Talk:Charles III/Archive 1

message: One minor change. I spoke to the Prince of Wales's staff today and they said that his Scottish title isn't HRH Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay, but HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay. They were quite clear about it. The first form is absolutely incorrrect so I have adapted the reference to the title accordingly on their advice. ÉÍREman 01:49 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
Oops, I think I did that.  Sorry for the error.  certainly makes sense, although one wonders why he isn't just HRH The Duke of Rothesay, no? john 01:55 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
I was very surprised too. They said that Prince Charles is 100% wrong anywhere. Any use of the name '"Charles is wrong outside Scotland, but in Scotland for some reason (which they themselves did not know the reason for), he is The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay. Presumably it is to do with ancient Scottish royal titles. I presume use The {name} was a way of indicating that the heir to the Scottish throne was not just an ordinary duke but a royal duke, which might not have been obvious if only referred to by a dukedom. And come to think of it, the status of the male heir apparent is clear in England and Wales because his official title includes the word Prince, showing his status is above any other peer. FearÉIREANN 14:22 30 May 2003 (UTC)
A prince of the United Kingdom is not generally born a peer; he becomes a peer when he acquires a peerage title.  The current Prince of Wales did not become a peer until his mother ascended the throne, and he became Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay.  "Prince" is not a title of the peerage; Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount and Baron, in order of precedence, are the titles of peers.
Use of "The" is a formal convention and is still used in England though it has somewhat fallen out of favor among members of the press. 
--ScottyFLL 23:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the definite article in certain titles 

message: Today in the newspaper, the smart ID card of HRH is shown, and his surname is only "Windsor" rather than the long "Mountbatten-Windsor".  Which one is more official? -- Tomchiukc 10:35, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mountbatten-Windsor]] vs Windsor only 

message: I included some information about Charles' circumcision status.  It is copied directly from the article on this site on  circumcision.  I found it to be very interesting.  Hope you do too.
*209.217.75.162 10:01, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumcision status 

message: Just out of curiosity: shouldn't it be "Prince Charles of Wales" rather than "Charles, Prince of Wales" ? Sky 13:50, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I would like to edit it to say:  "his partners, his two sons (when they are about) and their extensive.....".
This would be my first edit in Wikipedia.  I would appreciate some feedback from someone who has some experience editing this page.
: Welcome! I think that perhaps something like "his immediate family" rather than explicitly mentioning CPB and the Princes, though I'm not sure on that, either. "When they are about" seems a bit too informal, though...
: If you have any questions, please feel free to bring them to me (via my talk page). And be bold!
: James F. (talk) 01:31, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  About his official residence 

message: "These issues were resolved and allowed the Prince to propose to Mrs Parker Bowles."
How do we know who proposed to whom? Has it been announced? Cal T 20:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this BBC story it was Charles. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd marriage - proposal 

message: :Since 1958, he has been known as:
:* His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales (outside Scotland)
I wonder if that should have said 1968? Michael Hardy 22:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe so - he became "His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales" the moment his mother became queen, which was in 1958. ugen64 20:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, I thought it was the other way around - he is automatically the Prince of Wales, then he is created Duke of Cornwall... right-o. ugen64 07:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: (Over a year later) No, that's not right.  He became the Duke of Cornwall the moment Elizabeth became queen.  That title belongs to the eldest son of the monarch automatically.  The title Prince of Wales is not automatic, but is a matter entirely at the discretion of the monarch.  The only person upon whom she could bestow the title is her son the Duke of Cornwall, but whether or not she bestows it on him, and if so, when, are entirely up to her.  JackofOz 08:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1958?  A typo for 1968? 

message: User Henrygb has removed twice the facts on the objections by rev Paul Williamnson and the nervousness this has created amongst the courtiers according to the Times.  The sources for these two are : The Times of March 2nd and another article from the Times of March 2nd. - Tom - 217.136.79.44 07:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed I did.  Paul Williamson was one of eleven objectors whose objections were rejected.  Perhaps if he was the only objector and his objection had been upheld he would be notable, but he was not and it was not.  We could name everyone who has ever met the Prince according the Court Circular, but while factually correct it would not add to the article.  As for unattributed minor palace gossip reported in a tabloid paper owned by a republican, I see no point at all in mentioning it. They will get married and that is what that bit of the article should say. --Henrygb 21:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second engagement 

message: When Queen Elizabeth II dies, will this page have to be moved to Charles III of the United Kingdom?  — JIP | Talk 06:01, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: God willing, it won't be for a long time yet - but the answer is maybe. It depends what regnal name he chooses. As the article notes, he has suggested he may choose to be George VII instead. We'll have to see, jguk 06:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles III? 

message: I changed some of the section titles and moved a few sentences around so that the article reads slightly more chronologically.  Specifically, it is the death of the Princess of Wales rather than the formal divorce that marks a significant change in Charles' life.  I also hid the bit on the tampon because it is more extensive than is deserving for a comprehensive article on the Prince of Wales and it needs more documentation.  Of course, anyone can alter this article further or revert it. -Acjelen 02:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 31 March/1 April 2005 

message: Removed the following paragraph, inserted by Noprince on the 31st March:
:"I want to be your tampon" - On 18 December 1989, a telephone conversation between Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, recorded two days earlier, was rebroadcast on citizen band wavelength. There has been ample speculation as to who was responsible, with MI5 being named most often. - However, late in 1989, a French consortium of companies was competing with a British consortium for a multi-billion pound military contract with Saudi Arabia. The French believed that if they managed to discredit British Royalty in the eyes of the strictly religious Saudis, their chances to obtain the contract would increase. Thus, the French DST (equivalent of MI5), and not the DGSE (MI6 equivalent) as might be expected, recorded and rebroadcast the Charles-Camilla tampon telephone conversation. They failed, the British obtrained the contract. - When Diana was killed in Paris, these events, never made public by the British, became useful, as it enabled Britain to put pressure on the French regarding their investigation of Diana's death. In particular, the French never made public that Diana had been the subject of full-scale MI5 surveillance from within less than one year of her marriage to Prince Charles in the summer of 1981, the real reason she had always felt observed.
Noprince was asked by Acjelen on the 1st April to cite his/her sources. The only response was for Noprince to delete Acjelen's request. In the absence of a aource, this can only be regarded as unwarranted conspiracy theory, with no place in an Encyclopedia. -- Chris j wood 17:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy Theories R Us 

message: I don't necessarily prefer my recent levelling of the sections, but I don't think the Prince's marriage to Lady Diana Spencer (a marriage which produced heirs to the throne) is on the same level as some of his earlier romances.  More importantly, I hope that we will dicuss here how this article should change following the wedding on Saturday
:It's not, that's why they are only mentioned very briefly and Diana has two subsections! violet/riga (t) 19:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: Is this image of the marriage certificate of interest?
Apart from anything else, it suggests that the full name of the PoW is "His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George The Prince of Wales" - should our article be thus back at "Prince Charles The Prince of Wales", as it was for a while, though with a comma?
Also, does this mean that commas shouldn't be used? Should be? Maybe be be be?
James F. (talk) 01:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage certificate 

message: The origin of the "George VII" story seems to be an article in The Sunday Times, 13 February 2000 by Christopher Morgan. It quotes "a royal courtier, who has discussed the matter privately with the prince" as saying that Charles would prefer to "follow in the footsteps of the Georges rather than take on the tarnished name of Charles". No link, sorry - I'm seeing this on a proprietary database. --rbrwr± 21:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  George VII 

message: Why not categorize him as "Charles, Prince of Wales"? He's more commonly known as "Prince Charles" than as "the Prince of Wales". – ugen64 22:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: HRH the Duchess of Cornwall, "as she is known", is also Princess of Wales, as the title Princess of Wales belongs to the wife of the Prince of Wales.
Women acquire their titles and status from their husbands.  In England, the wife of a king is ALWAYS queen consort.  The wife of a prince becomes a princess.  The wife of a duke becomes a duchess.  Et cetera.
While Camilla and the Royal House are choosing not to use the title Princess of Wales, in order of precedence within the royal household, she is indeed accorded the precedence of the Princess of Wales.
See more about precedence at Burke's Peerage and Gentry online here: 
http://www.burkes-peerage.net/Sites/Peerage/SitePages/page62-4.asp
--ScottyFLL 23:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, IS Princess of Wales 

message: Wikipedia's rather clumsy handling of the whole issue of reverting deceased consorts to maiden name is shown clearly in this article. It is wrong to say that his first wife was the late "Diana, Princess of Wales". He married a woman called "Diana Spencer". She became "the Princess of Wales" (never, by the way "Princess Diana" — Diana was never a princess, merely the wife of a prince, as she herself made clear regularly and contrary to what Scotty says. Princess of Wales is not a princess. Earlier princess of Wales were princess because of their own royal status prior to marriage. Diana had no such status because she was not a princess when they married, and so got the title Princess of Wales not the style Princess). "Diana, Princess of Wales" was the name used after their divorce. The reasons why historians use maiden names of deceased consorts is to avoid such faux pas and the complexities of constant name and title changes. Using the maiden name allows the same person to be written about throughout their lives, with a different times, it being made clear that "at this point they became 'x'." "At this point they ceased to be 'y'." Referring to someone by a title they never had in their marriage and which by its very form indicated a non-marital status is a linguistic mess. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 04:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the publishing and academic standard is 3-5 years or next hardcopy edition. The BBC has begun using Lady Diana Spencer when speaking about her life. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, a search on the BBC News website shows 1,249 references to Diana, Princess of Wales against 11 to Lady Diana Spencer, all of them referring specifically to her life before her wedding, so I don't think that's entirely accurate. I also think you'll find far more references to Queen Mary and Queen Alexandra than to Mary of Teck and Alexandra of Denmark, and how many references to Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon have you seen? She's still The Queen Mother to everyone. That's a slightly different case, possibly, but it still illustrates that common practice is not to revert to a deceased consort's maiden name and hasn't been for a very long time, if it ever was. If another Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra or Diana, Princess of Wales came along then it might be appropriate, but usage before that time smacks of pedantry. Common usage is common usage. -- Necrothesp 22:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with not reverting deceased consorts to maiden name 

message: I've heard Prince Charles is known as Duke of Cornwall in Cornwall - anyone who lives there confirm this?
:Well, as far as I known he's always known as the Prince of Wales, even in Cornwall. As a Cornishman, I've never heard him specifically referred to as Duke of Cornwall except in context. -- Necrothesp 17:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Court Circular, when they want to draw attention to the fact that he is the Duke of Cornwall (when he's doing something in Cornwall or to do with the Duchy of Cornwall), they call him "The Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall". This is in contrast to the situation with his Scottish style, which completely replaces the Principality of Wales in Scottish matters (he's "The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay", not "The Prince of Wales, Duke of Rothesay" or some such). So it's not really on the same level as the Dukedom of Rothesay. Proteus (Talk) 17:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duke of Cornwall 

message: Whats the title "Prince of Scotland"?? Is it on a par with Prince of Wales? Is he ever titled HRH The Prince of Scotland? Am confused!
:No, he's not Prince of Scotland. He's Prince of Wales and a Prince of the United Kingdom. -- Necrothesp 17:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He is Prince and High Steward of Scotland.  It is one of the subsidiary titles associated with the Dukedom of Rothesay. It is not like Prince of Wales, because Wales was a Principality (or, more accurately, part of Wales comprised the Principality of Wales), while Scotland was a Kingdom. john k 17:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: There's some interesting information about it here. In short, it seems it once was used in much the same way as "Prince of Wales" is today, but that it has fallen out of use. Proteus (Talk) 17:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: "surely a kingdom is higher than a principality?" Yes, but Scotland is NOT a kingdom. It used to be, but now it is a constituent part of the United Kingdom. The Queen is not Queen of England and Scotland, but Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Wales is still referred to as a Principality (probably incorrectly), but Scotland is not referred to as a Kingdom. -- Necrothesp 22:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PRINCE OF SCOTLAND 

message: I removed the style from the introduction to bring the article in line with the current Wikipedia consensus (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)) Gugganij 21:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find the link List of Titles and Honours of Charles, Prince of Wales in the section Principal title in use. Gugganij 10:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  using of styles 

message: I put into the article on Prince Charles the following two sentences (and an external link to back it up):
"The Grand Mufti of Cyprus has reportedly revealed that the Prince converted to Islam in Turkey. Ronni L. Gordon and David M. Stillman in 1997 revealed this as part of the results of their investigation."
Someone removed it and called it speculation.  It doesn't seem like speculation to me.  It sounds like a fact that Prince Charles is hiding because it would mean that he would forfeit his right to ascend to the throne, since one cannot be both a concommittant member of the Church of England and a muslim at the same time.
Here is a quote from the Grand Mufti of Cyprus that I left out of my edit of the article on the Prince:
"This claim was put forward by no less a personage than the grand mufti of Cyprus: 'Did you know that Prince Charles has converted to Islam. Yes, yes. He is a Muslim. I can't say more. But it happened in Turkey. Oh, yes, he converted all right. When you get home check on how often he travels to Turkey. You'll find that your future king is a Muslim.'"
My source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina51103.htm 
(It links to the original source that Gordon & Stillman wrote).
I think this is highly important information that informs greatly about Prince Charles as much as anything else and ought to be included in this article.  
Am I wrong?  If so, why am I wrong?
If the Grand Mufti of Cyprus's report is true but Charles is keeping the fact secret, must we wait here at Wikipedia for him to 'fess up before we include the information?  I think I couched my wording of the two sentences I added as carefully as possible, but am happy if the wording could be improved.  What I'm not happy about is the removal of both sentences and the referral source simply being removed after being judged as speculative.  Even if what I wrote is speculative, is this just cause for removal.  Are there not equally "speculative" statements in other articles in Wikipedia?
::If the Grand Mufti of Cyprus's report is true but Charles is keeping the fact secret, must we wait here at Wikipedia for him to 'fess up before we include the information? Yes, most definitely. Why? Well I for one don't believe the Grand Mufti, and his statement is too extreme for a mainstream encyclopedia like wikipedia. Were it true it would cause a constitutional crisis (if only) but until that day this info is too on the edge and minority to be included in this article, SqueakBox 16:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince Charles' Reported Conversion to Islam 

message: I've removed the proposed move link. This should be discussed centrally at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) so that a Wikipedia-wide policy could be agreed. It would be a mess, and chaotic, to try to discuss the issue individually on a host of single pages, each of which could decide theoretically on a different contradictory policy. FearÉIREANN 01:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: the word "Duchess" as "Dutchess"
* Just go ahead and correct it.  The spelling may have been copied from the Washington Post, or a San Francisco paper I forget which, that had this as a caption for one photo.  garryq 20:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone has misspelled 

message: The PoW's marriage certificate shows his father as HRH The Prince Philip, with the rank or profession of Duke of Edinburgh.  Shouldn't his father's name be HRH The Prince Philip, DUKE OF EDINBURGH. with the rank or profession of Prince of the United Kingdom? The certificate is shown in question 26 above.  garryq 12:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost certainly. It was probably, however, drawn up by someone not familiar with such matters. We should perhaps be grateful it doesn't give his name as "Philip Mountbatten". Proteus (Talk) 15:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Father 

message: If Charles is (a) a prince by virtue of being the son of a monarch (b)created Prince of Wales and (c) Prince of Scotland, does this mean he is a prince three times over?
Ive heard he is never "HRH The Prince Charles" - is this true? Or is he legally titled so but just not styled so?
And why is he never styled as a Prince of Scotland except in the full string of titles?
Why are any of the other titles (Earl of Chester/Carrick, Baron of Renfrew) not used ever?
*He is not a Prince three times over, just a prince (I think, feel free to correct).  Technically, he is HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Prince of Scotland. But for a shorthand title (imagine signing that on a check!), he goes by HRH The Prince of Wales. I think that the "Prince of Scotland" is superceded by "Prince of the UK". And the subsidiary titles are not used because they are superceded by "Prince of Wales". Prsgoddess187 13:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Princely titles 

message: I don't understand why the earldoms of Chester and Carrick weren't made dukedoms - why would the highest ranking peer in the realm bother with holding (lesser) earldoms when he could just as easily be a duke five times over (Duke of Cornwall, Chester, Carrick, Rothesay & Renfrew).
Also, why is he not styled "HRH The Prince of Wales and Scotland"? And why were there no Irish titles associated with the heir to the throne - he had English, Scottish and Welsh ones? And in the days of the British Empire, why did the Prince not have an Imperial title like "Prince Imperial"? I know the prince is not outranked by anybody, but it does seem a bit strange that other peers hold equal or more dukedoms than him.
:To take your points in order: (a) It's just tradition, really. Carrick is an Earldom because the Scots Act of Parliament assigning it to the eldest son and Heir Apparent made it so, and so one has ever thought of changing it, and Chester's an Earldom because "Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester" has been the traditional creation for centuries. Also, the traditions date to a time when double titles weren't really used, so if the Heir Apparent to the Scottish Throne had been Duke of Rothesay and Duke of Carrick, he probably would still have been known simply as the Duke of Rothesay, so there'd be very little point in upgrading the second title. The Royal Family generally regard tradition as very important, and would prefer to hold a traditional but technically "lesser" title than a newer "superior" one. (b) There's no reason why he couldn't be, and some have called for such a style to be used (see the link at the bottom of Prince of Scotland). It's also a possibility that he could be "HRH The Prince of Scotland" in Scotland and "HRH The Prince of Wales" elsewhere, but unless someone decides that the current situation looks like it's here to stay. (c) It would seem that this was an anomalous situation noticed in Victorian times, when (in 1850) Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, was created Earl of Dublin, but this didn't seem to stick, and I suspect the powers that be now consider the matter closed by the departure of most of Ireland from the United Kingdom. (d) In the days of the Empire, Britain was considered more important than the rest of the Empire — note that the letters after the monarch's signature were "RI", not "IR". Thus any kind of "Imperial" title would have been viewed with less honour than the British ones he already held, thus making very little point in a new creation. (e) The Royal Family have always felt quite secure in their importance without huge numbers of peerages to demonstrate it (unlikes certain Scottish Dukes, who seem to collect them). Royal Dukes in recent times, for instance, have always been "Duke of X, Earl of Y, Baron Z", when they could quite easily have one peerage of each rank. The Prince of Wales is just another facet of this — he's Prince of Wales, which obviously puts him above everyone else, and as far as he's concerned that seems to be more than enough. Hope this helps. Proteus (Talk) 12:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earldoms 

message: When Prince Charles becomes king, will he be from the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, or Windsor?
* Probably the House of Windsor. It is however within the Royal Prerogative to decide the royal house name, so he could call it whatever he likes I guess. Astrotrain 16:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No he didn't. Prince Philip allegedly renounced his titles of prince of Greece and prince of Denmark, however, there are no provisions in either of those royal families to renounce such titles. All of Elizabeth II and Philip's agnatic descendants are members of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sønderburg-Glücksburg, a sub-house of the House of Oldenburg. That exists as a fact in that all male-line descendants of a male member of the House of Oldenburg are members of the house themselves, by definition of what such a house is. It is an association by blood. The name they use itself is what differs. Charles 06:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg 

message: I've seen His Royal Highness taken out from the start of the article. Is there any reason why is that so? Also, I reverted a user's edit on Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh regarding this issue. --Terence Ong 09:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it, after seeing WP:MoS is not to add the royal title into the article itself. --Terence Ong 10:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unless the MoS has changed again it doesn't say that at all. It says no to styles in the inline but that they can be mentioned in the article.Alci12 12:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No more "His Royal Highness" at start of article 

message: I was just wondering, if Prince Charles was made Prince Regent (as George IV was), does this outrank his title of Prince of Wales?
Similarly, if a prince becomes Prince Regent does his wife become Princess Regent or does she stay Princess of Wales? It must be odd styling TRH The Prince Regent & The Princess of Wales, or would it be TRH The Prince Regent, Prince of Wales & The Princess of Wales?
Finally, when Charles accedes the throne, it is intended that Camilla use the title "Princess Consort". But what if she were to outlive him and William succeed? Would she be known as "The Dowager Princess Consort"? Isn't that a bit odd since there would not be any future Princess Consort to succeed her?
:Yes, he would be styled "His Royal Highness The Prince Regent" (and George IV was styled that before becoming George IV). As it's an office, however, no new style would attach to his wife, so they would indeed be "The Prince Regent and The Princess of Wales". There isn't really an answer to your second question, as the situation has never arisen before. However, it seems rather unlikely it ever will — this silly "Princess Consort" nonsense will be forgotten long before Charles becomes King. Proteus (Talk) 22:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Princely title question 

message: User:Cardiff has made series of POV edits to a number of prominent articles involving Wales.  Ther are a number of anonymous edits that follow the same pattern.  These edits typically remove lots of 'Welsh' information.  See the history of Prince Harry of Wales, Cardiff, Prince of Wales and Saint David's Day.  See als Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Principality of Wales.
I am reverting his edits here (which also removed Welsh references).  I will re-integrate subsequent edits.  All comments are welcome. Econrad 23:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV edits 

message: How can he be so obsessed with the enviornment when he owns a range rover, hardly a very green car?
I think that if he were to travel in an off-the-shelf Ford Popular it would create an unacceptable security risk. Viewfinder 14:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choice of car 

message: A general opinion of Prince Charles? Easy for Henry- everyone thinks he's a good-for-nothing, but I'd also like to know about the kind of person the impending monarch is considered to be. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.185.248 (talk • contribs) 
:::Unsourced comments like "everyone thinks (Henry)'s good for nothing" are unkind, in this case POV, and not appropriate. Viewfinder 04:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps... 

message: It has been suugested in the Monarchy in Canada article that, should Prince Charles survive his mother and accede to the British throne, he would not become King of Canada until being proclaimed the new Sovereign by the Canadian Privy Council. Is that interpretation correct ? Along the same line of questioning, could Canada or any other Commonwealth realm appoint anyone other than Charles as their next King following the Queen's demise ? 161.24.19.82 19:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where and how is such a thing suggested?  The Queen's Privy Council for Canada should proclaim Charles as King of Canada, but the proclamation bears no effect on the actual acession, which will take place automatically upon the Queen's death, according to law.  The proclamation is simply an announcement of what has already taken place. --gbambino 15:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Succession in the Commonwealth Realms 

message: In the Prince of Wales list of titles in the infobox, it does not give his title in Scotland. Is this for reasons of space or some other? -Acjelen 14:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in the usage notes for the infobox, it states common titles, as in a list of what he's been referred to (correctly) as throughout his life. Do you think we ought to include Rothesay in (practically) every Price of Wales' box? My thinking was that it is noted later on in the article that that title is used in Scotland... // DBD 10:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox titles 

message: "The Prince is also well known for his high-profile marriages to the late Lady Diana Spencer and, subsequently, to Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall." Why is his first wife called by her maiden name, while his second wife is called by her married name? And surely "high profile" is a piece of shallow journalese - how could the heir to the throne have a "low profile" marriage? (Perhaps there are low-profile marriages we don't know about?) Adam 01:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Two Wives of the Prince of Wales 

message: The "Romantic interests" category lists Fiona Watson, a Penthouse model, and has a link. However, the link is to a slain UN worker who appears to be a different person. (Her external biography lists no hint of modelling or Charles, which is understandable, but she also was born in 1968 which would seem to make her too young for His Royal Highness.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.255.55.40 (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that and thought the same thing.  A quick Google search showed that he was at least rumored to be with  a Fiona Watson who modeled for Penthouse, and that there is also Fiona Watson who worked for the UN.  I think the easiest solution would be to delete the link to the UN-worker article, no? I'm doing it. Vter4life 06:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Fiona Watson? 

message: This section just sounds dumb, it sounds like someone is shouting HOW DARE THEY INSIST THEY CHOOSE TO BE CALLED SOMETHING THEY ARE NOT!!!!1111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.30.220  (talk • contribs) 20:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Due to the insistence of the royal family'