# Talk:William, Prince of Wales

Hey @MSincccc, you reverted [1] a sentence I added on the revenue of the Duchy of Cornwall with the edit summary "Trim." In my opinion, the content that needs trimming is the two sentences before the one I added, especially the awkward sentence from CNN, not the information I added that a reader would expect to see. How much money the Duchy makes is much more relevant to William than how much its holdings are worth or when it was founded. Toadspike [Talk] 13:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I removed the revenue figure to keep the paragraph focused—this section is about William’s new titles and the public debate around them. The Duchy’s purpose and valuation are already summarised, and income specifics, which change yearly, would add undue weight. MSincccc (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
The article currently says "As the eldest son of the British monarch, William has inherited the Duchy of Cornwall, which brings him additional income." without specifying how much additional income. This could easily be done as it is discussed in reliable sources, including the two already cited for this sentence:
[2] "Under Charles, the Duchy, which includes properties in London and 130,000 acres of land in 23 counties of England and Wales, has become a multi-million dollar fund that provides enough income to pay for both the Prince of Wales’s office and William’s family."
[3] "According to the official Prince of Wales website, The Duchy currently provides an annual income of £21million which The Prince uses to support himself, his children and their families as well as his philanthropic work, which raises more than £100million annually for a variety of good causes."
I am thoroughly unconvinced that this information is undue.
The argument that the income varies yearly, while the valuation of the Duchy does not, is bizarre. The income figure given by ITV in 2022 is only 12% higher than the figure given by the Guardian [4] in 2024, despite the Guardian discussing this in the context of a windfall rise in the income of the Crown Estate. This is significantly lower than the S&P 500, which grew about 40% in the same period.
As for "this section is about William’s new titles and the public debate around them" – perhaps that is what you intended, but to me it looks like it's just the section of his biography covering the period since he became Prince of Wales. I must also point out that the Duchy's purpose and valuation are not "summarized" – they are listed in a quote from CNN which, because it is not attributed in the prose, looks like scare quotes.
If you are worried about the length of the prose, I would suggest rewriting the last two sentences of the first paragraph under Prince of Wales as follows:
William has inherited the Duchy of Cornwall, a £760 million private estate established in 1337 to provide a private income to the monarch's eldest son. It provided £23.6 million of revenue for William in his first full year as its owner.
I have fixed the awkward quotation by paraphrasing it, removed the USD conversion per MOS:CURRENCY ("Conversions of lesser-known currencies may be provided", emphasis in the original), added a currency template, linked Duchy of Cornwall as a valid duplicate link (MOS:DUPLINK), and removed the double mention of "monarch's eldest son". This version is also two words shorter than the original and only requires two sources (CNN and the Guardian), hopefully resolving concerns about length.
Please let me know if you have any further objections; if not, I will add this improved version to the article. Toadspike [Talk] 08:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
I’ve removed the quotation and USD conversion per MOS:CURRENCY. The annual income figure seemed too specific for this paragraph, which already covers the duchy’s purpose and valuation, and is already mentioned in the Duchy of Cornwall article. MSincccc (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
"Too specific"? This is incredible. I have requested a third opinion. Toadspike [Talk] 11:03, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Hello both, I'm here to provide a third opinion - I don't find the inclusion of annual income too specific, since there is a great difference (particularly when speaking of private estates) between an estate's overall value and the yearly income it generates. This information is no more specific than how many signatures the YouGov poll received, and I am sure many users of this page would be seeking out this kind of information anyway. The only thing I would say is that this information should be sourced. Becsh (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. The source remains the one I initially added: This article in the Guardian [5]. Toadspike [Talk] 12:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
I have dropped the information as to how many signatures the YouGov poll received. But I was really looking to trimming the article.
I have dropped the information as to how many signatures the YouGov poll received. But I was really looking to trimming the article.
@Toadspike and @Becsh is there anything else that can be trimmed so that the article size can be cut down upon? MSincccc (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

For the last time, what do you have against this figure? You haven't been able to articulate any policy-based objection to it, and you are now distracting from the issue by discussing something completely unrelated (article size), which, at 7471 words, is not an issue. The next step is for me to open an RfC, which would be a needless waste of editor time. Toadspike [Talk] 12:55, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
I've no objection to the figure and had already included it in the article before your latest response. Please feel free to suggest any further additions or removals. Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Apologies, I didn't see that. I have struck my comment. As I pointed out, the article is not currently in danger of being too long, which is impressive for a biography of such a high-profile figure. I suppose in hindsight some of the other events listed under the Prince of Wales section may seem less important than they did at the time (WP:RECENTISM), but considering it's just two paragraphs I'm not too worried at the moment. Toadspike [Talk] 13:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Trump's state banquet at Windsor gave us some greats.

 Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Looks good. Keivan.fTalk 22:39, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
The present image used is also a bearded one from this year, but more importantly he is looking into the camera in that image, unlike in this one.
The above image could, however, be used elsewhere, either in another section of the article or in other articles concerning him. There is plenty of scope, as it is. MSincccc (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Would it not be better to use the previous one elsewhere on the page. You can still see his face clearly in the new one.  ItsShandog (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
@ItsShandog and @Keivan.f, I’m fine with the new one in the infobox, and the Holocaust Memorial Day image now has a place elsewhere. Cheers. MSincccc (talk) 04:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Both of the new images on William and Catherine’s pages are excellent — they have a regal quality that feels very appropriate for royal biographies.  ItsShandog (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello,
I am personally surprised that the Prince of Wales's article has made it to WP:GA status without a single reference of the criticism he has received from Republic, his country's primary anti-monarchist advocacy group. (When I searched for "Republic" in the article version at the time of this post, I only found one mention, and even then, not in the text per se.) 
I understand that there is a legitimate discussion on Republic itself as a source in general and WP:BIASED. However, per WP:NPOV and #4 of WP:GACR6, I do believe that discussion on the suitability of including the following specific citations from Republic into the article for posterior reference is warranted. Among others, these links:

Ditch the Duchies Appeal - A campaign by Republic to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall William holds
Report by Republic regarding Ditch the Duchies Appeal
6 November 2025 Republic press release regarding Ditch the Duchies Appeal
18 August 2025 Republic press release criticizing the relocation of the Prince and Princess of Wales to Forest Lodge, Windsor
3 October 2025 Republic press release criticizing the Prince of Wales's participation in The Reluctant Traveler
26 June 2023 Republic press release criticizing the Prince of Wales's Homewards initiative
Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Sincerely,
AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

These are all self-references. Material in the article should have been covered in multiple mainstream secondary sources. I for one have never heard of the campaign, so I don't think it's gained much public attention. DrKay (talk) 08:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for raising this, even though I concur with DrKay here. The difficulty is that all the links you’ve provided are Republic’s own statements, so they fall under self-published, primary material. MSincccc (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
I oppose their inclusion. I have never even heard of this campaign. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that an organization called the Republic would naturally criticize the heir of a monarchy; but we cannot rely on primary sources as that gives undue importance to their stance. Incidentally, their sister organizations mount similar criticisms against heirs to the thrones of other countries, but then again we just don't go by primary sources otherwise we should give space to statements by the Australian Monarchist League, etc. as well. Keivan.fTalk 15:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)