, ChatGPT somewhat agrees with you too! As indeed do I. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Kenyan State Banquet

I am in no way excusing the horrific acts that took place in Kenya during the colonial period, but is the King even allowed to make such a public apology without government permission? Wouldn't that tread on the limits of his political neutrality? My knowledgeability of what the monarch is and isn't allowed to say is one of my weak points when it comes to my understanding of the British monarchy. StrawWord298944 (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The headline in The Guardian says that he "stopped short of apology." Earlier, the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) had said: "We call upon the king, on behalf of the British government, to issue an unconditional and unequivocal public apology (as opposed to the very cautious, self-preserving and protective statements of regrets) for the brutal and inhuman treatment inflicted on Kenyan citizens." But I note that the report also says this: "The UK reached an out-of-court settlement of £20m in 2013, with 5,228 Kenyans involved in a class-action lawsuit over the abuses committed during Kenya’s emergency period of 1952-60. The payout, accompanied by a “statement of regret” from the British government, followed an 11-year campaign and legal battle against the UK, initially filed by five elderly Kenyans." So I guess the UK Government may consider that the matter has already been concluded? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and what I'm saying is that despite it being a government in his name, he can not issue a formal apology without its permission. StrawWord298944 (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting any change in what the article currently says about this? AFAIK it's wholly accurately reflecting what's said in the source. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that he's planning to do that? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounded to me more like an implication C3 shouldn't be "blamed" for the non-appearance of an apology. However we simply seem to be summarising the given source, so I'm unclear how we'd usefully action this, even supposing my inference is correct. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2024

Religion: change PROTESTANT to CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Protestant isn't a religion per se (technically Charles is CHRISTIAN with his denomination being CHURCH OF ENGLAND). 110.175.115.98 (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: See note 3 in article. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The key point is that he has a role in both the CoE (Anglican) and the CoS (Presbyterian), and a legal requirement not to be Catholic. His personal beliefs and/or practices aren't especially important, and wouldn't otherwise be noted at all. Either "Christian" or "Anglican" here would be slightly misleading. Though "Protestant" isn't ideal either, as that's not an entirely uncontroversial description of the CoE. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, he's not mentioned at the Church in Wales article is he, as that part if the Anglican church is disestablished. Is it constitutionally possible for him to be a Methodist, or does he not have to lead the CoE and the CoS? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK, he could legally be a Methodist... or Presbyterian, Latter-Day Saint, Jewish, Muslim, or atheist. Just to a) not be Catholic, b) take an oath as part of the coronation in relation to the CoE, and c) take a separate oath in relation to the CoS. It'd be absurd if the monarch were "supreme governor" of a church they weren't a member of... but that's the UK 'constitution' for you! Likely there'd be blowback if this happened, hence it very likely won't ever. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I suspect the oath-taking might involve a Bible, which might reduce his options somewhat. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Good point, it does. "Then the King and Queene shall kisse the Booke." And requires administration by an (arch)bishop. And the whole thing is very much a gigantic Anglican religious service anyway. So if they had conscientious objections to any of that, or if the church kicked up rough about it, matters would be... complicated. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The monarch cannot be a Roman Catholic, must be "in communion with" the Church of England, and swear that he is a faithful Protestant.[1] I gather that other protestant churches can be "in communion with" the C of E, so being Lutheran, for example, would probably be OK.

But this talk page is not the place for such speculation; we're straying into WP:NOTFORUM territory here. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, good find. If that source is indeed correct, "in communion with" means it'd have to be another Anglican church. Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc would be Out, but Scottish Episcopalian, the Church in Wales, the US Episcopal Church, etc, would be Fine. But you're right, this is unlikely to be relevant to the original request, or to C3 in general. At best it'd be a matter for the one of the more general UK/Commonwealth monarchy pages. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, might be useful at Supreme Governor of the Church of England? ... and all because he was desperate for a son. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

This has come up several times before, both here and at Elizabeth II. "Protestant" has been used because there are statements by the Church of Scotland that he and his mother before him are "members" at the parish church near Balmoral. That means, the thinking goes, that the situation is too complex to state CoE alone. I think too much has been read into that. As is stated in the article, in September 2022, he made a public statement that he was a "committed Anglican Christian".[2] That seems to me good enough to put Anglican as his religion in the Infobox, which should be about him personally not his constitutional constraints. DeCausa (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Religion is only in the infobox because of constitutional constraints. The parameter is only used when it is integral to a person's notability. It's not supposed to be used simply to list a person's religion. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Religion in infoboxes. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

One might expect the "Religion and philosophy" section to tell us how regularly he attends church? It currently says "He attends services at various Anglican churches close to Highgrove." But the source for that is 19 years old. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I dunno if we'll get a high-grade source that goes into his exact observance rate, but there's plenty of tabloid chatter about him being cited en route to this-or-that service. It might be out of date as regards the church, as he's now based in Clarence House (but still renting Highgrove off the heir!) and most of the gush about church attendance seems to relate to the one in Norfolk. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

There's two different issues - one is why the parameter is being used and the other is what is actually stated against the parameter. The religion may be there because of the constitutional position but what it then says shouldn't be determined by constitutional constraints - it needs to be the actuality. DeCausa (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The two largely appear to coincide, as the CoE role is much the more direct one, and is the one he's banged on about himself. So I can see there's a case to simply say Anglican, and relegate the separate oath and the occasional kirk outing to the footnote, or to the article body as appropriate. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised that the CoS has said that, as you'd imagine they'd be a bit more careful with theologically loose talk than the royals are, but sure enough: Like his mother before him, King Charles is an ordinary member of the Church of Scotland while in Scotland and regularly attends Crathie Kirk near Balmoral Castle in Aberdeenshire while in residence. ("While in Scotland", indeed. I'm getting 'Nam flashbacks to the Schrödinger's "official residence in Canada (while in Canada)" debate raging across multiple other pages.) It'd be a bit odd for a person to be confirmed into both, and consider themselves a "member" of both, but I can't say it's impossible, either. I think I'd want another source to bolster that one, but it might be argued that if that can be had, both could be listed (and a footnote disentangling that, of course). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)